"Julius Caesar vs. Genghis Khan. Bets?" Topic

Just a silly flight of fancy, I know, but who do ya think gets punked in that match up, of course, we assume they use their respective armies?

I dunno. Of course, Roman vs. Parthian fights might give us something of a clue.

Stand-off, just like Parthia and Seleucid Persia. There's no way the Mongols could have ridden freely over the Roman "empire" at its peak. And the Roman army was ill equipped to chase horse archers….

I don't know Doug.
If it is whole state vs. whole state:
Unlike the Parthians the Mongols could besiege cities. Both polities had a conception of grand strategy. It would come to who was faster in strategic movement. The first to be outflanked on the strategic level would probably lose in the long run. But it would be a long hard war.

Tactically: I agree with you.

Romans win, mongols in the forests of Germany and Gaul or the tight mountain terrain of Greece or Dacia are sitting ducks for the Roman Infantry under a competent commander.

Rome victorious. I don't see the Mongols having a chance against a competent Rome. The chance of there being an incompetant Rome however is great. All that murder and assasination of leaders can really bring down competent leadership.

Rome winning as described above assumes being on the defensive. Nobody wins a war by staying on the defensive, eventually the Romans would have to occupy the Mongol 'homeland', that would be China. A long walk indeed. In the meantime the Mongols keep nibbling away at: Dacia, Pannonia, Thracia, Armenia, Syria, etc., wearing down the Romans ability to resist. At some point the Romans break out into another civil war and the Mongols mop up. And I would think that the Mongols have greater manpower resources by using the conquered peoples of their empire. The Romans still relied on Italians primarily around 50BC.

This would be the Mongols whose empire came apart in infighting and civil war?

I could see them losing Syria and possibly Armenia in the short term, but Rome tended to win its long haul wars.

err… the mongol homeland is not china. and was not under Genghis, its Khubilai who started going chinese.
its mongolia and part of what today is kazakhstan, kirgisistan etc. its not that clear who the "mongols" actually are. mongol society was a tribal society and that brought comnstant quarreling and more or less pointless riding around. which is why the occupied nothing for very long, or went native if they did. the "Secret History" gives a great picture of what living as a mongol was like at the time of Genghis.

rome under cesar was more or less orderly. the romans are more likely to (stupidly) fight horse archers on steppe terrain (maybe Cesar would not do that – who knows?). Genghis knew what he was doing and would certainly not have the enemy allowed to capture him in the woods.

in the end, however, i guess its all about terrain.

anothger important question would be which side would gain control over the other forces in europe – that is where the sillyness shows through as there is a 1300 years time gap…

Close call, but my money's on the Khan.

Yes you're right hwarang, not China. Yet the Mongols did indeed conquer China (eventually) a country not too different from western Europe. The Mongols accumulated an empire (of sorts) by overthrowing the locals and absorbing them into their armies, much like the Romans. On the battlefield, well who knows, Caesar was pretty darn good, as was Chingiz. Gentlemen, start wargaming!!

Wasn't Caesar about to attack Parthia when he was assassinated? I can't imagine him trying something like that without as many auxiliary horse as possible, plus Armenian support. Might make a good "what if" campaign. Another option would be Corbulo. The problem with matching infantry-heavy armies against cavalry mobility is how best to play it on the tabletop. I've heard Carrhae described as suited to a mini-campaign rather than a single tabletop battle. Has anybody out there tried anything like this?

Paul

in what regard is Song-china (and, at the time of the mongol conquest, the south of it – with Hangzhou as the capital) similiar to western europe?

at least Marco Polo did not think it was very similiar (if he ever got there – if not he probably heard so from persians or arabs who were there. and left much better accounts than his dribble)

you probably could play a scenario like this with "Arcane Legions". i would even find that very fitting.

Mark Antony fitted out a force to try against the Parthians if I remember right. Lots of missile troops and cavalry support, but he was going to do the Northern route through the mountains and then down the rivers.

The problem isnt the terrain, it is water. That is why it is better to march down the rivers from Armenia then across from Syria. Light cavarly cant stop a well organized infantry force. If they close the infantry chews them up. They can only annoy from a distance. An infantry force with 10 or 15 thousand light infantry can keep a light cavalry force away from the heavy infantry.

Remember how many times the Romans captured the Persain capital and how many times the Persians captured Rome? The Romans knew how to deal with a light cavalry enemy. The Romans also knew how to win with logistics.

Well said Doug!

No prizes for being the most ruthless bostod. Pretty even

Caesar kicks major butt.

But the Mongols were masters of logistics as well.

That is why I would say that it would be a long war decided on the strategic and operational level.

How do they stack up against one another in WAB?

I don't know does either side have any mechs?

Can I put my money on the Vandals?

Julius Caesar. Such a matchup, however, would probably have hastened the advent of the age of cavalry much sooner than in history. One of the great strengths of Rome was the ability to learn from her enemies, and to take the best they had to offer. Imagine the professionalism and might of the Republic that was present in the Army under Caesar being applied to a cavalry based force – in order to counter the mobility of the Mongols?

