81 replies to this topic

[DuncanHead]

Alexander does meet Chinggis in battle, in a recent SF novel - Arthur C Clarke and Stephen Baxter's Time's Eye: A Time Odyssey Book One. Don't expect much historical enlightenment from it, though!

[urofpersia]

Alexander does meet Chinggis in battle, in a recent SF novel - Arthur C Clarke and Stephen Baxter's Time's Eye: A Time Odyssey Book One. Don't expect much historical enlightenment from it, though!

I was intrigued and did a search on Amazon and am posting this small excerpt fromt he review:

http://www.amazon.co...=glance&s=books

As the subtitle indicates, Time's Eye is the first book of a series intended to do for time what 2001 did for space. Does Time's Eye succeed in this goal? No. In 2001, humanity discovers a mysterious monolith on the moon, triggering a signal that astronauts pursue to one of the moons of Jupiter. In Time's Eye, mysterious satellites appear all around the Earth and scramble time, bringing together an ape-woman; twenty- first-century soldiers and astronauts; nineteenth-century British and Indian soldiers; and the armies of Genghis Khan and Alexander the Great. The characters march around in search of other survivors, then clash in epic battle. It's not until the end that the novel returns to the mystery of the tiny, eye-like satellites (and doesn't solve it). In other words, the plot of Time's Eye is a nearly 300-page digression, and 2001 fans expecting exploration of the scientific enigma and examination of the meaning of existence will be disappointed. However, fans of rousing and well-written transtemporal adventure in the tradition of S.M. Stirling's novel Island in the Sea of Time will enjoy Time's Eye. --Cynthia Ward--This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

Unhistorical surely *but* it would be interesting to read Alexander vs G. Khan!

[TMPikachu]

Since I would expect the total annihilation of Alexander's armies, I think the book would dissapoint me.

[ramble]

How to compare the the two? I think try to find which is best strategist. How to decide? I'd say use Sun Tzu Art of War and see which measures up best. What other way would be better?

By this standard, the winner is GK in my view.

[CARDINAL009]

How to compare the the two? I think try to find which is best strategist. How to decide? I'd say use Sun Tzu Art of War and see which measures up best. What other way would be better?

By this standard, the winner is GK in my view.

Q: Do any of you really cares about who wins or loses?

[Boleslaw I]

What do you think the major difference in Macedonian Army led by Alexander and the Mongol Army led by Genghis Khan?

Good documentary about Macedonian army here:

//Part 1

//Part 2

//Part 3

//Part 4

The above links is The Macedonians - Discovery Channel -Ancient Warriors

[Richard Lim]

Alexander's was a "combined arms" army that required skilful deployment and good timing to use effectively. With a heavy infantry core it was also much less mobile that Genghis's army if you mean by that a mainly horse-riding Mongol force (rather than, say, infantry drafted from conquered populations).

Alexander's army would likely never be able to defeat a Mongol horse army of similar or equal size.

On the march, his army's logistical tail and detachments sent out to forage would have been seriously disrupted by raiding Mongol forces.

The Greco-Macedonian cavalry was never numerous enough to have been a significant challenge to their mounted Mongol counterparts. It also did not have the same "shock value" as the later Teutonic knights whom the Mongols defeated.

While the infantry was much more disciplined, it was also a relatively immobile object whose ability to assault (as opposed to defend against) a well commanded mounted foe is virtually nil.

If Genghis had been prevailed upon to face a Greco-Macedonian army on a prepared battlefield, the Mongol army's main challenge would have been to defeat first the opposing cavalry on the wings, perhaps by luring it forward and destroying it piecemeal.

After this has been accomplished the opposing infantry in the center would stand no chance and would likely fall prey eventually to an encircling and harassing enemy esp. if they don't have some good terrain or fortifications to fall back on close by.

I just don't see a scenario of both sides closing head on in their typical battle formations as a likely one... the Mongols might feint such a move but would break off from contact with the phalanxes in the center at least so as to work on the wings.

[Boleslaw I]

But Richard Lim:

The Greco-Macedonian cavalry was never numerous enough to have been a significant challenge to their mounted Mongol counterparts. It also did not have the same "shock value" as the later Teutonic knights whom the Mongols defeated.

While this is generally true, I also pose a new question: assume that the Mongols often outnumbered their foes in battlefield, is this still a sophisticated view toward them? I mean from many books, they said that modern historians looked at the Mongols with another eye. First, they was not that numerous, while it was true that many tribes of the Uyghur did join their army during their Eurasian expansion. I personally think it was the quality that shine the Mongols, not their number.

Ain Jalut against the Mamluk, they were as equal as their counterpart: approximately 20,000 men.

I think this the clearest record from their time. What really concerns me is ancient records often exaggerate the size of an army, caused many difficulties for our modern schollars.

For discipline and structure, both deserved to be called as Architecture Of The Year. The Mongol structure was very impressive to me, nearly the most sophisticated model in the ancient time.

