Julius Caesar vs Genghis Khan

[Ricdog]

Ok so this aint a historical analysis of both commander's skills but rather a fictional battle or campaign. If Caesar under a Roman army fought against a Mongol army commanded by Khan, who'd be victories?

Normally I would almost surely pick the Mongols, but under Caesar I feel I must rethink that. Given Caesar's skills and his victory against arguably the greatest cavalry in the world during his life, the Numidians (possibly better than the Parthians), I think his chances against a horse archer army aint too bad. Since he basically was already aware of how to deal with light cavalry armies, heck the Mongols would probabily be SLOWER than the Numidian cavalry. Not to mention Caesar's obvious great military feats in his career, I think he might just pull of the upset.

Your thoughts?

[sulla1982ad]

Are you naive? Or just a troll? You posts always make me chuckle anyway.

Do you know what happend to a Roman Army at Carrhae right? You are honestly comparing light Numidian Cavery to the Parthians? The Mongols would shot a Roman Army to bits out on the open. The only chance Ceaser would have is to fight some sort of seige. The problem with this scenerio is you haven't provided any background. Where is it taking place? Are the Romans invading or defending? That makes a lot of diffrence to the result.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Are you naive? Or just a troll? You posts always make me chuckle anyway.

This is not an appropriate way to adress fellow orgahs.

[Centurion1]

Ok so this aint a historical analysis of both commander's skills but rather a fictional battle or campaign. If Caesar under a Roman army fought against a Mongol army commanded by Khan, who'd be victories?

Normally I would almost surely pick the Mongols, but under Caesar I feel I must rethink that. Given Caesar's skills and his victory against arguably the greatest cavalry in the world during his life, the Numidians (possibly better than the Parthians), I think his chances against a horse archer army aint too bad. Since he basically was already aware of how to deal with light cavalry armies, heck the Mongols would probabily be SLOWER than the Numidian cavalry. Not to mention Caesar's obvious great military feats in his career, I think he might just pull of the upset.

Your thoughts?

The mongols under genghis, or any one of his generals to be honest would make a roman army even under the might caesars' his 2 dollar whore.

[Ricdog]

Are you naive? Or just a troll? You posts always make me chuckle anyway.

Do you know what happend to a Roman Army at Carrhae right? You are honestly comparing light Numidian Cavery to the Parthians? The Mongols would shot a Roman Army to bits out on the open. The only chance Ceaser would have is to fight some sort of seige. The problem with this scenerio is you haven't provided any background. Where is it taking place? Are the Romans invading or defending? That makes a lot of diffrence to the result.

Yea I know Carrhae and actually I think there might be a misconception here. If im correct the Romans didn't really suffer that many causalties during the battle and held their own quite well. It was after the battle, during the retreat under Cassius, that most of the causalties took place.

The Numidian cavalry was extremely fast given that the horsmen didn't really have anything heavy to slow theme down (even for light cavalry). Hence I believe they could very well have been faster than the Parthian riders, who usually were used to being the fastest but probabily would have to give that advantage up against the Numidians.

Yea well you see the Numidians did try to shoot the Romans to bits in the open, but that didnt work thanks to the genius of Caesar. Under the leadership of great cavalry commander Labianus (who proved himself competant in Gaul under Caesar), the Numidians encircled the Roman infantry, defeated their gallic cavalry, and then tried to harass crush the Romans under long range fire. Thanks to Caesar's quick thinking he managed to push his troops up to high ground to live another day.

The next time he went to the open though he was well prepared. He used his amazing engineering skills to build long trenches that were miles long that prevented any cavalary from encircling his infanty. He then fortified these trenches with troops and his artillary (which had long range, keeping the light cavalry from coming close). This with other changes he made greatly increased his armies capabilities of handling an army similar to the likes of the Mongols, Huns, Parthians, etc...

[Ricdog]

The mongols under genghis, or any one of his generals to be honest would make a roman army even under the might caesars' his 2 dollar whore.

Basically my last responce could address your statements.

