AnimeSuki Forums

NoemiChan · 2011-01-03, 22:22

What happens if the armies of the ancients meet and fought each other? Who do you think will prevail? Let's put it this way, Romans versus Chinese, who will win? Alexander the Great of Macedonia versus Liu Bei of the Three Kingdoms, who's strategy would prevail? How about Julius Caesar's?

Argument is open!!! STrickly for the ancients!!!!

Master_Yoma · 2011-01-03, 22:31

I got to go with Mongolian army here Genghis Khan is just such a great leader

Hooves · 2011-01-03, 22:35

Hmm, thinking of who would be the world's best army.

Hard to make a decision on who would be the best leader out of all that I learned about. So I can only join in arguments of who is better then who

So many great leaders to think.

NoemiChan · 2011-01-03, 22:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Master_Yoma

I got to go with Mongolian army here Genghis Khan is just such a great leader

They can be wipe out by Alexander if his "phalanx formation" is conscern.

JRendell · 2011-01-03, 22:53

The Mongolians would just ride around them firing arrows into their midst. Sooner or later the formation will fail.

NoemiChan · 2011-01-03, 22:56

Yes, your right there. How about the Qin Army where their art of archer is famous?

Flinch · 2011-01-03, 22:57

Not really. Parthian Tactics proved to slaughtered Roman Legions. Atilla the Hun used them against a Roman Legion, which outnumbered him at least 5 to 1, with startling effectiveness. The Mongolians also used Parthian Tactics because of the single fact that they worked on formations like the Phalanx. The Phalanx can't actively adapt to something like that, especially when its attack and retreat. To stay in a phalanx, the entire unit must move together, killing mobility. Parthian Tactics, however, offered incredibly maneuverability, and as a result, were extremely effective. Very few armies mastered it, the Huns and the Mongols being two.

TinyRedLeaf · 2011-01-03, 22:57

Heh, for a moment, I thought this would be a discussion about modern-day armies.

In any case, it's actually a bit difficult to compare the effectiveness of a Roman legion against that of, say, a Mongol horde, without discussing the kinds of terrain that either unit would be fighting in. On open fields that favour quick-manoeuvring forces, horse archers would naturally dominate. But if it comes to pitched hand-to-hand fighting, a heavily armoured Roman legion might fare a lot better.

Flinch · 2011-01-03, 22:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

Heh, for a moment, I thought this would be a discussion about modern-day armies.

In any case, it's actually a bit difficult to compare the effectiveness of a Roman legion against that of, say, a Mongol horde, without discussing the kinds of terrain that either unit would be fighting in. On open fields that favour quick-manoeuvring forces, horse archers would naturally dominate. But if it came to pitched hand-to-hand fighting, a heavily armoured Roman legion may fare a lot better.

The Mongols wouldn't dismount, but if they did, yeah, only in an open field. However, if it were in a forest, the Mongols would overpower the Romans because they would use a phalanx formation in terrain that it won't work.

NoemiChan · 2011-01-03, 23:02

Would a combine pikemen and archery make a difference in case of fighting Mongols... I remember when I watch "Confucius" during the seige of Lu.

Flinch · 2011-01-03, 23:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by genjichan

Would a combine pikemen and archery make a difference in case of fighting Mongols... I remember when I watch "Confucius" during the seige of Lu.

The Mongols are a very difficult army to defeat, as Parthian Tactics would decimate you in open combat. The easiest way to beat them would be to get them to dismount and have them get isolated. If you retreat into a forest, that tactic would be very effective, even more if you're uphill.

Mr. Wang · 2011-01-03, 23:09

If, Sun Tzu did in fact exist, and and his figure was more wrapped in discoveries that put him more in the light of historical fact, rather than legend, I have no doubt that Wu China would prevail as one of the great contenders for history's greatest armies. And whether he was real or not doesn't matter, as the influence Sun Tzu had on warfare is enough to consider him one of the greatest military strategists of all time... At least in my respective opinion. I would never say anything bad about Genghis Khan or Alexander the Great in comparison to Sun Tzu.

