who would win in a battle out of the spartans and the mongols?

Answer 1

The Mongols were a bunch of "Killers for hire" it's a historical fact they were used by many countries as mercenaries until it went to their heds and they started screwing the people they worked for.
They were nothing more then the begaining of criminals, they wre good horsemen but, it ends there, they couldn't be trusted by anyone and went into obscurity through time. They're ancestors are nothing more then nomads now.

The Spartans on the other hand were ancient and well tuned fighters.
It's a lenglthy explanation, to long for this, you'd have to look it up but, I'll try and cram it.

The Spartan child was given up by the mother at the age of three or four, hardly walking and talking. Illness was not an excuse and being disabled meant death.

The child was tuned all their life for rigorous battle and there were no hold barred, if the child was killed in training, he was though of as not good enough.
By the time the child was about 16 or 17 years old he was sent out too kill a servant or slave, bring the body back without being seen, if he failed, it mean death.

In the Movie "300" there were in fact three hundred Spartans that held off thousands of Turks, both through battle schemes and the way the fought, They of course lost in the end but at a price the Turks would always know, they were the losers, not the Spartans.
I believe it was something like 300 against 25,000 turks.

LJK Look uo your history again, the Mongols never even knew where America was at that time, they never "Became Native Americans"

Answer 2

The Mongols were not Native Americans. What a stupid comment.

These questions don't work because they're separated by 1500 years of history. It's no better than saying who would win between 20th century Americans and 19th century British. Different times, different technology.

However, the Mongols were a mobile force, whereas the Spartans were not. The Mongols were exceptional horseback archers, and could fight the Spartans frmo a distance. They were also far more numerous, and despite Thermopylae, the Mongols would not be as easily overcome as the Persians. It basically comes down to if they fought in the phalanx, the Spartans would win, if they fought in the steppes of Asia, the Mongols would win.

Answer 3

Pitting horse archers against heavy infantry is always a shakey proposition, at best.

If the Mongols could have been brought to bear by the Spartans, they would have been flattened. However, in an open field, the Mongols would have simply circled around them wearing them down.

That means, in an open field without any other considerations, the Mongols had the advantage. Start throwing other considerations, such as taking a city, and the favor swings towards the infantry.

Your best bet is to study the history of the conflicts between the Ancient Rome and Parthia/Sassanid Persian Empire. Romans relied on heavy infantry to provide the backbone of her army. The Parthian/Persians relied on a corps of horse archers and cataphracts. Fighting the Parthians was an extrutiatingly frustrating proposition to the Romans, who could never bring their foes to bear, but equally frustrating for the Parthians, which found the invading Roman army to be a lumbering, unstoppable beast that could only be picked at.

Missile weapons, especially against heavily armored opponents, were not in themselves capable of winning the day, which is why the one-two punch would delivered by the cataphracts.

But on a whole, Parthian horse-archer armies would avoid conflict whenever possible. They were content with harrassing tactics, gradually wearing down the spirit of the invading force until they tired and withdrew. Roman armies would often puncture deep into Persia, even taking the capital Ctesiphon (modern day Baghdad) but it soon found itself isolated as it found itself deep in enemy territory, with it's supply lines under constant attack, and a scorched earth in front of them.

The Russians emulated the ancient Parthians perfectly against Napoleon and the Nazis.

So your question leaves a lot of variables. Do the Mongols have to engage? are they holding ground? Is it the Spartans who are defending? Is there a city involved? What's the terrain like (Mongolian composite bows would have fallen to pieces in the damn European climate) Define clearer parameters, and perhaps we can nail down a superior.

Answer 4

Imagine wearing a breastplate, carrying a large shield and spear, and running after someone on a horse - who's using a bow.

Unless the Spartans could corner the Mongols they'd be utterly defeated - probably without any Mongol casualties.

When the Mongols invaded Europe they remained undefeated - they went home only because of their own internal politics - back in Mongolia.

