The Instigator
Pro (for)
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
10 Points

Army War: Pre-gunpowder

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/23/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,868 times Debate No: 12403
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (22)
Votes (3)




Thank you in advance to whoever accepts this debate the rules are as follows,
We are each alloted an army with a total of 31 people
You may choose one Commander
You then choose five Captains
Each Captain heads a group of five soldiers

The Commander and Captains must be specific warriors or leaders i.e. Julius Caesar or King David
Note: Figures of uncertain reality are allowed provided they are attributed no powers beyond those of normal men i.e. King Arthur or Paris of Troy

You then choose five groups of five soldiers each and who their Captain is, so each soldier is chosen as a single unit that contains all people of a certain type
The Soldiers are of general category i.e. Roman Legionnaire or Knight

In this debate all those involved are not allowed to posses gunpowder or beyond technologies (so no Spetnaz or Israeli Commando)
Also all people posses only what they carry on their person so you can choose a Carthaginian elephant handler but he can't have his elephant with him

In this debate all combat will take place on a flat grassy field that is 500 x 500 feet

Finally each side are allowed to overlap soldiers but not Commanders or Captains so both sides can have Celtic Woad Warriors but only one side can have William Wallace

The Debate will proceed as follows
Round 1:Acceptance of Debate and terms and each side will choose their commander and 2 Captains
Round 2: Last 3 Captains are chosen and each squad of soldiers (along with which Captain will lead which squad)
Round 3: Reason you think your side should triumph over your opponents
Round 4:Rebuttal
Round 5:Rebuttal and no new arguments are allowed

Voters will give the most reliable sources and most convincing arguments vote to who they think would win conduct will go to whoever they felt conducted themselves better and as for grammar and spelling I ain't not thinking that something that be worth voting on anyway

My Commander
Alexander the Great 356 BC-323 BC Macedonia
Alexander the Great became King of Macedon and quickly seized all power in Greece he then led his armies against the far more numerous armies of Persia, he won many stunning military victories against overwhelming odds and conquered the whole of the Persian empire and Egypt he then conquered a considerable amount of India, he then died of fever at age 32
Equipment: Bronze helmet and breastplate, 21 foot long pike, Concave circular wood and bronze shield, Iron short sword

William Wallace:1270 AD-1305 AD Scotland
Born in Scotland he was one of the tallest men of his time (6 and a half feet tall) he spent his entire life fighting occupying English forces, he won national acclaim and knighthood when he triumphed over a far superior English force at the battle of Stirling, he then fought an English force of about 90,000 and far technologically superior he lost then resigned knighthood, he then spent the rest of his life continuing to fight the English until he was betrayed by a Scottish Knight and executed by Edward Longshanks
Equipment: A longsword (meter and a half long) probably iron, leather and cloth armor

King Leonidas: Mid or late 500's BC- 480 BC Sparta on the Peloponnese of Greece
Little is known of King Leonidas however what is known is that he led a heroic last stand against the invading Persian forces of Xerxes at the Battle of Thermoplye he did this possibly with the knowledge he would perish however he never surrendered and managed to hold off an overwhelming Persian force for 3 days

I look forward to my opponents arguments
(if you have any questions just ask)


I thank my opponent for this debate. It should be a lot of fun!


Genghis Khan 1162 AD-1227 AD Mongolian
He founded the Mongol Empire by uniting nomadic tribes of northeast Asia, and then started the Mongol invasions of Kara-Khitan Khanate, Caucasus, Khwarezmid Empire, Western Xia and Jin dynasties. His military tactics and organization are often regarded as the first "modern" system, and it is with such great tactics that Genghis Khan made the Mongol Empire the largest contiguous empire in history. In less than 25 years, he conquered more land and people than the Romans had in 400 years.

First two captains:

Hannibal Barca 248 BC - 182 BC
Hannibal Barca is the most famous of the three Carthaginian military leaders known as Hannibal. Hannibal Barca famously led his forces -- including elephants -- across the Alps and into Rome, where he terrorized Roman forces during the Second Punic War. Hannibal led his forces in a daring overland campaign in 218 B.C., rather than challenge Roman forces on the Mediterranean. By 211 B.C. he had marched on Rome and had early success, but ultimately found it difficult to maintain control and was forced to withdraw and negotiate peace. The historian Theodore Ayrault Dodge nicknamed Hannibal the "father of strategy" for his habit of outwitting and outflanking the more powerful Romans, and because the Romans eventually adopted many of his tactics.