However, I still see the Huns and the Mongols being among the top armies of history, and even then, the Huns were still descendants of Mongols who traveled about in Eastern Europe pillaging and creating their Empire. And... creating the largest Empire in history on the part of the Mongols isn't something to diss either...

Afternoon Tea · 2011-01-03, 23:11

i would say the fight would be very close but the chinese, if they comited to the war would win becuase of sheer man power. it would be close though because of roman technology and armor and disiplin

The problem with the Roman Army is that it was, not entirely, but primarily an infantry force. The armies of Ancient China were much more versatile utilizing a combination of infantry, cavalry and ranged units. One huge reason why the Rome Army was successful is because their enemies were often inferior in terms of training, discipline and equipment. Both armies of Ancient China and Rome, were well-trained, well-disciplined and well-equipped and were the most advanced military at the time. More importantly, Ancient Chinese generals had a reputation for being excellent tacticians and strategists in contrast to their Roman counterparts. With the exception of Caesar, Scipio and Aetius, most Roman generals were inept and only in their position due to family connections. However, during this era the Chinese already had the exam system implemented in their society and Chinese generals were in their position due to merit. If you read about warfare during the Han Dynasty you will find that almost every Chinese general was simply an innovative and brilliant commander.

Catastrophic Roman military disasters such as Teutoburg Forest and Adrianople were due to poor Roman leadership and a failure to fight an enemy who utilized different tactics in different conditions that worked well against infantry formations. Ancient Chinese armies were by far more versatile than the well-trained but nevertheless flawed Roman legions.

On a technological level The Romans were extremely tenacious fighters. I don't care if the Chinese outnumber the Romans or have slightly better weaponry technology in certain areas.... none of this will ever trump the extreme tenacity of the Roman soldier, But still Chinese were probably still a bit more advanced and more innovative than their Roman counterparts. Much of Roman engineering and technology was not Roman but Greek. The Chinese thought about and invented their own technology.

Look at stirrups for example. The modern stirrup was invented by the Chinese for their cavalry. This would've given Chinese horsemen a significant advantage over their Roman counterparts.

The repeating crossbow is another. Crossbows were not seen in Europe until the Middle Ages, but advanced repeating crossbows were used extensivly by Chinese ranged units during the times of the Roman Empire.

Such Chinese inventions (as well as others) which were used extensively in Europe only hundreds of years after the Roman Empire, would've no doubt given the Chinese military a significant advantage over the Romans.

On an individual level, Chinese warriors, especially the elite cavalry were like Samurai. They were excellent fighters. The Roman Army relied too much on discipline. As soon as this discipline was broken, each individual Roman soldier was often no match against an individual enemy in hand-to-hand combat.

The Chinese did not have a navy in this time period, but the Roman navy would not help them invade China. However, the Roman navy would be a great asset for defense against an invading Chinese army. Romans definitely have a defense advantage. Even if the Chinese cut off land access to Africa for the Romans, they could still reinforce their African outposts via their navy and they could organize and orchestrate swift / surprise pincer attack movements.

The only thing I haven't really considered here is distance. A massive Roman army that far away from home would leave the empire vulnerable to invaders.

Lets Go Super Solider Spartans !

Flinch · 2011-01-03, 23:13

One of the best is without a doubt, the Huns. The only reason they lost at Orleans was because they decided to lay siege without the proper supplies. Attila moved his army light and fast, and the logistics of supplies is what bit him in the ass in the end. You can only forage so much for an army of that size. The main reason why they were so effective was they used fear as their main weapon, which turned out to be brutally effective.

NoemiChan · 2011-01-03, 23:14

What can you recommend when fighting Mongols dude??

Mr. Wang · 2011-01-03, 23:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by genjichan

What can you recommend when fighting Mongols dude??

Surrender?

Flinch · 2011-01-03, 23:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by genjichan

What can you recommend when fighting Mongols dude??

Tactical withdraws, sneak attacks, harassment, etc. In short, Guerrilla Tactics. Whenever you fight a superior force, attacking head-on is suicide (almost always). If you can drive down moral, cripple supply lines, the enemy forces will be substantially weaker, and continued use will cause desertion in most armies. In order to do this, though, you need mounted archers of considerable skill. Daring night-raids would be difficult, but have desired results. Open warfare on level ground with Mongols is nothing short of suicide.