[sulla1982ad]

You honestly think the Numidians where even nearly as deadly as the Mongols? They where basicly mobile welsh longbow men. The power of there bows where comparable. A far as I'm aware the Numidians where never mobile archers. They where skirmishers.

I think Ceaser had a good chance of Perishing against the Pathians if he hadn't of been assassinated.

[Koga No Goshi]

Yea I know Carrhae and actually I think there might be a misconception here. If im correct the Romans didn't really suffer that many causalties during the battle and held their own quite well. It was after the battle, during the retreat under Cassius, that most of the causalties took place.

The Numidian cavalry was extremely fast given that the horsmen didn't really have anything heavy to slow theme down (even for light cavalry). Hence I believe they could very well have been faster than the Parthian riders, who usually were used to being the fastest but probabily would have to give that advantage up against the Numidians.

Yea well you see the Numidians did try to shoot the Romans to bits in the open, but that didnt work thanks to the genius of Caesar. Under the leadership of great cavalry commander Labianus (who proved himself competant in Gaul under Caesar), the Numidians encircled the Roman infantry, defeated their gallic cavalry, and then tried to harass crush the Romans under long range fire. Thanks to Caesar's quick thinking he managed to push his troops up to high ground to live another day.

The next time he went to the open though he was well prepared. He used his amazing engineering skills to build long trenches that were miles long that prevented any cavalary from encircling his infanty. He then fortified these trenches with troops and his artillary (which had long range, keeping the light cavalry from coming close). This with other changes he made greatly increased his armies capabilities of handling an army similar to the likes of the Mongols, Huns, Parthians, etc...

This analysis implies that Genghis Khan / the mongols tended to win or lose in direct frontal battles. They didn't. They constantly harassed and allowed enemies avenues of escape, repeatedly, or even pretended to withdraw and then came back and attacked in the rear, sometimes multiple times. No one really had any experience dealing with tactics so unconventional and dogged.

I don't think looking at what Roman legions under Caesar did in direct engagements is relevant to what would happen in Romans vs. Mongols, because Mongols did not give their enemies that kind of confrontation, almost ever, other than when they were certain to win.

[Ricdog]

This analysis implies that Genghis Khan / the mongols tended to win or lose in direct frontal battles. They didn't. They constantly harassed and allowed enemies avenues of escape, repeatedly, or even pretended to withdraw and then came back and attacked in the rear, sometimes multiple times. No one really had any experience dealing with tactics so unconventional and dogged.

I don't think looking at what Roman legions under Caesar did in direct engagements is relevant to what would happen in Romans vs. Mongols, because Mongols did not give their enemies that kind of confrontation, almost ever, other than when they were certain to win.

Yea but where did you get the impressian that I said the Mongols relied on direct confrontations. Trying to harass the Caesar's army and use greater mobility was exactly what Labianus tried to do, but this was nullified with Caesar's great manuevers and faints. Nobody, except Napoleon, could match Caesar on that. Ilerdia and other feats of his show this.

[Koga No Goshi]

Yea but where did you get the impressian that I said the Mongols relied on direct confrontations. Trying to harass the Caesar's army and use greater mobility was exactly what Labianus tried to do, but this was nullified with Caesar's great manuevers and faints. Nobody, except Napoleon, could match Caesar on that. Ilerdia and other feats of his show this.

Nobody ever matched the Mongols on manuevers and feints either, and they conquered much more of the world than Rome ever did. So if we're comparing them solely on that one trait of their battle tactics, I think it's still safe to say the Mongols would at least match Rome... if not surpass them.

[Centurion1]

A. Labianus is not Genghis Khan

B. Labianus' troops are not even close to the the typical mongol trooper.

C. You over hype numidian cavalry to an unbearable level.

[Koga No Goshi]

I think it probably bears mentioning too that the Mongols were rather extensively practiced against fighting much more heavily armored medium and heavy infantry, which they virtually didn't use, at least in the first half of their conquests or so. So while most "who would win, x or Romans?" discussions tend to lean in favor of the Romans, I think this is one case that wouldn't.