In Art of War these kinds of anachronistic dueling armies produced many interesting games. I never saw Mongols versus Romans; but I have seen horsearchers versus Byzantines: not all that different tactically. And the horsearchers almost always lose, simply because the missile-heavy Romans also out-armor the horsearchers, and thus are more durable in the missile exchange. All other things considered equal on the battlefield, the armor wins….

It would depend on which army builds and fields the most "Blood Slaughterers of Khorne" the fastest.

The Mongol's what?

Julius was lucky far too many times. The Khan was the man.

Who said you can't win a war defenisvely. Ask Hannibal about losing to Rome, and that wasn't even under Caesar. One Roman defeat and they regroup and fight again – that was decdidvely proven by history. One good defeat and how quickly would Genghis get a knife in the back?

Hard to say who was the better leader but Caesar had an oiled machine behind him that Genghis did not and no way would the Romans blow up in a civil war until after they sorted out the common enemy.

the mongols were not an "oiled machine"? the did defeat the whole of east asia – including china and korea, both sporting impressive military might. no, the mongols *were* pretty effective.

There seems to be an assumption that the Romans of 50 BCE could somehow, quickly, replace their military system based on heavy infantry – very good, disciplined heavy infantry – with either an equal force of drilled foot archers or one of excellent cavalry.

Those did not exist, and would have had to be recruited and trained from scratch. Unless Caesar was somehow able to get every Cretan archer ever born, there aren't enough bowmen available. And his force of cavalry was so weak – the always-feeble Roman equites having abandoned cavalry service for the joys of commercial riches fifty years before – that he relied on rented Germans and Gauls.

I've read an awful lot about the Late Republican Romans in recent months. There's a lot to admire about their military system (although politically the republic is a disaster waiting to happen). It's a great force, designed for taking on its western enemies. It has real problems dealing with the Parthians. I would have no confidence in its ability to face the Mongols at their prime.

There are lots of other light troops beside Cretans. The Romans had no trouble recruiting lots of light troops for the invasions of the different Persian empires. Lots of light troops in the East. North Africa is full of light cavalry and light infantry too. Balkans has lots of light troops too.

German and Gallic cavalry were not that bad. They charged Parthian heavy cavalry after all. Against light cavalry if they could close, they would win.

The other thing the Romans had was the ability to raise 100s of thousands of heavy infantry. The one advantage of infantry has is that it can dig in, and in the long haul can outpace most cavalry. People just dont understand how easy it is to wear a horse out on campaign. Horses break down alot faster then people think. Most campaigns end with the cavalry on foot or leading their horses more then riding.

The Romans would also control every river. They would have fleets of barges able to move and supply troops. Rivers are highways in the ancient world. Think of all the waterways in Europe that they could use.

Are we assuming, then, that the Romans have a significant time to rebuild their whole military system before the Mongols arrive?

I'm just not convinced.

The most effective infantry force to face a vast army of light horse archers is probably a mix of heavy spearmen and close order archers, with some light archers or slingers – missile troops who can outrange the mounted bows. Most ancient light infantry are javelineers, whose weapons are short-ranged. Indeed, most ancient light cavalry in the western world are javelin armed. This does not add up to a potent combination to face a large army of horse archers.

As to Doug's thoughts about cavalry horses breaking down on campaign, I'd agree. The Mongols certainly agreed. That's why they had many, many spare horses for each rider.

Again, I admire the Roman army of Caesar's era. It was very well calculated to face the enemies it had. It was not designed to face the Mongols, for obvious reasons, and would have been forced into a very restricted defensive posture by them. The armies of the later Roman Empire, forced to adapt to the arrival of Germanic and then Hunnic mounted armies, were significantly different in their tactical organization than those of the late Republic.

the same is true the oter way round: the mongols also were rather able to deal with many sorts of enemies – mostly infantry based enemies that is.

Well, Western Europe is like China as it is heavily settled (more so than say the Altai Mtns), lotsa cities with walls, large rivers that warcraft can operate on and so forth. Therefore, if the Mongols did conquer China, they could conquer Western Europe under the Romans.

Old Bear: Hannibal attacked Rome in order to overthrow them, but he failed. The Romans defended for a long time but ultimately went over to the offensive in Spain (destroying any potential reinforcements for Hannibal), then landed an army in North Africa forcing his return to protect the capital. Thus the Romans won by attacking, not defending.

As a matter of interest I looked up Anthony's campaign against the Parthians. Goldsworthy refers to it as a 'heavy defeat' although nowhere near the scale of Crassus' debacle two decades earlier.

the scale however is totally different. europe has no rivers as large as the huanghe or changjiang. also cities of the roman empire were small compared to what song-china had. then the climate is very much different (monsune, winter-summer differences). china has extremely high mountains, and much less area was ever covered by woods than in europe – in the 13th century wood was even really scarce.
the mode of production in china also was different and led to tighter control and a generally more strictly organized economy. it also led to a civilisation that was less warlike, as there was simply more to loose (and it would have taken too much work and time to repair excessive damage, caused by warfare.)
also china was not unified at the time of the mongol conquest. the chinese faced (besides the mongols) also the khitan (qidan) and the jurchen (ruzhen). china had been paying tribute (of course it was not named thus) to nearly everyone for quite some time.

i guess that is a vastly different picture from what europe at cesars time was like.

hwarang,

The oiled machine I was referring to was the political system, not the army. When the pooh hit the fan throughout most parts of Roman history they all pulled together to defeat the common enemy. The Mongols disintegrated pretty quickly as I recall once their great leaders were gone.

