who could win in a fight between Ghengis Khan and Attilia

timberlandko..
Many aspects are in a fight. I maintain my point of view.

Cool, but I still figure that the melee fighting style, and the specific face-to-face weaponry of the Huns would give Atilla the edge, even though his forces, for those very reasons, were at disadvantage in manuever warfare. Unlikely we'll ever get a definitive answer though; neither of the principals can be reached for comment.

Head to head? Well, I guessthat would depend. Open Tourny rules? WKF super-point? JKA Shobu Sambon?

I figure a go like that would make an Ultimate Fighting Championship look like a church-group squaredance.

Re: who could win in a fight between Ghengis Khan and Attili



ghengis khan would win because each of his soldiers took at least four horses to battle and they had a clear chain of command

Re: who could win in a fight between Ghengis Khan and Attili


atilla was just as good but the mogols had new weapons such as gunpowder and fire crackers

To begin with, the question is absurd as we can never know for sure who would have won such a battle as these two great men lived centuries apart. As such, they would never have been able to fight. For the sake of argument however, I believe that Ghengis Khan would have probably won as he was a superior strategist and military leader.

Kirk ... he was more a soldier/explorer, where Pickard is more a diplomat.

The question as posed is about an individual fight … no more than that ... no soldiers, no tactics, no military genius involved. To that end, we have to assume that all of the equipment noted (one horse equipped with stirrups, one composite bow, one sword, one dagger, and an equal number of arrows) would be relevant to their particular environment.

Both men where stout warriors capable of handling themselves in individual combat, so let's examine their equipment.

The Mongols rode on Takhi, which where stout, fast, sturdy ponies, used to hardship and privation, but they where not as fast as the European horses available to Attila. However, they had greater stamina, and where capable of living on very little sustenance for extended periods.

The Mongol bow was superior to Attila's European equivalent. It had considerably greater range and more power. Also, it was more compact and thus was easier to deal with, fire from horseback, and was faster to fire, making for considerably more shots in a give time. Mongol arrows where also more accurate and the heads more capable of piercing armor, but our protagonists are devoid of armor (thanks to zman136), so this would be irrelevant if it where not for the equal ease with which they penetrate and shatter bone. One also needs to note that the Mongols perfected ... perfected... horse archery, where the Huns where apt, but certainly preferred close-quartered combat.

The Mongols had few swords that where ethnically their own, but used swords made by cultures around them. Genghis Khan was lucky enough to have excellent Chinese smiths working for him, and so his personal weapon was an exceptional Dadao known for shearing through even the stoutest armors and for easily cutting down man and beast alike. Attila, on the other hand, used a Germanic sword (most likely a leaf bladed sword) that was reminiscent of Nordic swords of the time. While this was an excellent sword, it was actually ill-suited for horse combat: he preferred the use of javelin and spear from horseback, but alas, he's been denied this by zman136 as well. He's stuck with the ill-suited sword.

As to daggers, I really doubt it will come to this, but suffice it to say that Attila would most likely be using a scramasax, which is great for puncturing armor, but not too great at slashing flesh. Conversely, he may be using a Cinqueda, which is great at opening tremendous wounds, but is not that wieldy or fast. Genghis Khan is most likely to be using his Kindjal, which is a curved, braced dagger of considerable slashing and thrusting power, and is very fast and responsive in a practiced hand.

Given all of this, I believe that the two protagonists would be starting at opposite ends of the field. They Might engage one another from a distance with bows. Certainly, this would be the strategy of the Mongol, but the Hun would - judging from his tactical history - prefer to close the distance first, then engage his opponent with the sword. However, Attila realizes his opponent is no idiot and that he has a reputation for the bow, and so opts to engage fro a distance as well. Unfortunately, his bow has a shorter, weaker range, and his arrows are less accurate. Attila, therefore, attempts to close some distance before firing off his first volley. Sad for him, Genghis is chucking in his saddle, as his enemy merely rides into his rather fast and accurate succession of loosed shafts. Attila would most likely loose the fight based on this alone.

However, let's assume that Attila - great horseman that he is - can navigate the field avoiding the hail of arrows coming his way, and is able to let off a few arrows himself. However, we have a stalemate. Genghis Khan is able to ride without his hands, and so is able to navigate the field (avoiding Attila's arrows) while continuing to fire at the now-prone Attila, seated on his horse prone to the fire of his opponent. While it should be clear here that this alone would allow Genghis Khan to prevail, let us assume (for academic purposes) that the arrows are expended without a distinctive advantage on either side.

It now comes down to a test of arms. Each man draws his sword, and attacks the other, but without the protection of armor, the contest really does come down to skill and the trustworthiness of his sword. Again, the Mongol has the advantage, as his sword is of better technological composition and better suited to horseback combat. Likewise, the Mongol is more comfortable using his sword from horseback, where Attila is really wishing he had his spear or his javelins. Remember, he's use to fighting Romans on the ground at close distance - not another mounted warrior, but Genghis Khan is used to fighting virtually every type of soldier on virtually all terrains.

I any case, I really think Genghis Khan would win hands down - he was much better at picking off his opponents at a distance, and was much more ferocious in close-quarter combat. He also had superior arms and had greater stamina. Attila on the other hand, was a great tactician (as was Genghis Khan) but was a better politician and extortionist than face-to-face fighter. He also had to get very close to his opponent before he could get his licks in, and was devoid of the stamina and fortitude that Genghis Khan was legendary for. All in all, Genghis would simply pick him off at a distance, maintain that distance, and wear down his opponent, then slice him down when he was exhausted.

Pull the bows out of the fight, and it would probably be a much harder fight, but you'd also have to exclude the horses to make the fight fair. Add assassins and allow for treachery, and suddenly the scales tip in favor of Attila … but only very slightly.

ok he would womp ass
We all now that Ghengis Khan would win but the question is by how much would he win by......... I think he would womp on his ass so badly u have no idea...... and so thats mit ty for readin!!!

I recommend reading "Atlas of the Year 1000" by John Man.

Re: who could win in a fight between Ghengis Khan and Attili


Chengis Khan spent the first thirty years of his life fighting for survival on the Montolian steppe with just his one brother Kassar and friends and paladins he picked up along the way for assistance while Attilla, if I've read this right, was a sort of a pampered prince who spent much of the time of his early years as a sort of an exchange student in Rome. It doesn't really sound like much of a contest.