NoemiChan · 2011-01-03, 23:31

WOuld overwhelming footed archers make a difference????

JRendell · 2011-01-03, 23:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by genjichan

What can you recommend when fighting Mongols dude??

Stay inside your tall stone walls.

Quote:

Originally Posted by genjichan

WOuld overwhelming footed archers make a difference????

Not against mounted Mongols. Foot archers are better suited to longer ranged targets, rather than fast moving ones.

Flinch · 2011-01-03, 23:48

Walls are no good, if they lay siege. Then again, it comes down to logistics. You can't bring supplies in, and they could intercept any you try (unless you somehow are in a port city like Acre). The only way to stop Parthian Tactics is to fight in a place where they can't use cavalry.

2011-01-03, 22:22	Link #1
NoemiChan Banned Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Philippines Age: 36	World"s Best Ancient Army What happens if the armies of the ancients meet and fought each other? Who do you think will prevail? Let's put it this way, Romans versus Chinese, who will win? Alexander the Great of Macedonia versus Liu Bei of the Three Kingdoms, who's strategy would prevail? How about Julius Caesar's? Argument is open!!! STrickly for the ancients!!!! Last edited by NoemiChan; 2011-01-05 at 00:17.

2011-01-03, 22:31	Link #2
Master_Yoma Nekokota Festival Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Lost in the Fairy Forest	I got to go with Mongolian army here Genghis Khan is just such a great leader __________________

2011-01-03, 22:57	Link #7
Flinch Onii-chan~ Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Einzbern Castle Age: 32	Not really. Parthian Tactics proved to slaughtered Roman Legions. Atilla the Hun used them against a Roman Legion, which outnumbered him at least 5 to 1, with startling effectiveness. The Mongolians also used Parthian Tactics because of the single fact that they worked on formations like the Phalanx. The Phalanx can't actively adapt to something like that, especially when its attack and retreat. To stay in a phalanx, the entire unit must move together, killing mobility. Parthian Tactics, however, offered incredibly maneuverability, and as a result, were extremely effective. Very few armies mastered it, the Huns and the Mongols being two. __________________

2011-01-03, 23:09	Link #12
Mr. Wang Scholar of Yanderes Author Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Haramihama	If, Sun Tzu did in fact exist, and and his figure was more wrapped in discoveries that put him more in the light of historical fact, rather than legend, I have no doubt that Wu China would prevail as one of the great contenders for history's greatest armies. And whether he was real or not doesn't matter, as the influence Sun Tzu had on warfare is enough to consider him one of the greatest military strategists of all time... At least in my respective opinion. I would never say anything bad about Genghis Khan or Alexander the Great in comparison to Sun Tzu. However, I still see the Huns and the Mongols being among the top armies of history, and even then, the Huns were still descendants of Mongols who traveled about in Eastern Europe pillaging and creating their Empire. And... creating the largest Empire in history on the part of the Mongols isn't something to diss either... __________________

2011-01-03, 23:13	Link #14
Flinch Onii-chan~ Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Einzbern Castle Age: 32	One of the best is without a doubt, the Huns. The only reason they lost at Orleans was because they decided to lay siege without the proper supplies. Attila moved his army light and fast, and the logistics of supplies is what bit him in the ass in the end. You can only forage so much for an army of that size. The main reason why they were so effective was they used fear as their main weapon, which turned out to be brutally effective. __________________

2011-01-03, 22:53	Link #5
JRendell Manga Addict Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: England, UK Age: 33	The Mongolians would just ride around them firing arrows into their midst. Sooner or later the formation will fail.

2011-01-03, 22:56	Link #6
NoemiChan Banned Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Philippines Age: 36	Yes, your right there. How about the Qin Army where their art of archer is famous?