I'm not quite sure why people are assuming that the battlefiled would be cavalry friendly. I don't think the Mongols would fair very well in the spine of Italy and as I mentioned before I seriously doubt Genghis would command much loyalty during and uncomfortable retreat back to home turf.

To repeat, it's not the army that would win this conflict, but the civil organisation behind it.

Hi

The huns did well in italy, the huns under belisarius did well in italy, the goths and vandals did well, just why wouldn't the mongols?

Rocky

A few points:

1) It takes a lot of fodder to feed a horse. It takes *A LOT* of fodder to feed many thousands of horses. On the steppes, fodder is relatively plentiful; in Europe (except Hungary), it is not. There's a reason Attila had his capital in the northeast, and the Mongols would encounter much the same issues.

2) The Goths and Vandals in Italy comprised mostly infantry. Likewise the 'Huns' in Italy comprised mostly Goths and Vandals. Any steppe culture wanting to invade Europe will have to do so with an army of auxillaries.

3) Genghis, for those who don't actually know, went into retirement long before his armies achieved most of 'his' conquests. He had many very good generals who managed armies in Persia, China and Russia *simultaneously*.

4) Mongol arrows would go through Roman armour like it was paper. The Romans had this problem with Parthians, Huns, and, if Rumour is to be believed, Han-dynasty Chinese crossbows(!). The best way to make armour proof against compound bows, strangely enough, is to wear layers of silk over and under it. But silk comes along the silk road, and if the Mongols control that…

5) Mongols were not 'light horse archers'. They wore armour, carried swords, and charged home after peppering the enemy with arrows, a doctrine much more similar to Sassanid Asvaran or clibinarii.

6) Assuming the decisive encounter occurred somewhere in Syria or Parthia, the Romans would initially command vastly greater forces. It would, however, be cavalry-friendly country.

My money is on the Mongols winning the fighting. They would, however, lack the logistic ability to do much more than raid into Europe, at least in Caesar's lifetime. Caesar himself would of course write of his hard-fought but eventually overwhelming victories, and return to Rome to celebrate a triumph.

Rocky,

The Huns, Goths, Vandals et al turned up when the Empire was well into its decline. The ruthless determination of the Romans was long gone.

It has of course to be said that this is a particularly dopey discussion anyway, and is probably best left to those stalwarts who thought such a meeting using old WRG rules would somehow be historically significant. ;>)

Hi Old Bear

You realize that some histories of this period would argue that you have confused cause and effect.

But if you want "peak Rome"…try 28,000 romans under Crassis at the fords of Harran versus 10,000 parthians with only 1,000 in armor.

Rocky

Genghis would win.

Reason: by the time they met, Caesar was a 1200 year old pile of lifeless bones.

"Time is measured only to man". In the "game of blood and dust", these things are of no account….

Rocky,

I don't debate that a poor general (Crassus) on grounds of the enemy's choosing hasn't got much of a hope at all, but I wonder how good the Mongols would have been in the mountains of Italy or the forests of Germany?

Hi

You said "ruthless" about romans, not "better general" in your argument. Saying Crassus was "poor" is based on what? His winning the slave war?

I think you are just shifting a lost cause. If this is Mongols versus rome at its peak in some sort of stand up fight, just what would the forests of germany have to do with things.

I can sort of see a problem with the passes. Marius, of course, came to fame by revising his legions and stuffing up a lot of germans where his co-consul could not. But that is an issue where horse archers at range, and cataphract lance makes for a different fight.

If you trust your rules, why not try it? I ran a campaign a while ago by mapping the passes, and allowing gamers running the german invasion AND the romans to play out the situation. It would be easy in "Art of War" to redo the thing. Why not do it yourself!

Rocky

KniazSuvorov: i like your points.
but, in regard to point 1, you can feed horses on lots of stuff… at least for some time. but more important: who said that the mongol army would go anywhere without making sure suppliers would be there? (i can think of no example for that…) they would just know their limits, i guess.

Late Romans where just a ruthless as previous Romans (eye gouging, punitive raids on villages, torture, exploitation). They just had a demographic problem.

One of the great strengths of Rome was the ability to learn from her enemies, and to take the best they had to offer. Imagine the professionalism and might of the Republic that was present in the Army under Caesar being applied to a cavalry based force – in order to counter the mobility of the Mongols?

That would be the Byzantines then?

Why is everyone assuming that Caeser has to be stuck with legions from the late republic?

The question was Caesar vs Khn – not Romans vs Mongols…..

Hi

Why stop there, what if he had a piper cub?

R

And the other guy a Sopwith Camel?? :)

Caesar vs. Khan -- good point, Aloysius. Let's go for a one-on-one cage match, and my money's still on Genghis. Life of hardship, born in the saddle, fire and sword and all that should be more than a match for some skinny effeminate Roman epileptic!