Julius Caesar vs Genghis Khan

[Jolt]

The Romans had quite the same ability, quick recovery after devastating loses. They had one ability up to learn very quickly from previous setbacks. They also have a distinct advantage if you throw in a Julius Caesar who would have created terrain to match his purpose. Mongols were great, but no where near in the league of a Julius Caesar, his ability went beyond the normal strategy, he used religion, fanatical devotion from his troops, masterly ability to deal a killing blow with a single sign of weakness or break in formation.

You don't break a Mongol formation as it was under Genghis Khan. There is a reason why Mongol armies consistently suffered mild or heavy defeats against the Chinese and the Kharwezm, and all of a sudden, once Genghis Khan came into place and reformed the Mongol army, those same armies that had experience in dealing with Mongol armies were suddenly overrun and dealt consecutive defeats.

The Roman army, no matter who is at the head of it, plays into the strengths of the Mongol army. Mostly composed of Infantry, it had little mobility, and required a Cavalry escort to maintain any strategic mobility against cavalry armies. The cavalry itself was trained on providing additional shock force to the army. Only that with the Mongols, the shock part would never come until the Mongols were absolutely sure that they had real chances of crushing the opposing army. While Roman tactics might shield them temporarily from the Mongol pelts for some time, the cavalry wasn't as fortunate. And the problem is that no Roman cavalry either had the mobility to pursue and catch the Mongols (And the only moment they would engage with the Mongols would be if the cavalry would pursue too far, and consequently be cut off by a sudden Mongol turn-around and counter-attack.), or having the necessary speed to escape the Mongol rain (In case the Roman commander wanted to retire the cavalry to entice the Mongols to commit to moving in for the Close combat and only once the armies were engaged would the cavalry speed back to the army and charge the engaged Mongols.)

Further, Mongols had an extremely decentralized army structure (And thus a Mongol army could cover dozens of kilometers apart), meanwhile the Roman army usually required most of the army concentrated over a diminute distance. Fighting formations were also extremely concentrated, which was the biggest benefit for a Mongol army.

Almost everything plays into a Mongol victory. The only chance of a Roman victory would be if Julius Caesar could find suitable terrain where his army could block Mongol advance, avoid being encircled, being sheltered from ranged fired and propitiuous for Infantry and not for Cavalry.

Otherwise, Genghis Khan & his Mongol army vs Julius Caesar & his Roman army, in a pitched battle would result in a massacre of the Roman forces. First the Roman cavalry (Roman and Gallic cavalry can't really compare with Mongol ones) would be destroyed from a distance, then the encirclement of the Roman infantry would take place, consequent arrow shower, formation breaking in the Roman army and then the Mongol lancers move in for the final kill.

He was quite capable of dealing with horse troopers with his own infantry. Give him more horse troops and he would as history has always shown, defeat a far larger and supposed superior force with smaller numbers

No cavalry Julius Caesar had or knew could do anything to the Mongol cavalry. The only cavalry which gets close to the Mongol army in terms of mobility is the Numidian cavalry, and even they have nowhere the range to hit the Mongol cavalry (They used javelins and not composite bows) if the Mongols are in retreat and still firing, nor do they have the ammunition for it. And since they lack the armor (They were less armored then Mongols), which means a pursuit while getting showered with arrows means having to spread out a lot to avoid quickly dieing. If you spread out too much and pursue too far, the Mongols turn-around and counter charge, which means that the Numidians in turn need to begin running away. This would be a nice exercise (As it would tire the Mongols) if the range between them was comparable (In this whole role reversal, only Numidians die) or if each Mongol didn't have several horses to switch to (Can even out the fatigue if they see the horse they are riding is getting tired). All other cavalry are either shock-based light or heavy armored, and frequently dealt with by Genghis Khan or his generals, as is documented.

Mongols have no such reputation as the Roman's in work ethic.

So you believe that a Mongol army living 1 month off of blood and milk while accomplishing military objectives makes for poor work ethic?

Within a month he could build 23 Miles of wall.

And how does 23 miles of wall defend you against an highly decentralized army that covers hundreds of miles in a day?

[Conradus]

I find this to be a very interesting thread and I would like to thank all useful contributions :) It seems both sides have good arguments.

The discussion is interesting but ultimatily pointless of course.

