Who would win Alexander the Great or Ghengis Khan?

Question

if you know please describe breifly or w/e you like to

Answer 1

Because of military tactics and weaponry I would have to go with Alexander the Great. The hordes tactics would not hold up against the phalanx.
For one of the postings here, Ghengis Khan did NOT have Samurai warriors.
A Cavalry charge is not effective against hoplites. This is a fact.
One of the military strategy scenarios studied in military academies is this actual battle set up. The phalanx verses the cavalry charge. As far as warriors, it wasn't that the Mongols were such great warriors, it was that they were so numerous. They also went up against a lot of primitive people and didn't have a lot of opponents that could effectively fight back. Forget what Hollywood portrays. That is pure fiction. Against Spartans, or a well trained Greek army of hoplites the Mongols would have been decimated. Also, the Greeks had excellent archers as well as some very sophisticated weaponry for their day, such as balistas and scorpions, ( and no I am not talking about the little arachnid.) Greek solders were also better disciplined as warriors.
The phalanx is a very effective formation and is still used today, but in a modern way of course.
Read Tsun Tzu's book " Art of War." It is an excellent book on military strategy and is used in military schools of strategy and tactics and is required reading.

Answer 2

I love Alexander but Genghis Khan would have shredded his army in less than an hour. For one, in Alexander's time, they didn't even have saddles or stirrups on the horses. If Alexander's cavalry had those advancements that didn't come around for many hundreds of years after his time, then things could have gotten interesting.

The fact of the matter is that you just can't compare the two because they're separated by more than a millennia. But, overall, my thoughts are that Genghis Khan was the greater of the two as a strategist, tactician, and overall leader. GK didn't lose his control as Alexander did during their respective latter years. GK planned and executed succession in which his sons and grandsons greatly expanded his empire while Alexander's empire collapsed as soon as he died.

From this perspective alone, GK was the better leader and administrator. Alexander was too reckless and didn't look far enough ahead. Alexander was also supremely driven by his ego who believed himself to be a god. It really is no wonder that his own men rebelled against him numerous times and that there were at least a few assassination attempts. GK sure didn't have that happen against him by his own men.

Answer 3

Number one, I would have to say Alexander. Why? Because no matter how many cavalry you have, a wall of spears would at the very least decimate the cavalry, not to mention that Alexander employed elephants into his armies which are the other bain of cavalry, which was all that Genghis really had. Besides, Alexander would have figured a way to out maneuver and crush the Khan's troops. He had a tendency to do this quite a bit.
Number two, Genghis did not kill everyone he conquered, he only killed those who resisted him, those that surrendered were spared.
Number three, I know this was said several time already, but Genghis was not a samurai, one of his sons decided to try and invade Japan but it failed horribly.

Answer 4

Ghengis Khan. His men *loved* him, and were excellent warriors. Alexander's generals were always bickering with Alexander and fighting amongst themselves.

And to the idiot who said Ghengis Khan was a samurai:
He was MONGOLIAN, you dumbass, not Japanese!

Edit: Actually, Ghengis Khan and his sons controlled more territory than Alexander ever did. And just because some guy was called 'the Great' by his tutor doesn't mean he was actually "great". He was good, but not the best.

Answer 5

Ghengis Khan due to his calvary, whose mobility would defeat the rigid phalanx. Once a phalanx started moving, it couldn't turn around to face a rear threat. The Mongols were only defeated when their calvary could be countered. In Egypt, the Mamluks had better calvary and defeated them. In Vietnam, the Vietnamese withdrew from the cities and fought them in swampy areas or near rivers, bogging down the horses.

Answer 6

Alexander the Great relied on speed.He succeeded because it was a new tactic.The enemy would be looking out for troop mass,support etc.His cut and thrust unit were design to cause havoc and mayhem by their speed and discipline.While the chaos ensured,the main troops had arrived.Ghengis Khan had unrivalled cavlier or Horsemen and because of the size of his Army,he did not need special tactics.I would have to favour Ghengis who would nullify AGs horsemen with his own.

Answer 7

I dunno...

It's kinda like comapring apples to oranges, ya know? Alexander's from the second century, while Khan's from the eleventh...

Wouldn't 1000 years of advance in weapons technology alone give the edge to the Mongols?

Khan was born into a noble family in Mongolia, by the way...he was a great tactician, and a genius at diplomacy and negotiation...but he was NOT a samurai. You would have to look in Japan (several hundred miles east, and across Sea of Japan) to find samurai.

Answer 8

No Human ruled more territory of earth than Alexander the Great. Not even close, Alexander wins.

Answer 9

alexander would. he was a great military leader, hence the name. Khan was good, but not that great the pope talked to him and he left rome and ent back to mongolia. he lso had very little opponents while alexder had big armys to deal with
you dont get named the great for nothing!

Answer 10

Genghis Khan and his Mongolian Cavalries is the greatest Army who ever roamed the Earth
and the reason why He will win against Alexander is because of one thing that Alexander didn't have :
"BLOOD LUST"
Genghis Khan knows no mercy, and he killed EVERYBODY (literally) in every area that he and his Army scourged....