Of course there's 1500 years between them - more than the gap between the roman legionary and the machine-gun...

Answer 5

(Sense I am not a betting man) I say the Mongols would totally win.

Here are the pros and cons of the Mongols and Spartans:

Spartans:
Pros:
Spartans start training at 7 (and no cowbodoc they did not start at four), the boys were trained and fought until the were thirty, these guys are bred through and through for war.
Each Spartan has had studied a lot and have brilliant minds, therefore each soldier can come up with brilliant solutions instead of being robots that only do what their commanders think.
Their prowess in fighting made them able to hold of one hundred thousand Persians for three days-even though there was only three hundred of them.
Their Phalanxes are very good at keeping enemy Calvary from breaking in.
Large shields that are made of Bronze.

Cons of the Spartans:
Armor is heavy and therefore not letting the owners move very quickly
Tight inflexible phalanxes are really good at breaking through, problem is Mongols don't stay around enough to be broken through.
Spartans do not have Calvary, and the average soldier must walk, therefore making it impossible to follow the Mongols.

Pros of the Mongols:
Each soldier had three to four horses so he can trade mounts.
Every soldier can live off the blood and milk of their horses up to a month.
Every soldier is independent.
Every soldier has the crazy willpower that made the Romans invincible.
Every soldier had no compassionate feelings for their enemies.
Every soldier is undying loyal to their commanders.
Every Mongol can shoot and arrow and hit a man's eye wile on a running horse over 100 meters away.
Mongols have light boiled leather armor instead of heavy bronze.
Mongols have infinite patience.
Mongols are not shamed by retreating for months until the enemies guard's drop
Mongol engineers can make catapults out of trees in no time.
Mongols can travel day and night on their horses, only drinking horse blood and milk and changing mounts.
Mongols can travel over one hundred miles a day.
Mongols have gun powder.

Cons of the Mongols:
If you catch them in a pass or in rocky terrain they can't maneuver.
Without mass amounts of grass the Mongols can't fight.
If the land is really really wet it will destroy their bow strings.
In close quarter combat they are not good at fighting.

If you place the exact same number of Mongols and Spartans on a flat plain the Mongols would ride circles about the Spartans and shoot their arrows and tire the Greeks out. Finally when the Spartans are too tired to keep running around in circles after the horseman the Mongols will charge in and finish them with curved swords and spears, if the Mongols can not beat the Spartans in close quarter combat they either will keep fighting or retreat, thereby forcing the triumphant Greeks into chasing them with will end up the Mongols turning around and.. ya, winning.

So I would say the Mongols have like 95 or 100 percent chance of winning.

Answer 6

Mongols

Answer 7

Just as happened in history, it would all depend on the terrain.

On an open, grassy plain, Mongols were unbeatable. They rode mares who avoided closing with the enemy (unlike stallions, who charged), and they circled at long range and fired arrows from deadly accurate composite bows. Each rider had ten horses (usually) that he rode to exhaustion before changing mounts and continuing the long-range, circling assault. All these horses needed a lot of grass. (The steppes were ideal).

A Spartan-type army could win only in close quarters, in rocky, tiered ground, or in wooded or marshy areas without much fodder (as Romans and Visigoths did vs Huns).

The answer, then, is "it depends". In the end, Mongols were prevented from conquering all of Europe by the immediate terrain, the native foot-based armies choosing their battle areas, and the lack of large, open feeding fields beyond Eastern Europe.

Answer 8

The Mongols would win against the Spartans. They had fast horses and they could swarm in and shoot their arrows from horseback. Those who stood in a line to fight would not have a chance.

Answer 9

definetly the Mongols.... they were incredible marks men and riders, and one of the most vicious armies the world has ever known! Compared to the Mongols, the Spartans were Pikers.

Answer 10

The Mongols, their horsemen and archers would have easily outflanked the less mobile phalanx of the hoplites....