We have here two generals who were arguably the best of their time with their own armies. More than a thousand years seperate both and Genghis of course has the benefit of those 1000 years of military advances. They share more similarities. Both were capable in outmaneuvering their enemies and then attacking when victory would be assured. So this gives us no answer to the question where the battle would be fought. Both are as likely to maneuver the other in a less than favourable position. And this position would greatly decide the outcome of any pitched battle. History shows us that Roman armies fared poorly against horse archer opponents (Crassus, the disastrous retreat after Julian, Manzikert ...), but on the other hand those same Roman armies were able to beat these opponents as well. Otherwise Trajan wouldn't have conquered Mesopotamia, Caesar's Asian campaigns, Julian reaching Ctesiphon ...
Most casulties in these battles resulted from the breaking of formation, something which Caesar would know and prevent. His influence over and the discipline of his troops were unparallelled in his age. And the Mongols would find Caesars Legions a hard nut to crack.
A prolonged campaign again has points in favor of both leaders. The Mongols of course had a great mobility and an uncanny ability to live of the land. But Caesar's troops had this as well, for an infantery-based army at least. His campaigns in Gaul prove this. Again this leads to the question where the battle would be fought. Do the Mongols invade Roman Land, or are the Romans foolish enough to invade the Mongolian Steppes?
Siege warfare then. Both armies proved apt at sieges, but the Mongols had some initial setbacks in this regard. Caesar was an expert sieger and his strategy of sieges and countersieges, the ability of his legionnaries to raise extensive fortifications in record time would give him an edge here.

[Jolt]

The real question is, who would win if they both commanded an Army of tanks and helicopters!?

Ultimately, I think that would be the best test to find out who is the best general. Grab the 5 best generals of each historical period & geographical/army organization, and have them lead each others armies and campaigns. Whoever managed to adapt better to all situations would be the best general.

For example:

Ancient to Classical:

Alexander the Great - Mediterranean/Phalanx
Chandragupta Maurya - India
Shapur I - Middle East
Gaius Julius Caesar - Mediterranean/Legion
Cao Cao - Far East

Dark Ages:

Genghis Khan - Central Asia
Charles Martel - Europe
Khalid ibn Walid - Middle East
Belisarius - Mediterranean
Tran Hung Dao - Far East

Early Gunpowder:

Jan Zizka - Europe
Selim I - Mediterranean
Nadir Shah - Middle East
Toyotomi Hideyoshi - Far East
Babur - Central Asia

Imperial period (18th-19th Centuries):

Napoleon Bonaparte - Europe
Aleksandr Suvorov - Eastern Europe
Robert E. Lee - America
Shaka Zulu - Africa
Ranjit Singh - India

Modern:

Erich von Manstein - Europe
Paul Emil von Lettow-Vorbeck - Africa
Mustafa Kemal - Mediterranean
Carl Gustav Mannerheim - Eastern Europe
Mao Zedong - Far East

Get each of these top generals doing every others battles and campaigns, and only then could we know who'd be the best or worst.

[Memnon]

What, no Rommel?

[Jolt]

What, no Rommel?

I don't mean to be rude, but this thread is about Julius Caesar vs Genghis Khan. My previous post is related with the topic at hand. Yours is not.

[Ray0071]

I signed up just to post in this thread.

I think it helps if people read up more on the history, get the facts, before formulating an opinion.

Caesar was a great General, but based on what I have read, in the open - he would have little chance against Genghis Khan or his Generals. Subutai for example, was the primary military strategist and general of Genghis Khan and Ögedei Khan. He directed more than twenty campaigns in which he conquered thirty-two nations and won sixty-five pitched battles, during which he conquered or overran more territory than any other commander in history. (taken from Wiki)

Also for those of you who don't know, waves of nomadic warrior like people migrated from Central Asia towards Europe, Middle East, and China. Highly mobile, excellent archers, can live off the terrain - and that is why they were so feared on the battlefield.

[Fisherking]

Welcome Ray0071


The Battle of Carrhae rather fit’s the profile of such a mach up.

Caesar might have been able to get his troops safely home where Crassus failed but I don’t see an infantry based army defeating a mobile missile based army without some major innovations.

[Buzghush]

Funny thing is 5 people voted caesar Mongols would destroy 5 times bigger roman army in a single day. if you think that "they can't" this means you know nothing about Mongols.

roman rules!!!!111!1!1!!1 I love how europeans see romans

[Myth]

Well this is a pretty old thread. However, the OP has some serious love for Caesar. IMO Caesar was a very sound politician and strategist, and a very daring field commander. Still, his military victories were not due to pure genius (like let's say Alexander) but more due to careful long term planning and his veteran soldiers. Remember that in a time of disorganized haphazard charges and one on one combat, Roman armies with drilled soldiers and veteran officers (centurions) made difference. This difference would not exist versus the Mongols who were also very well organized and MUCH more flexible tacs wise.

