Army War: Pre-gunpowder

I would like to again apologize for my forfeiture of last round, I explained the reason in the comments. However I would like to say that my in this debate there exist no burden of proof and my opponent must show not only that my army could not beat his but that his could beat mine. On last point before I begin my arguments On the issue of number of arrows longbow men were equipped with I rechecked my source and my opponent is correct longbow men only brought 24 war arrows with them to battle although at the height of their fame longbow men would have access to up to 70 arrows but I say we split the difference and equip each archer with 47 arrows however I will let my opponent choose whatever number he would like. Secondly on the subject of the range of Mongol archers I thought 500 meters was a slightly high number (being a third of a mile) and so did some checking and found that although there have been instances of Mongol archers hitting targets up to 500 m away "this was quite a rare occurrence" and the range was more commonly 290-320 meters (similar to that of the longbow) http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.huntingsociety.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.worldlingo.com... With that out of the way let us begin. First let us begin by comparing commanders Genghis Kahn vs Alexander the Great I would be one of the first people to agree that Genghis Kahn was a brilliant strategtician and an excellent leader. I mean he pioneered the art of spying, espionage and assassination. There are very few people in history that have demonstrated a comparable level of strategical sense, however he was not the world's greatest tactician. I will say yes he was quite skilled as a tactician but he was not great. In fact he often times he used the same tactics over and over again and they were quite effective against commanders who had never seen them, but they usually centered around cavalry and horse archers, neither of which are present in this debate. Now just for clarification for those who are not as well versed in the art of war. Strategy is everything up to the point where the armies start marching towards each other, things such as army placement, intelligence, equipment, etc. Tactics is the actual command on the battlefield and the movement of troops, it is where commanders try and make good the advantages given to them by superior strategy, but the two things are separate nonetheless and Alexander the Great demonstrated a better understanding of tactics then did Genghis Kahn. In addition Alexander had more experience commanding infantry than did Genghis Examples are plentiful of Alexander's incomparable grasp of tactics. Battle of Gaugamela Where a force of only 50,000 Macedonian troops overcame and destroyed a force of anywhere from 200,000 to 1 million Persian troops that had innumerable advantages. http://www.historynet.com... Battle of Issus In this great battle Alexander overcame a superior force of 100,000- 600,000 men with only 40,000 only 22,000 of those being a force that could fight on the front lines. http://www.richeast.org... There are other plentiful examples of Alexander's impeccable grasp of tactics Manuvariblity My army has quite and advantage here as my opponent has seen fit to equip his army with every weapon he possibly good as seen in his Samurai's where he has given them a long sword, a short sword, a sharp dagger, a six foot tall bow with arrows, and full armor. This would be quite heavy and burdensome to carry all of these I contend. For further illustration let's classify where each of the units fall in this battle Very Heavy Infantry Teutonic Knights Samurai's (because of the large amount of equipment) Heavy Infantry Spartan Hoplites Roman Legionaries Medium Infantry Mongol Warriors Assyrian Infantry Light Infantry Celtic Warriors As can be seen my opponent has only one unit that can move about with any kind of mobility whereas the rest of his army his slow and heavily weighed down whereas my army has much freedom and ability of movement. I contend my army would be able to run circles around his army. Now this combined with a superior commander would heavily stack the odds in my favor. Melee Soldiers Now my opponent has been fairly amorphous about exactly how he intends to employ his troops as most of his army seems to be able to use both bows and melee weapons, however I will do my best. So dealing with his Mongol Warriors. The Mongol infantry are almost nonexistent and in the few places where they are encountered they are often used as little more than fodder and were incredibly under powered in terms of melee and I contend that any infantry unit in my army could easily destroy my opponents Mongol Warriors Teutonic Knights these soldiers are simply to slow and heavy to effectively compete with my any member of my army. The Celts would run circles around them until they resembled more hamburger than man. The Spartans far outreach the Teuton's with their spears and are more skilled in the art of the sword. The Assyrians are the only people who it would be any contest with due mostly to the slightly superior reach of the Teutonic sword. Samurai: The Samurai would be the most difficult opponent for my forces to overcome because of the strong quality of their swords. When matched against my Assyrians I would concede that my opponent might be able to overcome these soldiers with their samurai due to superior weaponry and more extensive training. With my Celtic Warriors the Samurai would be equally matched, they both posses the same quality of weapons and what my Celts do not have in training is more than made up for by ferocity, this combined with the woad painted bodies would give my Celts a psychological advantage over their Japanese enemies, but this would be quite an even match that could go either way. This brings us to the most interesting match up of them all that of Samurai versus Spartan. This match up was made on the very popular Spike TV show Deadliest Warrior in which the Spartan was declared the victor, so I am using that reference to say that the Spartans would triumph over the Samurai. http://en.wikipedia.org... The final melee battle is that of the Roman Legionnaire. Now I will admit that the Roman Legion's were quite a force to be reckoned with and quite powerful. But when stacked up to the Spartan's at the height of Spartan's glory these Legionnaires are not quite up to par as they would be run through like stuck pigs on the spears of the Spartans and if they were not superior Spartan swordsmanship due to increased training would allow the Spartans to triumph over the Roman Legions. When going against the Celts the Spartans posses an inferior reach but more importantly the Celts have a considerable psychological edge over the Romans because they both coexisted and legends of the Celts and their barbarity were often enough to send a Roman's knees shaking. The Assyrians and Romans are evenly matched as they both have similar levels of training and armament as well as about equal skill levels so this is another one that I say would be a tie. So in to conclude the melee phase out of 12 battles we have 8 Wins for Pro 2 Wins for Con 2 Ties or 50/50 I would've liked to continue with my arguments but I am rapidly approaching character limit and so just would like to present a summary of the round 1. My Commander is superior to that of my opponent's 2. My Commander has the ability to use his superiority of command 3. Less than 17% of the time in a melee contest would my opponent be able to defeat my warriors I now turn the time over to Con