Four Times The Size Of Alexanders Empire

[kennyxx]

Hail Porthnians.I know Ive mentioned it before. But would it be fair to say Alexanders Greatness is based on western ideology. We get different naratives from biased points of view. However I see the history of Ghengis Khan the size of his empire and the amounts of soldiers he could put in the field. The narraters for Khan call him the Greatest Commander ever. And yet som narratives would say Alexander arguably the Greatest.I have heard Michaels argument with the Romans etc but I feel through history were anyone to challenge Alexander as the Greatest indeed its the Khan.Ive discussed Alexander against the khan with a few porthonians and to be honest this one is as close as it gets for me.200 000 plus with a militray genius f of the Khan against 40 000 plus and the genius of Alexander.I know were talking a thousand years difference but after looking at the tactics the battles etc I feel Alexander 1st would not be intimidated and would think of a way to hold the Mongul charge.Unlike the Cavalry charge in the Movie return of the King. could we perhaps understand the cohesion and discipline of the Phalanx and Macedonians could skewr the Monguls to a hault.If he could not then im sure Alexander would be over run. He would have to secure all sides solidly and in no way could he use his own small cavalry numbers against such hoards.Kenny

[Efstathios]

Kenny the macedonians had something that later soldiers,in Khan's era,didnt have.The sarissas.And the sarissas would be deadly to any cavalry charge.Dont forget that Darius had enought cavalry too,but it was almost useless against the phallanx. Khan lost battles.Khan's empire was bigger than Alexander's because it included vast uninhabbited lands and deserts.Alexander didnt even bothered conquering the steppes or north of Scythia because there was nothing there.So Khan's empire wasnt that big.Asia was full of uninhabbited deserted areas,and still is. Let me ask you a question.Was Alexander named Great only for his achievements in the battles?Or for his character also?His generocity?His nobility?His charisma?Did Khan have all these?Could Khan be named Great?I dont think so.Khan was a killing machine.He commited genocides and wiped out entire areas.I dont think he could be named Great.

[Efstathios]

Another thing.Khan new about China.He knew details and how to defeat them.He had plans.And for many other lands that he conquered.Alexander didnt know.After Persia he proceeded without knowing anything of what was ahead.What civilizations were there and how to defeat them.And he did. He truly was a military genious because he improvised in everything that he did from a point on.He adapted to every tactic nessesary in order to win.He studied the moves and tacticts of his opponents during battle.If he could just move on he would have conquered the whole world.Because he had the whole persian army as a backup.He could summon over 300.000 troops if he wanted.But i dont think that would be necessary.When he decided to go back he already had 120.000 troops with him.He could defeat the rest of the 250.000 Indians and move on to China. In China,i dont know what would have happened.But still i dont think that he would find a difficulty.The chinese empire was not as powerfull as it was 400 years later.After that he would reach the ocean and go back.Then Arabia.Then Rome.Then Gaul and Germany,Britain,and then what?Maybe Scandinavia too.At that point his empire and his army would be huge.Maybe the vikings would tell him that there is another continent beyond the ocean and tell him how they reached there,shore to shore.And then America. But Alexander didnt do all these things.And you know why?Because he listened at his soldier's voices.To go back.And he did.He could have carried on with his Persian troops and his newly arrivals from Macedonia.But he didnt.He went back with his "palaimaxoi",his soldiers.The old guard.That's why he is Great.

[Jim A]

Hail Kenny , Interesting topic.Though in some cases the great Khan had far less then 200,000 men.While Genghis gathered his forces in Persia and Armenia, a detached force of 20,000 troops, The Mongols destroyed Georgian crusaders, sacked the Genoese trade-fortress of Kaffa in Crimea, and stayed the winter near the Black Sea.Heading home, Mongols assaulted the Kipchaks and were intercepted by the allied troops of Mstislav the Bold of Halych and Mstislav III of Kiev, along with about 80,000 Kievan Rus'. However here is the key differnce.Genghis's main tactics were a lightly armed fast moving Cavalry that could kill from a distance.In addition the ability to to quickly use deceptive tactics such as a quick fake retreat and use other tactics such as un manned horses to give the appearence of greater numbers as an intimidation tactic. Could ATG' Army could withstand the arrows and get in close range and use their sarrisa and heavy cavalry shock troops ? might be tough on the Asian Steppes were mobility is a big advantage.However ATG was pretty good at picking spots for battle that
were suited for his Army.In a terraine with limited mobility ATG would probably have an advantage.Keep in mind that the Persian usually had a big advantage in cavalry over ATG though granted not with same tactical use as Ghengis