2011-01-03, 22:57	Link #8
TinyRedLeaf Moving in circles Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Singapore Age: 49	Heh, for a moment, I thought this would be a discussion about modern-day armies. In any case, it's actually a bit difficult to compare the effectiveness of a Roman legion against that of, say, a Mongol horde, without discussing the kinds of terrain that either unit would be fighting in. On open fields that favour quick-manoeuvring forces, horse archers would naturally dominate. But if it comes to pitched hand-to-hand fighting, a heavily armoured Roman legion might fare a lot better.

2011-01-03, 23:02	Link #10
NoemiChan Banned Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Philippines Age: 36	Would a combine pikemen and archery make a difference in case of fighting Mongols... I remember when I watch "Confucius" during the seige of Lu.

2011-01-03, 23:11	Link #13
Afternoon Tea Senior Member Artist Join Date: Mar 2010	i would say the fight would be very close but the chinese, if they comited to the war would win becuase of sheer man power. it would be close though because of roman technology and armor and disiplin The problem with the Roman Army is that it was, not entirely, but primarily an infantry force. The armies of Ancient China were much more versatile utilizing a combination of infantry, cavalry and ranged units. One huge reason why the Rome Army was successful is because their enemies were often inferior in terms of training, discipline and equipment. Both armies of Ancient China and Rome, were well-trained, well-disciplined and well-equipped and were the most advanced military at the time. More importantly, Ancient Chinese generals had a reputation for being excellent tacticians and strategists in contrast to their Roman counterparts. With the exception of Caesar, Scipio and Aetius, most Roman generals were inept and only in their position due to family connections. However, during this era the Chinese already had the exam system implemented in their society and Chinese generals were in their position due to merit. If you read about warfare during the Han Dynasty you will find that almost every Chinese general was simply an innovative and brilliant commander. Catastrophic Roman military disasters such as Teutoburg Forest and Adrianople were due to poor Roman leadership and a failure to fight an enemy who utilized different tactics in different conditions that worked well against infantry formations. Ancient Chinese armies were by far more versatile than the well-trained but nevertheless flawed Roman legions. On a technological level The Romans were extremely tenacious fighters. I don't care if the Chinese outnumber the Romans or have slightly better weaponry technology in certain areas.... none of this will ever trump the extreme tenacity of the Roman soldier, But still Chinese were probably still a bit more advanced and more innovative than their Roman counterparts. Much of Roman engineering and technology was not Roman but Greek. The Chinese thought about and invented their own technology. Look at stirrups for example. The modern stirrup was invented by the Chinese for their cavalry. This would've given Chinese horsemen a significant advantage over their Roman counterparts. The repeating crossbow is another. Crossbows were not seen in Europe until the Middle Ages, but advanced repeating crossbows were used extensivly by Chinese ranged units during the times of the Roman Empire. Such Chinese inventions (as well as others) which were used extensively in Europe only hundreds of years after the Roman Empire, would've no doubt given the Chinese military a significant advantage over the Romans. On an individual level, Chinese warriors, especially the elite cavalry were like Samurai. They were excellent fighters. The Roman Army relied too much on discipline. As soon as this discipline was broken, each individual Roman soldier was often no match against an individual enemy in hand-to-hand combat. The Chinese did not have a navy in this time period, but the Roman navy would not help them invade China. However, the Roman navy would be a great asset for defense against an invading Chinese army. Romans definitely have a defense advantage. Even if the Chinese cut off land access to Africa for the Romans, they could still reinforce their African outposts via their navy and they could organize and orchestrate swift / surprise pincer attack movements. The only thing I haven't really considered here is distance. A massive Roman army that far away from home would leave the empire vulnerable to invaders. Lets Go Super Solider Spartans !

2011-01-03, 23:14	Link #15
NoemiChan Banned Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Philippines Age: 36	What can you recommend when fighting Mongols dude??

2011-01-03, 23:31	Link #18
NoemiChan Banned Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Philippines Age: 36	WOuld overwhelming footed archers make a difference????

2011-01-03, 23:48	Link #20
Flinch Onii-chan~ Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Einzbern Castle Age: 32	Walls are no good, if they lay siege. Then again, it comes down to logistics. You can't bring supplies in, and they could intercept any you try (unless you somehow are in a port city like Acre). The only way to stop Parthian Tactics is to fight in a place where they can't use cavalry. __________________