[Ricdog]

Nobody ever matched the Mongols on manuevers and feints either, and they conquered much more of the world than Rome ever did. So if we're comparing them solely on that one trait of their battle tactics, I think it's still safe to say the Mongols would at least match Rome... if not surpass them.

I was clearly referring to Caesar's manuevers and engineering, which he clearly used to a genius level. Infact if im correct his one of his greatest feats in Africa was being able to force Scipio into a direct battle after getting him in an unfavorable terrain.

Plus Caesar actually did face the Mongol feint retreat (sorta), when he first started fighting the Numidians. His men got ahead of themselves and started a persuate, only for the cavalary to come around their exposed flanks and pick them off with missiles. From then on he ordered nobody to ever advance beyond the standards.

[Ricdog]

A. Labianus is not Genghis Khan

B. Labianus' troops are not even close to the the typical mongol trooper.

C. You over hype numidian cavalry to an unbearable level.

A. Labianus is not Khan but he aint no push over either. He is easily better than any of the generals Khan ever fought.

B. He was in charge of light cavalry, archers, and skirmishers. Not the exact Mongol army but he had the same philosophy, use your mobility and range to tear the heavy Roman infantry to pieces.

C. The Numidians were easily the best cavalry in the West. They made the giant Gallic/German cavalary into their bitches. The fact that they had virtually no armor and excessive gear made them arguably the fastest cavalary in the world (kinda like the Native Americans), they could probabily out run the Mongols and Parthians in terms of pure speed and manuever.

[Koga No Goshi]

I was clearly referring to Caesar's manuevers and engineering, which he clearly used to a genius level. Infact if im correct his one of his greatest feats in Africa was being able to force Scipio into a direct battle after getting him in an unfavorable terrain.

Plus Caesar actually did face the Mongol feint retreat (sorta), when he first started fighting the Numidians. His men got ahead of themselves and started a persuate, only for the cavalary to come around their exposed flanks and pick them off with missiles. From then on he ordered nobody to ever advance beyond the standards.

We're never going to know or be able to prove it or test it either way, so it's entertaining conjecture at best. However, the Numidians didn't conquer almost all of the known Eurasian world, so I think it's somewhat safe to say that the Mongols were substantially harder to counter than the Numidians were.

[Ricdog]

We're never going to know or be able to prove it or test it either way, so it's entertaining conjecture at best. However, the Numidians didn't conquer almost all of the known Eurasian world, so I think it's somewhat safe to say that the Mongols were substantially harder to counter than the Numidians were.

The Numidians never went on a world wide destruction but that doesn't effect their excellence in battle. The Numidians were the ones that crushed the Romans at Cannae (Hannibals army), then defeated Hannibal himself under the leadership of Scipio, then easily defeated Caesar's gallic/german army when by themselves.

They may not have been as organized or have tech like the Mongols but in terms of horseman ship skills they can't be said to be far behind any other cavalry force in history. But really this isen't "Numidian vs Mongols" thread, I only mentioned them because they are a light cavalry army (just like the Mongols) and thus Caesar wouldn't be clueless when facing an extremely high mobile army.

[NikosMaximilian]

The only way I can think of a Roman victory is under very specific conditions.

The Romans would be fighting a defensive battle controlling the high ground, located in some bottleneck location (mountain pass, long bridge on a wide river), with their supply lines secured and the chance of retreating to a nearby walled settlement.

The Mongol army would walk into a strategical error by taking this path and not looking for an alternative route. Which, would not very very Genghis-esque. In their early conquests, the Mongols avoided pitched battles. Not until some generations later, when many of them settled they started fighting in those ways.

The Roman army would have to be very large and made up of their best troops and use combined arms tactics. Two very long first lines composed of slingers, archers, ballistas, scorpions and other artillery would try to bombard the Mongols from distance and take out as many of them as they can, but also taking casualties as they enter into the horse-archers' range. In the flanks, the Roman should place first mercenary horse archers (Sarmatian, Alan, etc), their own Sagittarii, and skirmishing cavalry (such as the mentioned Numidians, Cantabrians, etc.).