[kennyxx]

Atha Hail Alexander was called Great by the Romans and we must say the all round abilities makes him Great. But as Alexander is great to the west be in no doubt the Khan is Great to the Eastern Stepps.Ghengis although very savage also had the abilities to adapt learn and create military stratagem. He also realised the importance of information etc. Although very vicious he was very clever and astute. Its fair to say the Persian forces against Alexander were not the calibre of the mongul horsemen nor as commited to the leader nor as skilled. Monguls were reared in the saddle.Jim im inclined to agree with your mongul attacks. Im pretty sure Alexander wouldnt be so silly to break formation nor the infantry amss to chase any mongul feint. Maybe the weakness for the Khan would be inferior or lesser infantry. Ok hit and run tactics but to hit and run against walls off Sarisas and Roman legions would not really tell.Hit and run to make holes or gaps for infantry assault.Jim the narratives and histories does say the Khan did indeed have in excess 200 000 troops under his command a force he unleashed once the silly Persians sent the Khans emisaries head to him.The Khan also known for atrocities he gave apponents the opportunity to yield. then if they didnt they got far worse than the Thebans butcherder to the last.Although I call for Alexander he would have had to have reall balls seeing those hoards heading towards you with there terrifying reputaion.But As Andrew Felando once said to me if Alexanders fronts on all sides were solid then it would be Mongul kebab.kenny

[kennyxx]

Atha Hail Alexander was called Great by the Romans and we must say the all round abilities makes him Great. But as Alexander is great to the west be in no doubt the Khan is Great to the Eastern Stepps.Ghengis although very savage also had the abilities to adapt learn and create military stratagem. He also realised the importance of information etc. Although very vicious he was very clever and astute. Its fair to say the Persian forces against Alexander were not the calibre of the mongul horsemen nor as commited to the leader nor as skilled. Monguls were reared in the saddle.Jim im inclined to agree with your mongul attacks. Im pretty sure Alexander wouldnt be so silly to break formation nor the infantry amss to chase any mongul feint. Maybe the weakness for the Khan would be inferior or lesser infantry. Ok hit and run tactics but to hit and run against walls off Sarisas and Roman legions would not really tell.Hit and run to make holes or gaps for infantry assault.Jim the narratives and histories does say the Khan did indeed have in excess 200 000 troops under his command a force he unleashed once the silly Persians sent the Khans emisaries head to him.The Khan also known for atrocities he gave apponents the opportunity to yield. then if they didnt they got far worse than the Thebans butchered to the last.Although I call for Alexander he would have had to have reall balls seeing those hoards heading towards you with there terrifying reputaion.But As Andrew Felando once said to me if Alexanders fronts on all sides were solid then it would be Mongul kebab.kenny

[Cockroach]

So we have the standard European Heavy Infantry-Heavy Cavalry combo vs. massed Light Cavalry.
As usual in this case it comes down to the issue of can the European commander (in this case Alexander III:
1. Keep his forces in order
2. Keep his flanks secure
3. Protect his baggage trainIn other words providing Alexander gets the choice of Battlefields he should be able to hold.Also while I notice someone stated that Gengins Khan had 200,000 men. I would guess that this is probably broken up into several smaller detatchments i.e. any battle would probably be 20-40,000 Macedoninians vs. 50-100,000 Mongols.

[Jim A]

Kenny ,the closest ATG Army came to a force like Genghis Khan (asian steppes type of army)was the campaingn against the Sythians.The Sythians ( though not the caliber of Genghis Army ) used similar tactics.Fast moving cavalry that could fire on the move and use speed and mobility. Intresting description on how ATG defeated the Sythians. The first way is to trap the enemy on ground that prevented mobility. However, the Scythians were unlikely to fall into this trap. The second solution was to create a situation where the enemy was trapped by the maneuver of forces in a way that restricted mobility. Alexander chose this solution. To do this, Alexander sent a small force of vulnerable calvary forward against the Scythians. The Scythians quickly began to swarm on this small force by riding around them in a circle and pelting them with arrows. While this "bait" was engaged, he moved forward light missile infantry as a screen to his maneuvers. Behind the screen, he moved his remaining calvary in three columns (left wing, center, and right wing) to positions that would allow him to trap a segment of the encircling Scythians between the calvary "bait" and his main force. Once positioned, he charged forward, springing the trap. A large segment of the Scythians were thereby trapped, where they were either cut down or captured. The result of this action quickly resulted in the capitulation of the Scythians. The reason was that their tactics had been defeated. Without an ability to attack with success, they were without recourse