[Defiant]

I agree that 30,000 Mongols of AD 1200 would defeat 30,000 Macedonians of BC 330. But they were from two different eras. If Alexander had come across the problem of defeating the Mongols, and lived in an era where the same technology was available to both, I think he would have done it. The armies he defeated and lands he conquered presented even greater challenges in many ways. Defeating the siege at Tyre. Defeating much larger Persian forces several times. The Bactria campaign. Defeating Porus and his elephants. These were absolutely amazing feats.

The Mongols won because no one in their day could come up with a way to counter their speed and maneuverability. If anyone could have come up with a counter strategy (without computers and wargaming), it would have been Alexander.

[Arioch7]

Good reasoning but we can never really know can we?

Alexander had certain tactical elements on his side as well.

"Philips Phalanx" was superior to the Greek Phalanx. We don't say that Thebes and Athens could have stood against Macedonia if they had adopted King Philips tactics.

Interesting post.

Arioch7 out.

[Strategerist]

Well, I have a friend who pointed out that there was no stirrup in Alexander's time, but Mongol armies had them.

Makes a big difference for cavalry, of course.

Again the problem is people are far more familiar with Alexander than Jenghis Khan or the Mongols.

To this day "Horde" is used to designate a multitude of people, when it actually was a (fairly small) Mongol military unit.

The Mongols were outnumbered in basically every battle they ever fought, often by 2 to 1 or 3 to 1. Thing is those defeated tried the PR move of exaggerating the number of Mongols to make their defeats look less bad.

[Doctor Stochastic]

The Mamlukes (Turkish prisoners of Jenjis F. Khan, sold into slavery in Egypt) were able to defeat the Mongols.