If these three empires' army went head to head (assuming same # of men), who would win?

Arnold, he gives new meaning to the phrase "army of one"

Ghenghis Khan, given that he managed to conquer the strongest empires using the least technology and the smallest army in the shortest amount of time.

Khan--because he had a federation starship

Since the romans had a hard time defeating the greek empires/kingdoms one by one, it is most probable that they would have lost if faced with just one empire, which would have had probably a massive army.

Any man who can fire 6000 bullets a film from a machine gun with a belt that looks like it has about 50 in could beat the other 3 hands down ;)

No matter how powerful or not, a numerically-equipment-training inferior army can defeat a much larger-better equipped/trained army if proper tactics and strategy are applied. Think of Cannae.

Great Khan has the most talented army ever.Parthian shot gives Mongols a great advantage against foot soldiers and armoured cavalry.Cavalry couldn't catch them and foot soldiers were useless.Great Khagan of the steppes has the most powerful army ever.

The Governator since the Radioactive monkey is not in the poll.

Ahnold because he can hold two massive machine gun, which would blow a normal man away with its recoil, in each hand.

The Brazilian Army, the most powerful army in history of man kind. :lol:

Seriously, I think it would be the Soviet Army of 1945, the was a superb fighting machine

Depends on the kind of battle. On the open fields, the Mongols.

Actually the Mongols might just win anyway, weren't they generally better equipped/organised?

Mongols would be ahead with more than a thousand years of military devellopment, and would therefore have a huge advantage in most everything, except sieges. And Khan was a good commander.

The Roman army at the time of Caesar, was a superb fighing force, which was able to recover from defeat and learn from it's mistakes. Plus it was ahead of Alexander in tech, which would especially be an advantage during sieges. But Caesar, though he was an able commander, was not as good as Khan or Alexander.

Greece (Macedonians) had the most effective army at it's time, but that dosn't help much when faced against other armies, that were also the best of their time, only much later. I have no doubt that Alexander could have beaten Caesar in a pitched battle though, but the Romans frequently lost battles, only to regroup and learn from their enemies. And win.

Genghis Khan was more than a 1000 years after the Romans and Greeks and had the befit of superior technology (gunpodwer I believe), tactics, and such. If he defeated the Chinese, the mighty Islamic civillizations, Persia etc....I see no reason why the Romans would have fared much better except in the case of their fortifications, dicipline and engineering.

My money is on Khan in the fifth. KO, not points.

Although storealex makes a good point, which silver then just repeated.

Those three empires don't have the tech to destroy a T-800, so my vote goes to the Governator.

Those three empires don't have the tech to destroy a T-800, so my vote goes to the Governator.

All you need is a big boulder, some catapults, and youre fine.

don't forget, arnold is the terminator, and made of metal, so I don't thing arrows or swords could really harm him. so my beloved governor would win hads down.

seriously, I think that khan had the best army, just look at what kind of people he had in it. He had guys who learned how to ride and shoot from a horse almost before they could walk. each and everyone of his men was individualy an amazing horseman compared to anyone else in the world(and modern mongolians still are). Technology wouldn't really matter when you have that kind of skill and speed over your enemies. Temujin had mobility, which is such a great advantage over foot armies, that how good the foot soldiers were would not be much of a factor. The only way it could have been interesting, was if he had fought against another army that was like his, but I can't think of anyone off hand.

don't forget, arnold is the terminator, and made of metal, so I don't thing arrows or swords could really harm him. so my beloved governor would win hads down.

seriously, I think that khan had the best army, just look at what kind of people he had in it. He had guys who learned how to ride and shoot from a horse almost before they could walk. each and everyone of his men was individualy an amazing horseman compared to anyone else in the world(and modern mongolians still are). Technology wouldn't really matter when you have that kind of skill and speed over your enemies. Temujin had mobility, which is such a great advantage over foot armies, that how good the foot soldiers were would not be much of a factor. The only way it could have been interesting, was if he had fought against another army that was like his, but I can't think of anyone off hand.

Temujim fought against similar armies all the time. The Mongols were not the only steppe tribe. :lol:

Arnold, because he had more cheesy one-liners and machine guns than the other three.

Romans were certainly superior over the greeks.

I'd take the mongols over the romans too. They would have literally ride circles around roman legions. In fact, I could be mistaken, but I think there were a number of similarities between Roman infantry in the 1st century, and Chinese infantry in the 12th century, and we all know how mongolian cavalry took care of them.

As for Arnold- he's been a horrible failure as a governor, and as an actor the only part he could play was an emotionless robot.

I like arnold as governor, I think he's trying to do a good job by reforming how the state spends, but people won't let him, because they don't want any of their state funding cut, which needs to happen eventualy if we want to get the state in a good position financialy. He also played a pregnant man in junior, and a kick-ass dad in jingle all the way. BUt that is for another thread.

If these armies of equal strength from the Height of each Empire, the Romans would have killed, superior tactics and better trained troops over all. Alexander in alot of instances got lucky. Khan was just a wack job who didn't care of loses that much, so Rome would have annilated them.

wack job or genius? you seriously underestimate the briliance of khan.

If these armies of equal strength from the Height of each Empire, the Romans would have killed, superior tactics and better trained troops over all. Alexander in alot of instances got lucky. Khan was just a wack job who didn't care of loses that much, so Rome would have annilated them.

Where'd you get that? Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure?

Ghenghis was a brilliant tactician that oversaw ever aspect of his armies down to the small units. He utilized the best military science his age had to offer.

Wouldn't "equal strength" seriously favor the Khan? I mean, he created his empire with almost nothing to start with.

the romans had giant siege engines of doom:evil:

the romans had giant siege engines of doom:evil:

Good luck sieging the Khan's horse army

Nothing could stop the bloodthisty hordes!

The Mongols would just crush the other two with their superior weapons, horses, etc. It wouldn't be a fair fight.

Romans were organised. They could win.
Mongols were bloodthirsty. They could win.
Greeks were...um...tactical? They could win.
The Governator had machine guns. He would win.

But seriously, the Romans with their organisation, discipline, loyalty and temptation for loot and slaves would triumph.

Small point, do the Mongols actually count here? I only say this because I wasn't sure, what with the Mongol's being nomadic, that they actually had an organised, fulltime, military force, which is basically what an army is.

I voted Alexander, since he always seemed to have the tactical and strategic superiority which allowed him to win against larger armies of similar organisation.

Small point, do the Mongols actually count here? I only say this because I wasn't sure, what with the Mongol's being nomadic, that they actually had an organised, fulltime, military force, which is basically what an army is.

I voted Alexander, since he always seemed to have the tactical and strategic superiority which allowed him to win against larger armies of similar organisation.

Mongol army was is the organized in the list. It's a fact. It would wipe out all of the armies in the list.

The Mongol army defeated larger and often relativly smiliar armies, and they defeated them utterly, and many, many times. Mongol army was the most mobile in the battlefield and when it marched. It was metriocratically lead, with the exception of Khan and his relatives. It was extremely well disciplined and organized. It relied on mobility, the enemy often couldn't even catch them and the Mongols shot them from distance with their incredibly effective bows.