[Richard Lim]

But Richard Lim:
While this is generally true, I also pose a new question: assume that the Mongols often outnumbered their foes in battlefield, is this still a sophisticated view toward them? I mean from many books, they said that modern historians looked at the Mongols with another eye. First, they was not that numerous, while it was true that many tribes of the Uyghur did join their army during their Eurasian expansion. I personally think it was the quality that shine the Mongols, not their number.

Ain Jalut against the Mamluk, they were as equal as their counterpart: approximately 20,000 men.

I think this the clearest record from their time. What really concerns me is ancient records often exaggerate the size of an army, caused many difficulties for our modern schollars.

For discipline and structure, both deserved to be called as Architecture Of The Year. The Mongol structure was very impressive to me, nearly the most sophisticated model in the ancient time.

Your general point is true enough and well taken. But I thought the original premise is rather contrived in the first place so the discussion should proceed on the basis of some assumed parity in numbers (historically of course many of Genghis' armies were larger than Alexander's 30,000-40,000). BTW I think that Mongol detachment that fought at Ain Jalut was a rear guard really so not to be taken as a standard.

[Richard Lim]

For discipline and structure, both deserved to be called as Architecture Of The Year. The Mongol structure was very impressive to me, nearly the most sophisticated model in the ancient time.

Agreed again. In the Mongol case though the decimal system (up to the tümen or 10,000) was already used by other Eurasian steppe empires before. Its design I think was as much for mixing up the nomadic population (detaching them from their old tribal affiliations) and re-galvanising them around a new Mongol identity as for promoting overall military effectiveness.

[Boleslaw I]

Your general point is true enough and well taken. But I thought the original premise is rather contrived in the first place so the discussion should proceed on the basis of some assumed parity in numbers (historically of course many of Genghis' armies were larger than Alexander's 30,000-40,000). BTW I think that Mongol detachment that fought at Ain Jalut was a rear guard really so not to be taken as a standard.

Thanks

The invention of saddle and stirrup in my opinion revolutionised the art of war in both West And East.
Again, the problem with High Medieval and Late Medieval Knights (1200-1450) was that their style in battlefield prefered in close combat, rather maximised mobilisation and harassed the infantry lines of their enemies. In some text that I found in Warsaw museum, the major defeat at Mohi was believed that Hungarian and Teutonic Knights were so inactive in the battlefield, rather they led their foe (The Mongol) enveloped their entire army, thus caused destruction. This battle also gave us a clear insight of how significant missile weapons played in the Mongolian Warfare. I would like to quote from Wikipedia "It is possible that the Hungarians might have had the capability to defend the camp, but sallying was ineffective, and they were terrified by the flaming arrows, resulting in the deaths of many soldiers by the trampling crush of their comrades."

As a figure in contrast to The Mongols, at the age of Alexander The Great, the general warfare was to put strong emphasis upon heavy infantry and close combat, with rigid frontal attack formation (Famous Phalanx) and less concentration upon missile troops. However, after the Greco-Persian War, the Greek did learn how important light and unarmoured infantry troops were and thus they recruited archers, slingers and peltasts.

For particular Peltasts, I think you just have to type in keyword: "Javelin" in Google, you'll see a very detail picture of a typical Peltast:



But I'd like to provide here for other forumers as well.

[Publius]

Comparisons would be difficult since I view Alexander's army as ancient, while I don't believe that Genghis' army was ancient. This time difference, to me, highlights a large difference in tactics made possible by existing technology: the Mongols had stirrups and were capable of a controlled shock offense, especially with the famed horse archers, while Alexander's cavalry lunkered along without stirrups.

Did the Mongol bows (300 yards?) have more range than Alexanders?

Also, the What if Alexander the Great invaded China thread may be of interest, since the comparison mostly deals with a more contemporary (for Alexander) Qin army.

[Boleslaw I]

Comparisons would be difficult since I view Alexander's army as ancient, while I don't believe that Genghis' army was ancient. This time difference, to me, highlights a large difference in tactics made possible by existing technology: the Mongols had stirrups and were capable of a controlled shock offense, especially with the famed horse archers, while Alexander's cavalry lunkered along without stirrups.

Did the Mongol bows (300 yards?) have more range than Alexanders?

Also, the What if Alexander the Great invaded China thread may be of interest, since the comparison mostly deals with a more contemporary (for Alexander) Qin army.

Ha ha! Actually this is what I am predicting someone will speak out. It is a sign of a very, very conscious member. Don't worry Publius, as I explain in the subtitle, no definite conclusion. The major of this thread does not deal with the question: Genghis Khan or Alexander, who stronger, who weaker. It is mainly to show and demonstrate how sharply did Military Warfare and Equipments (Which I am going to say later). Also comparision of these two armies needs an in-depth observation to explain which factors made such a change. It is also my desire to see which aspect between these two armies remain unchanged as well

Thanks for your remind, I'll bear that in mind, don't worry.