Also at the time, there was never that many horses that Caesar could face numbers equal to the Horde. Let us also remember how Rome fared versus the Huns (granted there were a great many other factors playing there). But Attila is Genghis Khan lite, so yeah if we look realistically, they would have had no chance.

Not to mention that the strongest weapon for nations who were not trained since birth in shooting a bow had not been invented yet. No crossbow = dead Romans.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Yes, if those two were to fight on an "ironing-board" type of battlefield, then the mobility and long-range archery of the Mongols wins. But part of what makes for a brilliant general is maneuvering your opponent onto terrain that favors your army make-up and hurts the enemy. Okehazama, Nagashino, and the favorite Greek setting for the "300" come to mind.....

[Myth]

Nobody managed it during the middle ages, what makes the Roman or Greek generals superior?

[ReluctantSamurai]

what makes the Roman or Greek generals superior

Didn't say they were....

[Brandy Blue]

. . . Not to mention that the strongest weapon for nations who were not trained since birth in shooting a bow had not been invented yet. No crossbow = dead Romans.

The Greeks had a weapon called the gastraphetes. It didn’t operate the same way as a medieval crossbow, but I’d still call it a crossbow.
OK, Julius Caesar didn’t have a crossbow corp., so this doesn’t really affect your point. I’m just trying to keep the history straight.

. . . But part of what makes for a brilliant general is maneuvering your opponent onto terrain that favors your army make-up and hurts the enemy......

I’d say that tricking one of history’s wiliest commanders to fight on unfavorable terrain when he has excellent scouts at his disposal, his movements are far less tied to a supply chain than yours are, and his army is mobile enough to escape from most traps would be a tall order, even for Julius Caesar. Even supposing that JC tricked GK into fighting somewhere that was not suitable for cavalry, I suppose the Mongols would just dismount and fight on foot. The Mongols would not be at a disadvantage, although admittedly they would lose the advantage of mobility.
Overall, I’d say the prospects would be dim for the Romans.
In order for GK to defeat the Romans strategically, he would sooner or later have to either cross the Alps or put his troops on ships. (Assuming, that is, that GK wanted to capture Rome.)I’d say that this would be JC’s best chance. He might catch the Mongols in an ambush in the mountains, or attack them at sea or where they landed. Unloading horses from ships was difficult and time consuming. Even unloading troops wouldn’t exactly be a picnic.

[ReluctantSamurai]

In order for GK to defeat the Romans strategically, he would sooner or later have to either cross the Alps or put his troops on ships. (Assuming, that is, that GK wanted to capture Rome.)I’d say that this would be JC’s best chance. He might catch the Mongols in an ambush in the mountains, or attack them at sea or where they landed. Unloading horses from ships was difficult and time consuming. Even unloading troops wouldn’t exactly be a picnic.

As stated earlier, on an "iron-board" it's lights out for a Roman army. But...in the deep woods of Germania or Gaul, much of the Mongol strength in mobility is lost, as you said. At sea, I would imagine the Romans to have the advantage, and although the Mongols certainly mounted a very large navy to invade Japan, most of those vessels were either cargo ships or flat-bottomed Baator-style "fighting" ships. I am not very "up" on Mongol and Korean sea-fighting capabilities, so someone can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong...

[Brandy Blue]

But...in the deep woods of Germania or Gaul, much of the Mongol strength in mobility is lost, ...

I just can't imagine how Julius Caesar would persuade Gengis Khan to go deep into the woods in the first place. Any ideas?

[Myth]

Erm first of all, there are far easier ways to enter Italy - mainly by way of modern day Croatia and Slovenia into the territories above Venice. Second of all, the Romans were notoriously bad sailors and they lost plenty of troops to storms and Carthaginian navies. Had they learned by the time of Caesar? I suppose so. But let's be realistic here. If Genghis Khan's objective was to take Rome, he wouldn't bring dinghy Asian boats all the way over to Europe. He would instead capture or otherwise persuade a local maritime nation to "lend" him his fleets. I can't imagine the Romans being stupid enough to let him capture THEIR fleets but there might be those around who would give a few thousand biremes for the chance of Rome being captured. I still think that he would go overland however, over the aforementioned route.

