Genghis Khan vs Chandragupta Maurya (Round One)

[bluespirit]

Im still not 1% cconvinced... i agree Genghis was a great General... Great Blah blah... etc etc...
But if he faced Chndragupt ... He would have been trampled over like an ant...

[grognard]

Originally Posted by bluespirit

Im still not 1% cconvinced... i agree Genghis was a great General... Great Blah blah... etc etc...
But if he faced Chndragupt ... He would have been trampled over like an ant...

Considering Genghis and his successors and generals operating without him beat virtually every type of armyin existence, yopu need a much stronger case to support your opinion.

[unbridled]

hello

[unbridled]

i agree with the point of gorgnard "Considering Genghis and his successors and generals operating without him beat virtually every type of armyin existence, you need a much stronger case to support your opinion." but i have a slightly different point over these topic becoz i think Genghis khan is a dominant power in his region also the Chandragupta is dominant power in the Indian sub continent but since they are not able to face each other its better to choose the leader based on there area they control and the enemies they defeat rather than fighting over the topic of which one is best , each of thees general has proved themselves in the battlefield and write there success story.

[grognard]

Originally Posted by unbridled

i agree with the point of gorgnard "Considering Genghis and his successors and generals operating without him beat virtually every type of armyin existence, you need a much stronger case to support your opinion." but i have a slightly different point over these topic becoz i think Genghis khan is a dominant power in his region also the Chandragupta is dominant power in the Indian sub continent but since they are not able to face each other its better to choose the leader based on there area they control and the enemies they defeat rather than fighting over the topic of which one is best , each of thees general has proved themselves in the battlefield and write there success story.

It that case remember Genghis conquered more territory than Chandragupta

[Delenda estRoma]

In that case no Mongol army ever conquered India or defeated its armies.

[Salinator]

Originally Posted by Delenda estRoma

In that case no Mongol army ever conquered India or defeated its armies.

There were so many factions and different regions of "India". The Mongols did conquer and occupy Kashmir, Punjab, and much of what is now Pakistan. What stopped the Mongol invasions was the death of the Great Khan Ogedei. Don't forget that various Indian factions were constantly appealing to Karakorum for help in their wars against each other. The Mongols were the Rome to them. Eventually it even pitted Mongol factions against each other.

[Delenda estRoma]

The fact is India proper was never invaded. Why? Horse archers could not operate well in India and the climate was wrong. Besides the Indian Longbows and elephants and huge numbers of troops.

[grognard]

Originally Posted by Delenda estRoma

In that case no Mongol army ever conquered India or defeated its armies.

Nor did the Indians ever beat the Mongols, neither of which is really the point of this thread. The point is a what if they did meet in battle.

[Delenda estRoma]

Then I go with the Indians with their longbows, huge numbers of men and elephants.

[grognard]

Originally Posted by Delenda estRoma

Then I go with the Indians with their longbows, huge numbers of men and elephants.

Elephants are a two-edged swarod, as others have pointed out, and the long bows are infantry weapons, the horse soldiers can avoid them and hit other parts of the army., eventually wearing down the Indian forces.

[Delenda estRoma]

Elephants weren't used as blunt battering objects but as longbow platforms. They possesed the necessary stirrup to hold the longbow in place. Indian armies have been recorded as having over 6,000 elephants. They also possesed armor and sometimes swords instead of tusks. The Indians had their own light cavalry but the longbow outranged horse archers. Don't forget the Indian infantry either.

[grognard]

Originally Posted by Delenda estRoma

Elephants weren't used as blunt battering objects but as longbow platforms. They possesed the necessary stirrup to hold the longbow in place. Indian armies have been recorded as having over 6,000 elephants. They also possesed armor and sometimes swords instead of tusks. The Indians had their own light cavalry but the longbow outranged horse archers. Don't forget the Indian infantry either.

The horse archers have manuverability, which gives them the advantage.
And, did Changangrupta's armies have thaty numbetr of elephants?

[Delenda estRoma]

That number is from his period. More could be fielded as he gave 500 to Seleucus.

[grognard]

Originally Posted by Delenda estRoma

That number is from his period. More could be fielded as he gave 500 to Seleucus.

Thanks