Maximus Decimus Meridius
Maximus is a fictional character in the film Gladiator. He is the General of the Roman army, and is about to be given reigning authority over Rome when, in a palace coup, he is ordered to be executed. He amazingly escapes execution, but is then sold into slavery and becomes a gladiator. Maximus overcomes overwhelming odds by organizing the slaves/gladiators into brilliant tactical formations to win game after game. He wins multiple gladiator games that are staged to make him lose, demonstrating his remarkable understanding of battle and ability to react quickly to situations.
Debate Round No. 1


This shall be interesting

the rest of my captains are
Achilles: Unknown Greece
Achilles was a the greatest (and most handsome) Greek warrior at the Siege of Troy he was rumored to be invincible his only weak spot being his heel, he captured over 23 Trojan towns during the Siege of Troy and once killed a man by punching him in the face, Achilles was eventually killed by Paris of Troy
Equipment:A spear to large for any other many at the Siege of Troy to carry, a short sword, cuirass, greaves, helmet and shield (all likely bronze)

Robin Hood: Unknown England
Robin Hood was an English folk hero who was famous for stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, he was an excellent archer and was rumored to have once split his opponent's arrow in an archery contest
Equipment: English Longbow, Short bow and arrows, Staff, Woolen Green Armour

William Tell: Late 15th Century AD-1354 AD Switzerland
William Tell is a Swiss national hero and the world's most renowned expert marksman. When William refused to pay proper respect to a noble he was forced to shoot an apple off of his sons head, if he made the shot he would be set free, he cleanly cut the apple however the nobleman asked why he had brought two arrows William replied, in case I missed I would shoot you. The Nobleman then had William rearrested in anger, but William escaped and when the Nobleman came looking for him he killed him with a crossbow as well. William then lead a resistance against a forgein dynasty in charge of Switzerland. William died in 1354 AD trying to save a drowning child from a river
Equipment:Crossbow and bolts all made from steel and wood, Cloth armor

Captain: William Wallace
1st Squad:Celtic Warriors Pre-Roman - Medievalty Originally part of France and the whole British Isles, after Roman conquest Ireland and Scotland
Were incredibly fearsome warriors that at one point controlled the better part of France and Britain, and was one of the largest threats to the Roman Empire, they were consider crude uncivilized barbarians. There warriors often fell into a state of blood lust in or in anticipation to battle.
Equipment: 80cm longsword there is debate over what metal Celtic implements were made from as they seem to have many properties of Steel, however in this debate it will be considered very high quality Iron, meter tall oval shields made of wood and reinforced metal, often times the only armor a Celtic warrior would wear would be pigment from the woad plant which they painted themselves blue with in order to strike fear into their opponents, as such they often went into battle near or completely naked

King Leonidas (Note I forgot to include the Equipment of Leonidas however it is identical to that of other Spartan warriors if fancier)
2nd Squad: Spartan Armored Hoplites
Spartans were a strictly warrior people and considered the epitome of a Military State. At birth Spartans took all children that were weak or deformed and killed them, at age seven a Spartan boy was taken from his family to be raised in a communal school whose first and foremost priority was to train the boy for war, from age 20 to 30 a Spartan was part of the active Spartan forces. So basically from age 7 to 30 the most important thing in a Spartans life was war. There is only one account of a Spartan force surrendering, and in the famous battle of Thermopylae 300 Spartans single handedly held back over a million Persians knowing they would die in the end.
Equipment: Bronze cuirass, head and leg pads (also bronze), round bronze shield, bronze tipped spear of about 7-9 feet long with a bronze point at the bottom, bronze short sword, and a totally bad A red cape

William Tell
3rd Squad:English Longbow men: Early 13th - Late 16th Century AD England and Wales
The English Longbow men allowed England to dominate warfare for the better part of 300 years, they were often fired en masse at an enemy, with devastating results. The average archer was expected to get off 10 shots a minute.
Equipment: English Longbow, 5-7 feet long with a draw wieght 80-120 lbs, distance 270-300 feet, 80 feet accuracy. 72 arrows made from 3 feet long and steel tipped. Armor conical steel helmet and stiffened leather held together with metal rivets. A small round wooden buckler and short dagger

Robin Hood
4th Squad:English Longbow men: (See above)

5th Squad: Assyrian Infantry
The Assyrian are a people who have been fighting since the dawn of man and their descendent's continue to fight, they are a people who have waged wars all the way back to their ancestors. They occupied what is now modern day Iran, they are considered the Rome of the middle east of their time, they established the longest lasting and largest empire assembled prior to the Babylonians. Legends of their cruelty and sadism alone were often enough to get the inhabitants of a city to surrender, however the Assyrians still possessed one of the most powerful armies of all times
Equipment: Short iron sword, sturdy Leather boots, Iron conical helmet with ear flaps, light iron plate mail cuirass.