Genghis would not go to fight in the deep woods of Germania. There was nothing particularly appealing there for a Mongol warrior. No cities to sack and few pastures for their herds. The Mongols would have occupied eastern Europe and Russia (like they did historically) and then look for a way to get to Rome's riches. Oh, and Rome occupied Greece would be toast.

[Fisherking]

Well, the Greeks were where Rome got most of her sailors.

We can look at the Huns as Mongol lite. Rome was not the power it once was by that time but they did manage to hold them in check once.

If it is just who was the better general, who can say. Neither had occasion to use the others tactics, so far as I know.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Second of all, the Romans were notoriously bad sailors and they lost plenty of troops to storms and Carthaginian navies.

Actually, I think they fared rather well against the Carthaginians, considering they started from scratch against a long-established naval power

A loss at Lipari, followed by victories at Mylae (260BC); Sulci (258BC); Tyndaris (257BC); the big battle at Ecnomus (256BC) where the Romans scored a crushing victory, and the final battle of the 1st Punic War at Aegates (241BC), where another crushing Roman victory ended the war.

Two storms got their top-heavy corvus quinquereme fleets: 255 BC and 249 BC. Be interesting to know how other navies fared (particularly the Greeks) with storms....

Well, the Greeks were where Rome got most of her sailors.

Hired from Sicily, or Greece itself?

[Fisherking]

Hired from Sicily, or Greece itself?

That would depend on which period. The Roman fleet was only a major arm on two occasions.

Southern Italy was mostly Greek, as was eastern Sicily. They were said to have recruited their Sailors and Marines from their more nautically inclined subjects, mostly Greeks, Illyrians, and Egyptians.

The technologies they used against the Carthaginians may well have come from the Sicilian Greeks. But if we get deeper into this we are going to need a different thread.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I just can't imagine how Julius Caesar would persuade Gengis Khan to go deep into the woods in the first place. Any ideas?

He was the consummate Roman. If no "woods" existed to limit the opponents mobility, he would have built one. Roman field fortification and engineering were not bettered before the introduction of dynamite.

[Buzghush]

He was the consummate Roman. If no "woods" existed to limit the opponents mobility, he would have built one. Roman field fortification and engineering were not bettered before the introduction of dynamite.

And you really think that fortifications can stop the Mongols? all those huge chinese cities couldn't stop them but little, tiny roman fortification could?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Stop? Of course not. The Mongols too were professionals. Odds are they would have won anyway.

But give a Roman legion with a good leader a couple of hours and they would not be standing in the waving grass waiting for the horse lords to swamp them. I'd bet on it being a much harder slog than usual for the troopers.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Actually, the fortification idea has merit. Despite Mongol fame at breaching walled cities, these tended to have some distance between them and essentially be non-supporting. In 1241, the Mongols easily overran Hungary except for some of the more heavily defended walled cities. The 1280 Mongol campaign in Hungary did not have nearly the same success or ease because the Hungarians had built an interlocking network of forts and fortified cities that were difficult to overcome.

Then there is the famous Mongol defeat at the Klis fortress in Croatia. Along with heavy casualties, and the mountainous terrain unsuitable for horse archer maneuvers, the Mongols withdrew.

The Romans, while they could not match the horsemen of the Mongols like the Mamluks, were clever engineers and would not hesitate to adopt the tactics or troop styles of their enemies. Legionaires were a tough and disciplined bunch who would not crack and run so easily. Stop the Mongols? Perhaps not, but the Khan would've felt like a boxer who had to endure a 15 round slugfest to beat his opponent.....

[King Jagiello]

From the limited knowledge I know about both of them, it seems like Khan did more with less and helped shaped a empire, even if it doesn't last as long as the Romans did.

[Myth]

Hmm. Sources put the entire amassed force of all Roman legions around Caesar's time at around 50 legions, though not all of them were fully manned. At the time of Augustus, they were around 30. But a Marian legion has a core of 5000 heavies and around 3000 auxilia, right? Anyway, we're looking at around 200,000 total standing armies that can be raised for Rome.

The numbers for the Mognols are much more conflicting, because everyone who got their butt handed to them by the Mongols tended to exaggerate their numbers greatly to save face. Does anyone know how many were there total at the time of Genghis? Russia and Persia campaigns taken together.