If the Mongols get tired of getting showered with missiles and they start moving towards the Romans, retreat the slingers and artillery to the very back, but keep the foot archers in the third line shooting over their own troops. At the same time, keep the ranged cavalry attacking them from the flanks, and only retreat them when the Mongols get close, and then send in the Medium and Heavy Cavalry which was waiting behind. In the very unlikely event of a Mongol headlong charge, then the upper hand goes to the Romans.

If the Mongols don't charge, they only enter in the composite bow range and retreat, then it's a matter of numbers and superior firepower. That's why the Romans should have the high ground, otherwise they get butchered. The other one is wait for the mongol army on the other side of a long bridge (something like 600 metres) and concentrate all the arrows, stones and artillery in that choke point to create confusion and mayhem in the Mongol advance.

Also praying to Mars for a heavy rain which makes the composite bows futile and a really muddy field which would slow the Mongols would help.

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

The mongols would win.They managed to rule the entire world for a brief peorid of time,but if you look closer,they were experts on bow cavarly,Imagine a roman army in the open,but being forced to raise shields everytime as archers shoot at them.,remidns you of Hattin.

[Ricdog]

The only way I can think of a Roman victory is under very specific conditions.

The Romans would be fighting a defensive battle controlling the high ground, located in some bottleneck location (mountain pass, long bridge on a wide river), with their supply lines secured and the chance of retreating to a nearby walled settlement.

The Mongol army would walk into a strategical error by taking this path and not looking for an alternative route. Which, would not very very Genghis-esque. In their early conquests, the Mongols avoided pitched battles. Not until some generations later, when many of them settled they started fighting in those ways.

The Roman army would have to be very large and made up of their best troops and use combined arms tactics. Two very long first lines composed of slingers, archers, ballistas, scorpions and other artillery would try to bombard the Mongols from distance and take out as many of them as they can, but also taking casualties as they enter into the horse-archers' range. In the flanks, the Roman should place first mercenary horse archers (Sarmatian, Alan, etc), their own Sagittarii, and skirmishing cavalry (such as the mentioned Numidians, Cantabrians, etc.).

If the Mongols get tired of getting showered with missiles and they start moving towards the Romans, retreat the slingers and artillery to the very back, but keep the foot archers in the third line shooting over their own troops. At the same time, keep the ranged cavalry attacking them from the flanks, and only retreat them when the Mongols get close, and then send in the Medium and Heavy Cavalry which was waiting behind. In the very unlikely event of a Mongol headlong charge, then the upper hand goes to the Romans.

If the Mongols don't charge, they only enter in the composite bow range and retreat, then it's a matter of numbers and superior firepower. That's why the Romans should have the high ground, otherwise they get butchered. The other one is wait for the mongol army on the other side of a long bridge (something like 600 metres) and concentrate all the arrows, stones and artillery in that choke point to create confusion and mayhem in the Mongol advance.

Also praying to Mars for a heavy rain which makes the composite bows futile and a really muddy field which would slow the Mongols would help.

Not exactly on topic I think but still a very nice technical theory.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Would these be pre-stirrup Mongols under Ghengis's system or post stirrup. The latter had much more reliable and often more powerful bows at their disposal for the horse archery component of their forces. Without the stirrup, the Mongols would have been only somewhat harder an opponent than would the parthians (Under Ghengis, their discipline and basic skills were excellent; fully the equal of, if quite different from, those of the roman legio. Credit where it is due).

Presuming no stirrups, then I think you end up with a standoff. Caesar and his legions of shovelers can make any position unassailable by cavalry in jig time. It would be hard for the Mongols to "cut out" the legionnaires and smash them up in detail -- a favorite Mongol tactic. In rough terrain where cavalry is of little use, Caesar and his legions have the advantage (though to be fair, NOT a crushing advantage as the Mongols fought pretty well dismouted when they had to do so). However, in any kind of open or semi-open terrain, Caesar's troops would have to hold together in tight formations and absorb some injury with little ability to close and counterattack.