That is my army in all its splendor and glory I still look forward to an exciting debate between my opponent and I


First, I'd like to tell my opponent that I doubt the English Longbow men carried 72 arrows with them; according to this source, it was 24 [1]. Since I will also be choosing soldiers with arrows, I am happy to allow 72 arrows. I just am not sure it is accurate. I ask my opponent for his source on the issue, and if his source is reliable, then I will gladly accept this number and also use it for my soldiers who use a bow and arrow.

Now, the equipment of my first three picks:

Equipment of Genghis Khan: metal helmet, Mongol armor with Chinese silk backing, Mongolian recurved bow with quiver and arrows (with a draw weight of 166 pounds, it could shoot a distance of 500 meters), scimitar, lance

Equipment of Hannibal Barca: montefortino helmet, lorica hamata, gladius (approximately 80 cm, 68 cm blade)

Equipment of Maximus Decimus Meridius: imperial helmet, lorica segmentata, greaves, scutum, hasta, gladius

My last 3 captains:

Miyamoto Musashi
A japanese swordsmen and samurai, he founded the Hyōhō Niten Ichi-ryū or Niten-ryū style of swordsmanship and is the author of The Book of Five Rings, a book on strategy, tactics, and philosophy that is still studied today. He is considered one of the greatest swordsmen and samurai ever, and retired undefeated, having won over 60 duels undefeated. He also participated in the wars between Toyotomi and the Tokugawa.
Equipment: long katana, wakizashi short sword, o-yoroi armor, yumi (japanese longbow) with arrows, armor-piercing dagger

Richard I of England (Richard the Lionheart) 1157 AD - 1199 AD
King of England, he was commanding an army by the age of 16. He led the Third Crusade and scored considerable victories against Saladin. It is said that he spent no more than 10 months in total of his 10 year reign within England. His passion for war, and having an outstanding understanding as a military engineer he wanted nothing more than to fight, and prove his prowess as a warlord. By the time he made King, he was 31 years of age, and he had mastered all the weapons of the day including, sword, shield, lance, bow, crossbow, horse, catapult, tactics, maps and mapping, ships, castle designs, etc.
Equipment: crossbow and bolts, partial-plate mail and helmet, longsword, wooden shield

Sir Edward of Woodstock, aka, The Black Prince
An exceptional military leader and popular during his life, Edward died one year before his father and thus never ruled as king (becoming the first English Prince of Wales to suffer that fate). In 1348 founded the Knightly Order of the Garter, and became their first knight. It was supposedly a return to the knightly ideal of chivalry, but on the battlefield, Edward demonstrated pragmatism over chivalry via the massed use of infantry strongholds, dismounted men at arms, longbowmen, and flank attacks he used.
Equipment: his signature black armor and helmet and sword as can be seen here [2].

Soldiers and Captains:

Hannibal Barca:
Mongol Warrior -- same equipment as Genghis Khan

Maximus Decimus Meridius
Roman Legionnaire -- same equipment as Maximus

Miyamoto Musashi
Japanese samurai -- same equipment as Miyamoto Musashi

Richard I
Teutonic Knights from around 1400
They were a German Roman Catholic religious order that also served as a crusading military order during the Middle Ages. Membership was always small. In 1407 the Teutonic Order reached its greatest territorial extent and included the lands of Prussia, Pomerelia, Samogitia, Courland, Livonia, Estonia, Gotland, Dag�, �sel, and the Neumark, pawned by Brandenburg in 1402.
Equipment: two-handed sword, full-plate mail, visored helmet

The Black Prince
English longbow men -- same equipment as my opponent's English longbow men

This is my army, in all its glory and splendor. I look forward to hearing my opponent's arguments. Also, I want to thank my opponent, before things get bloody, for this very fun debate.

Debate Round No. 2


Strikeeagle84015 forfeited this round.


My opponent forfeited his turn and I am not quite sure how to respond to that. In the rules for this debate, we are each supposed to present our arguments in Round 3. Because my opponent has presented no argument, he has given up the opportunity to argue that his army will beat mine. By giving up this opportunity, he has, at least in effect, admitted that there is no argument that supports his claim that his army will beat mine. As such, I see no reason for me to present arguments of my own, in part because the burden of proof is on my opponent first. I wait for the next round to see how my opponent decides to continue this debate.
Debate Round No. 3


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)
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.
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.
There are other plentiful examples of Alexander's impeccable grasp of tactics

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.

