Army War: Pre-gunpowder

Sorry that I forfeited my last round. Like my opponent, I had another engagement which prevented me from posting. It is unfortunate, but I do my best here. Anyway, I am sad to see my army so thoroughly misrepresented by Pro. Hopefully I can do it justice; below is my argument. Introduction: My army was chosen with two key points in mind: that there would only be 31 soldiers, and that it was a 500x500 feet flat terrain. Pro has made practically no mention of either of these facts even though they are of central importance. First, there is no place to hide or to take cover; this gives an obvious edge to (the better) archers. Second, notice how little room there is to move around in. Supposing each soldier takes up between 3x3 to 5x5 feet of space, there is only about 150 to 300 square feet left to move in at any given time. This would make any kind of envelopment maneuvers difficult to pull off, and of little effect if pulled off (the fewer the soldiers, the less effect tactics of this kind matter). The small numbers and little space make superior maneuverability practically a non-issue here. Therefore, I chose an army with superior range and melee combat capacity rather than superior maneuverability. Third, the small numbers call for a specific kind of tactics. This is why Alexander is a bad choice for commander. Alexander controlled huge forces and fought huge forces, and his tactics were no doubt brilliant, but he had little to no experience with small numbers like this. On the other hand Genghis Khan, my commander, had experience only with small numbers. Genghis Khan invented the decimal system (considered the beginning of modern tactics), in which his army was broken up into groups of 10, and each group's leader had license to execute their orders in the way they considered best [1]. In this battle, we have groups of 5 instead of 10. The point is, Genghis Khan was used to commanding and organizing small groups exactly like these whereas Alexander mobilized huge numbers (in the thousands). Khan, moreover, had developed a sophisticated system of signaling with his army, and through this, his army was constantly communicating with each other in units and between men [1]. This is another facet of Khan's tactics that lead many to consider him the beginning of modern tactics. Alexander, on the other hand, created formations and sent them in. There was no communication between units and men once a battle began; they were stuck in their formation until the end. Therefore, I give the tactical and organizational edge to Khan in this particular scenario. Khan would have been able to constantly adapt and shift his formations to counter whatever Alexander does, whereas Alexander would have had no system of communications to do the same. Now, the primary tactic Genghis Kahn used was "feigning retreat," "maintaining distance" and "shooting," while allowing the group leaders to make other tactical choices in the event that the enemy forces engaged the group in melee combat [2]. Employing this play between a general strategy and the individual and particular strategy of each group leader, combined with a sophisticated system of communication, is how I believe my army has a tactical edge and ultimately would win this battle, especially given the importance of ranged shooting in the terrain that Pro has given. The Soldiers: Let me begin by addressing the Spartans, as Pro seems to believe they are unbeatable. Pro states that they fought off 1 million Persians; this is a blatant distortion of the facts. According to modern estimates, Spartans fought off 70,000-300,000 Persians with the help of 8,00-11,00 other Greek soldiers in a tactically far superior position [3] [4]. The Spartans were basically the equivalent of any phalanx/hoplite soldier of the time. There is a difference between the stuff of legend and historical fact. In the open battlefield, my archers (Samurai, Mongols, English longbow men (ELBM)) would tear the Spartans apart. In melee combat, the Romans and Teutons would beat the Spartans. It is well documented that Roman Legionnaires won against hoplites when Rome conquered Greece, in part because Romans had superior mobility (contrary to Pro's claims) [5]. The Spartan weapons would not be able to penetrate a Teuton's full-plate mail; it has been documented that "Full plate armour made the wearer virtually impervious to sword blows as well as providing significant protection against arrows [6]." In fact, there is not a single soldier in Pro's army with much chance of penetrating this armor. Further, the armor weighed approximately 45 pounds, on average lighter than the 90 pounds that today's soldiers carry with them [7]. As such, it allows greater mobility than Pro gives it credit for. But again, mobility is not key in this battle, especially since my army's superior technology, more modern training and tactical organization leave Pro little chance. Next, let me address the range of the Mongol bow. From the four websites Pro provides, I have acquired the following quotes: "due to a better design, the Mongol bow has a range of 320 to 350 yards (290 to 320 m) or more, a range longer than that of the longbow (250 yards/225 m)" [7], and "Mongols were extremely skilled with the bow and were said to be able to hit a bird on the wing," and furthermore, the Mongols carried "Quivers containing sixty arrows" [2] [8]. In short, the Mongol warriors are the best archers on this battlefield, having the best range and accuracy, while also carrying more arrows than their counterparts, the ELBM. The point is, my army has a far better capacity for range. While Pro has 2 sets of ELBM, I have 1 set of Mongol warriors (with greater range capacity than Pro's ELBM and more arrows), ELBM, and Samurai (who used a Yumi, the equivalent of a longbow). Unlike Pro's two sets of archers, however, two of my sets are excellent melee soldiers as well. Indeed, as Pro himself notes, my "army seems to be able to use both bows and melee weapons." I chose Mongol warriors and Samurai precisely because they are equally proficient in range and melee, giving my army more flexibility than my opponent. This is the in fact the reason my army would win: in effect, I have greater numbers than my opponent. I have 3 sets of archers while my opponent has 2; I have 4 sets of melee warriors while my opponent has 3. On a flat ground with little room for tactical maneuvers, what becomes of central importance is the capability for range on the battlefield. On that count, my army has the edge, having 3 groups of archers to Pro's 2, and having superior archers to boot. With a commander chosen specifically for this battlefield, with this number of soldiers, my army has a better tactical organization. And with the Mongols and Samurai being able to use both range and melee equally well, my army in effect has greater numbers of ranged and melee fighters than Pro's. With greater numbers, and better quality of technology (armor and weaponry) and training (they are more modern and knew how those before them fought and knew how to counter them), we can conclude that my army would win this battle. And with that, I have run out of room. Thank you, vote Con. [1] http://www.coldsiberia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] Holland, Tom (2006). Persian Fire: The First World Empire and the Battle for the West. [5] http://en.wikipedia.org... [6] http://en.wikipedia.org... [7] James, Lawrence (2003). Warrior Race: A History of the British at War [8] http://www.worldlingo.com... [9] http://en.wikipedia.org...