Mongols tended to do better at living off the land as well, so I suspect the edge would go to the Mongols in a campaign. Caesar wasn't dumb enough and his troops were good terrain modifiers enough to prevent being broken up and cut to pieces, but Caesar's men would have had touble foraging in anything less than cohort strength, thus putting a big strain on Roman logistics. In short, Caesar might break them if he could engender a pitched battle in mixed or rough terrain, but couldn't hope to do much aside from take moderate casualties in open terrain for little return and with little or no ability to take and hold territory.

All in all, strategic Mongol victory despite a tactical standoff.

[Cute Wolf]

if Caesar is stupid enough to just use ancient Roman weaponary, he'll have no chance

but then, if he got acess to Chinese repeating crossbows (which mongols also carry for operations in humid areas - maybe purchase it from some corrupt officials and reverse-engginer it, or having a spy stole one and reverse enggineered it), he has much better Chance, Song-Jin Dynasty falls to Mongols because they also has internal strive at the same time, but it basicaly the massive crossbow levies who keep steppe people at bay for much time.

mind you, among the first actions Mongol took when establishing yuan dynasty is ban the use of crossbow by non-soldier Han Chinese people in their early reigns, the almost same things also done by Manchu (but then, they ban all the archery things for Han Chinese except those who works as soldiers). It's basically an early form of machine gun

[Jolt]

A. Labianus is not Khan but he aint no push over either. He is easily better than any of the generals Khan ever fought.

Impressive. "Easily better"?

You must have quite the colossal amount of knowledge on the Mongol campaigns and their enemies generals to be able to justapose Labianus to the other generals and see that Labianus is easily the better general.

Khan fought and supervised campaigns for close to 40 years, in hundreds of battles, against hundreds of different armies and hundreds of different generals and commanders.

I wonder, how many of those do you know, and what do you know of their previous military history (Instead of being "Chinese General X appears, is defeated, and disapears" what did said generals do before they had to face the Mongol armies)?

[Ricdog]

Impressive. "Easily better"?

You must have quite the colossal amount of knowledge on the Mongol campaigns and their enemies generals to be able to justapose Labianus to the other generals and see that Labianus is easily the better general.

Khan fought and supervised campaigns for close to 40 years, in hundreds of battles, against hundreds of different armies and hundreds of different generals and commanders.

I wonder, how many of those do you know, and what do you know of their previous military history (Instead of being "Chinese General X appears, is defeated, and disapears" what did said generals do before they had to face the Mongol armies)?

Unless there is something else besides historical campaigns of those generals that you wish to go by, then I would probabily say Labianus is better. Not that im trying to turn this into a China/Middle Eastern defeated commanders vs the likes of Gallic Chiefs and Pompey.

"what did said generals do before they had to face the Mongol armies?" Not much compared to what I know of Caesar's enemy's records, care to enlighten?

[Jolt]

Unless there is something else besides historical campaigns of those generals that you wish to go by, then I would probabily say Labianus is better. Not that im trying to turn this into a China/Middle Eastern defeated commanders vs the likes of Gallic Chiefs and Pompey.

"what did said generals do before they had to face the Mongol armies?" Not much compared to what I know of Caesar's enemy's records, care to enlighten?

The simple fact that you do not even mention a single general leads me to believe that you actually have very little or no knowledge as to who faced the mongols, or more specifically, Genghis Khan. This merely serves to underpin my original impression that you actually brushed off Genghis's opponents as irrelevant before Labienus, because you don't know any.

I shall give you a single example (And one of the most obvious ones, along with his son and successor): Mohammed II of Khwarezm.
The Khwarezmian Empire had Eastern Persia along with the territories all the way up to the Aral Sea. His father's death shook his empire up, and he had to defend from an attack by the Seljuks. Through skillful diplomacy and warfare, he managed to take a chunk of Central Asia plus Western Persia.

He had experience already in campaigning successfully with and against the Mongols of Kara-Khitai plus the news he had recieved from the Mongol campaigns in China. But the Mongols under Genghis Khan (And especially with their leader) were a whole different league.

[Ricdog]

The simple fact that you do not even mention a single general leads me to believe that you actually have very little or no knowledge as to who faced the mongols, or more specifically, Genghis Khan. This merely serves to underpin my original impression that you actually brushed off Genghis's opponents as irrelevant before Labienus, because you don't know any.