Also, the Mongols moved very quickly. But so did Marian legions (for infantry). The key drawback is that Roman allies were few in number, so the bulk of their horses would be mercenaries and assorted auxilia tribal cavalry. Everyone would have a different fighting style - africans wouldn't ride like germans and gauls and so on.

And what of entrenchment and engineering? A palisade and a ditch would hardly stop the Mongols IMO, and if the Great Wall didn't stop them, how can something around the scope of Hadrian's Wall do it?

[King Jagiello]

The Mongols would probably go around it or find people that can help them go though it.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

No a palisade, ditch, and booby-trapped field would not have "stopped" the Mongols. I was arguing that the Romans, using their field entrenchment techniques and not trying to match the hit-and-run tactics of the horse archer, would have done substantially better than any of the other Mongol opponents. Defeated them? Hard to say -- I voted Mongol in the poll -- I just think they would have done a lot better. My assessment presumes a Roman leader with the brains and the gravitas to NOT rush out and meet the "barbarians." In an open terrain battle with the Mongol's mobility unimpeded, all that Roman discipline would accomplish is to delay the rout.

The Romans didn't have much respect for cavalry, though the stirrup would have changed that a lot. Remember the peak Roman force and the Mongols were centuries apart. I think a Western Roman Empire that survived to the era of the stirrup would have had a greater cavalry component and would probably have gone over to a mixed pike and sword armament for the infantry. The Romans were pretty adaptive as well.

[Pannonian]

He was the consummate Roman. If no "woods" existed to limit the opponents mobility, he would have built one. Roman field fortification and engineering were not bettered before the introduction of dynamite.

And on the other side, it was standard doctrine of Genghis to prepare his battlefield. And by battlefield, that doesn't mean the field of battle, but the strategic area where operations take place. Whole areas were turned into pasture to allow his armies easy movement (a lesson not learned by Bonaparte). If the Roman army were stationed somewhere favourable to them, and Rome had to be taken somehow, then the most likely course would be for a main force to gain the attention of the Roman army, while a raiding force is prepared to attack Rome from a different direction. Ideally there shouldn't be much fighting at either location, until the fortified Roman army is persuaded to leave its fortifications, at which the pursuit and harassment is on.

[ReluctantSamurai]

One possible solution (and note I said possible, not probable) is to beat the Mongols at their own game.

One of the primary strengths of the Mongols was mobility....and this means horses.....lots of horses. Mongol horses need pasture to graze. So the Mamluks, for instance, practiced scorched earth, denying as much grazing lands and spoils of war as possible (of course it didn't hurt that they had excellent heavy cavalry and horse-archers of their own).

Another means of restricting mobility was done by the Hungarians. After their country was overrun during the 1241 campaign, many fortified Hungarian cities remained unconquered. Between 1242 and roughly 1280, the Hungarians expanded on this by building a system of small fortifications that connected these cities. If the Mongols bypassed them, they attacked Mongol supply and communications (contrary to popular myth, the Mongols did not live completely off the land).

At the end of Mongol dominance, the Russians used a similar tactic by building ostrogs, or "small forts".

It's instructive to look at how the Mongols were eventually defeated and conquered by the Russians. Their weapon was the ostrog, or small fortress. A defended military post would be established in Mongol territory, with a secure supply route back to the heartland (preferably by sea or river, so the Mongols couldn't cut it). Of course the Mongols could lay siege to the fortress, but that would mean concentrating their army together in one place where your superior forces could attack and defeat them.

If they didn't attack, then you would attack them. Beat them at their own game—send out raiding parties of light cavalry to ravage, pillage, and burn the Mongol lands and, most importantly, kill their horses. These cavalry raiding parties were the origin of the famous Cossacks. When the Mongols struck back, the Cossacks would retreat back to the safety of the fort and dare the Mongols to attack them.

Eventually, the Mongols would get tired of their horses being killed and retreat further back into the steppes. At which point, you would build another ostrog deeper into the steppes and repeat the process, while the previous fortress became the core of a new city.

Not exactly the classical use of fortresses most of us are familiar with....but it worked

[Myth]

This of course, will work if you have a superior concentrated force. The scrappy remnants in Russia were NOT Genghis's horde. This is a pretty good way to drive back (not defeat) Mongols who are at an severe numerical disadvantage. Because, If they can win the straight up fight, you won't be given the chance to build a fortress - your masons and labourers would get massacred within a day.