Great little video... demonstrates that with a little planning, you can rule the world.
The Macedonians would have gone down, no doubt about it. The Mongolian cavalry used stirrups, the Macedonian did not.No replies so far. This thread deserve at least one reply.
Question: What happens if Alex the Great had met Genghis Khan?
GK has to find fodder and water for all those ponies in the arrid Middle East. The Macedonians are heavy, close formation infantry and get by with less. And it's unlikely that the Mongs break through an 8-deep pike block.No replies so far. This thread deserve at least one reply.
Question: What happens if Alex the Great had met Genghis Khan?
He's just lucky that Greta Thunberg wasn't around to go on Macedonian CNN and call him out.Warmonger. Alexander the Terrible is a more fitting title.
The Duke was the best of the best. Glad to find a fellow fan.That could be because the armies he fought though bigger
than his were led by not-too-smart generals. The Duke of
Wellington might be the one general who fought enemies
more or less of his match and still managed to remain
undefeated in his entire career.
I don't mean to sound like a total Wehraboo, a Wehreeb? but von Manstein.The Duke was the best of the best. Glad to find a fellow fan.
Apples and oranges.I don't mean to sound like a total Wehraboo, a Wehreeb? but von Manstein.
I mean his boss was a cunt but still
Also not often I can use the term Wehraboo.
The Macedonian Phalanx was effective against shitty opponents like the Persians but against an organized proper army like the Romans, they were soundly defeated ( Battle of Pydna - Wikipedia, Battle of Cynoscephalae - Wikipedia ).GK has to find fodder and water for all those ponies in the arrid Middle East. The Macedonians are heavy, close formation infantry and get by with less. And it's unlikely that the Mongs break through an 8-deep pike block.
The Romans met up against a very different Phalanx than the Persians. Just saying.The Macedonian Phalanx was effective against shitty opponents like the Persians but against an organized proper army like the Romans, they were soundly defeated
Same with the Mongol Empire after Genghis Khan died.Alexander's Empire fell into perpetual civil war after he died,
Yes, I heard about this. Also, the archers operated in teams of two. One to fire the arrow while the other one re-load. I think they were able to fire something like 20 arrows in seconds.The Mongols had an ingenious method of armour. Most of their protective covering was made of leather with a silk shirt underneath. Unlike brittle European iron armour, when an arrow went through it could not perforate the flesh. All they did was twist the silk shirt until the arrow fell out.
If the Romans could have figured out a stable line of succession. Say the 5 good emperors backed up with a large public and cultural commitment. They could have probably lasted to this day and expanded a bit.Edit: Many Empires died due to internal strife and not from external enemies.
Interesting point. The Macedonians relied on their long pikes, which would have been useless against horse archers - and they wore less armour and smaller shields than the Romans.The Macedonian Phalanx was effective against shitty opponents like the Persians but against an organized proper army like the Romans, they were soundly defeated ( Battle of Pydna - Wikipedia, Battle of Cynoscephalae - Wikipedia ).
Had they met, the Mongols would've just showered them with arrows incessantly while keeping their distance until the phalanx broke. Their small round shields and linen armour would not have held up against the barrage.
The water and fodder argument would've applied to the Macedonians and their supply train and cavalry as well.
Visigoths would still have nailed them.If the Romans could have figured out a stable line of succession. Say the 5 good emperors backed up with a large public and cultural commitment. They could have probably lasted to this day and expanded a bit.