I shall give you a single example (And one of the most obvious ones, along with his son and successor): Mohammed II of Khwarezm.
The Khwarezmian Empire had Eastern Persia along with the territories all the way up to the Aral Sea. His father's death shook his empire up, and he had to defend from an attack by the Seljuks. Through skillful diplomacy and warfare, he managed to take a chunk of Central Asia plus Western Persia.

He had experience already in campaigning successfully with and against the Mongols of Kara-Khitai plus the news he had recieved from the Mongol campaigns in China. But the Mongols under Genghis Khan (And especially with their leader) were a whole different league.

Maybe nice overview, but not to change the outcome from what I see. Labienus showed impressive diplomatic, or administrative, knowledge in his handling of the Gallic tribes under Caesar. And then ofcourse there's his numerious tactical feats as commander in his battles in Gaul and Africa. Not sure if we can say the same for the Persian leaders against Khan.

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

Hmm.....very interesting.

But lets look here: Mongals

Strengths:Powerful army + leaders,includes heavy cavarly

Weakness:Lacks proper infantry

Romans: Powerful Army + leaders

weakness:Not enough cavarly.Lacks Cavarly

This could either be a battle of titans. The Romans could use their tortise formation,but they would be exhausted holding it for so long. The Mongloains can attack using their bow cavalry,to me...I can't continue this,it would be to evenly matched if you ask me.

[Memnon]

Look at the battle of Carrhae if you want the answer to what you said Marshall. Genghis was also more than a thousand years later, and had a better system of attack and disruption than the Parthians ever had. The Mongols would have also been at least as organized as the Romans, which was their only real advantage against most of their enemies. The Mongolians at their height could also call on nearly a whole continent full of peoples who had some skill with infantry, Genghis would win, and I would say rather easily at that.

[Ricdog]

Look at the battle of Carrhae if you want the answer to what you said Marshall. Genghis was also more than a thousand years later, and had a better system of attack and disruption than the Parthians ever had. The Mongols would have also been at least as organized as the Romans, which was their only real advantage against most of their enemies. The Mongolians at their height could also call on nearly a whole continent full of peoples who had some skill with infantry, Genghis would win, and I would say rather easily at that.

I believe I already answered the Carrhae analogy in my previous posts as to why it fails to predict anything from this hypothetical situation. As for the reinforcements, the Romans too were quite capable of calling in any necessary type of troops and supplies needed for the situations at hand just aswell.

[LegioDecem]

Are you naive? Or just a troll? You posts always make me chuckle anyway.

Do you know what happend to a Roman Army at Carrhae right? You are honestly comparing light Numidian Cavery to the Parthians? The Mongols would shot a Roman Army to bits out on the open. The only chance Ceaser would have is to fight some sort of seige. The problem with this scenerio is you haven't provided any background. Where is it taking place? Are the Romans invading or defending? That makes a lot of diffrence to the result.

I would have to ask you if you are a troll or ignorant of the situation? @ Carrhae, it was Marcus Crassus, and many many different variable, his troops thought him cursed, the Jews cursed him, luck was a large part of how people fought and thought at the period. His troops had no faith in him and he had no plan. Horrible comparison to Gaius Julius Caesar who as soon as it happened devised a plan to deal with them. No all Caesar would have needed was some information on the Mongols and he would have Crushed the mongols. Attacking or defending the man was a genius. The mongols had great Generals, but none of the caliber with a Julius Caesar. Outnumbered, without food, eating a pasty root, him and his troops have defeated many. Historically, Julius would have won by a long shot if you compare battles, ability to grow and learn from a setback. Caesar would have created in unfavorable terrain a way to gain victory. " No general in history used the spade more then Gaius Julius Caesar"

[LegioDecem]

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. 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 and his greatest tool of all, the spade, Mongols have no such reputation as the Roman's in work ethic. Within a month he could build 23 Miles of wall. Julius Caesar does not simply fight, he creates, and dominates with the odds against him.