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


Dorb forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


My opponent has forfeited last round making it a little more difficult to proceed as no new arguments can be introduced in the last round as I would have no chance to rebut them but I will say what little I can. Most of it is a continuation from what was wanted to say last round until the character limit ran out.

Now lets examine the missile power of each side and there resistance thereof. Now I will be the first to admit that my opponent has more ranged capabilities than my army however my opponent has almost no anti-missile resistance. Only one squad within my opponents army possess any type of shield which is the primary anti arrow weapon of the day. As soon as my bows were in range they would be able to decimate my opponent.
His Teutonic knights are much to slow and as was proved at the battle of Agincourt it doesn't matter how heavily armored you are if you are being shot at with arrows for long enough you will perish.
Now his Mongol warriors are only very lightly armored being primarily weighed down with weapons. They have no real protection and would be reduced to something resembling this in a matter of minutes.
Now his Samurai are moderately well armored and can make reasonably good speed, but the Japanese armor to which he refers has many wholes between the pieces and no major leg protection so although they would probably fare better than the Mongols or Teutons they would still be severely reduced in numbers and capabilities.
Finally the Roman Legionaries. These forces are the possibly the most anti missle troops in reasonable history as they can employ a formation known as Tustedo formation where they form a "tortise" which is virtually immune to archer fire
so the only unit that would not sustain significant causalities is my opponents Roman Legionaries.

Now let us examine my troops.
First my Spartan Hoplites, now Spartan Hoplites were often equipped with large shields and the incredible level of discipline and training would be very capable of using a formation similar to that of the Tustedo formation of the Romans. A foulkon which is where all soldiers would create a impenetrable shield wall that would be almost impossible for arrows to pierce. So my Spartans are near immune to ranged fire.
Next my Celtic Warriors. Now the shields of the Celts are of a large size and the entire body can hide behind one. In addition the arrows can't penetrate it because it is made of wood so most will get stuck in it. Thus the Celts would sustain very light causalities from ranged weapons.
Finally my Assyrians. These would be my forces most vulnerable to ranged fire as they lack incredible shield size or strong shields they may sustain moderate casualties.

So in conclusion in terms of ranged powers.
My opponent has only one unit that has more than half its strength still intact and only one other unit that still is in even moderate fighting condition
I on the other hand have 2/3rds of my force still at almost complete strength and the other only having sustained light casualties.

In summary I have proved in this debate that my forces have completely destroyed my opponents forces and is superior in Range and Melee engagements. My opponent must prove not only that my forces could not beat his but that his forces could beat mine in order to win this debate.


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.


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.

[4] Holland, Tom (2006). Persian Fire: The First World Empire and the Battle for the West.
[7] James, Lawrence (2003). Warrior Race: A History of the British at War
Debate Round No. 5
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Strikeeagle84015 7 years ago
I apologize for the forfeiture of last round I had mostly finished my arguments when I had to leave for a prior engagement that lasted longer than anticipated and as such was unable to post my argument I deeply apologize
Posted by Dorb 7 years ago
I dunno... whatever you think is necessary for your argument.
Posted by Strikeeagle84015 7 years ago
Just out of curiosity what level of detail would you like there to be in describing the conflict between the various personages participating in this battle?
Posted by Strikeeagle84015 7 years ago
In this debate we are rendering his supernatural powers non-existent (invulnerability) and assuming he was just a very great warrior
Basically assume he is the Achilles off of the movie Troy if you have ever seen that
Posted by Dorb 7 years ago
Achilles had supernatural powers.... I don't think that's allowed...
Posted by Strikeeagle84015 7 years ago
I made a mistake on my Assyrian infinity equipment their cuirass are not plate mail but scale mail
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
Hitler was insane. He attacked Russia, for Pete's sake. That would be a bad move, sac8.
Posted by Strikeeagle84015 7 years ago
just put them in next round Dorb and I am cool with Maximus he is bad a
Posted by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
If I had taken this, I would have chosen Napolean as my commander. Or Hitler ;)
Posted by Dorb 7 years ago
Oh, I'm sorry I forgot about equipment. Should I post the equipment next round, or should I put it in the comments here?

As for Maximus, I don't know if he is based off of anyone, but as you said, "uncertain reality." So I assumed he was an acceptable choice.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Grape 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Strikeeagle84015 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by wpfairbanks 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07