Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Vote for who you think conquer more lands and became most powerful.

Ghengis Khan

I mean not only was his army five times the size of Alexander The Great's but he was very advanced in the ways he would organise a country.

And you've put him in the poll twice.

Fixed.

Clearly it can only be Caesar, why? because WD's question was quite clear.

In the words of Julius Caesar

I came I saw conquered! However he didn't just conquer large amounts of land, as Khan is famous for, Caesar conquered something even more powerful. The ruling Oligarchs of Rome, and thus Caesar became Most Powerful man in the world. Perhaps he was assassinated by those he had defeated but it is undeniable that for a short time at least he truly conquered and ruled not only territories in Gaul or Britannia. But Julius Caesar conquered the Roman Republic, the largest "empire" in the world in terms of power and trade as well as landmass.

Khan owns.

That contributed how?

why the hell isnt george bush up there?

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
That contributed how?

Hey, don't mess with me, I'm a blackbelt in Origami.

Naplolean. He was a great tactitian, and he new how to keep people happy, even the ones he conquered. Alexander did conquer much Land, But wasn't very powerful, as his empire was run by others while he was away. And Julius Ceaser...WTF? Are you kidding? I sure as hell hope you are.

Originally posted by Ahern
why the hell isnt george bush up there?

What has he conquered?

Originally posted by Bloigen
Hey, don't mess with me, I'm a blackbelt in Origami.


and desperately not funny

Originally posted by Fatal Smoke
Naplolean. He was a great tactitian, and he new how to keep people happy, even the ones he conquered. Alexander did conquer much Land, But wasn't very powerful, as his empire was run by others while he was away. And Julius Ceaser...WTF? Are you kidding? I sure as hell hope you are.

.........................................turn your computer off....now.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
What has he conquered?


IRAQ hahahahahaha




and the rest of the world after tea

I'd have to say Ghengis Khan

Saladin springs to mind...

Alexander the Great deffinitivly, Khan was ruthless beyond any ruthlessness - perhaps thats why he was so successful.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
.........................................turn your computer off....now.
..........................?

Ghengis Khan, Very very hard worker

Originally posted by Ahern
IRAQ hahahahahaha




and the rest of the world after tea

I agree with Milla, Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan definitely come to mind.

Then there's Mortimer Khan...but he's a cartoon character... dodgy

julius Caesar. Unlike the rest of these dopes, his empire lasted.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Saladin springs to mind...

Alexander the Great deffinitivly, Khan was ruthless beyond any ruthlessness - perhaps thats why he was so successful.


Those two are probably the greatest military leaders ever. Which is funny because they were exact opposites.....Saladin was chivalrous, and Khan was a barbarian.

I think that's a bit of a stretch.

Originally posted by Janus Marius
I think that's a bit of a stretch.

How do you figure?

I hope "Los conquistadores" burn in hell for robbing my people!

Both of them were very good, but there were other military leaders who were equally good or better, just not as notable in the grand scheme. For example, this guy here did some wonders. I personally feel that people like Alexander in particular overshadow a lot of very good generals who have a lot less to work with. Alexander did inherit one hell of a position.

Um..Question. Has any of the African natios ever been a world power? Not Arabian and the border ones like Egypt and such, but the more of the core countries.

Hm. There was a pretty large and influential kingdom on the Ivory Coast, and another in the Ethiopia/Kenya/Zimbabwe area, if I recall correctly.

Originally posted by Numan2.0
Um..Question. Has any of the African natios ever been a world power? Not Arabian and the border ones like Egypt and such, but the more of the core countries.
Lybia, I'd say if any. (besides Egypt)

Originally posted by Janus Marius
Both of them were very good, but there were other military leaders who were equally good or better, just not as notable in the grand scheme. For example, this guy here did some wonders. I personally feel that people like Alexander in particular overshadow a lot of very good generals who have a lot less to work with. Alexander did inherit one hell of a position.

Hm...Good post....Most leaders get lost under the fame of others.

On second thought, I agree with Saladin being impressive and chivalrous. I somehow overlooked his name when I read that post.

Interesting topic, but it needs to be a bit more focused. You could have multiple answers and they'd all be right depending on one's criteria.

Are we talking largest land mass conquered? If that's the case, it would be Khan, whose Mongol dynasty covered more land than even Rome in its height.

Greatest conqueror in terms of leadership ability and/or ingenuity? Then I'd go with Napoleon or Alexander, who both revolutionized the way people thought about warfare in their time, and were both highly revered.

Or simply influence and power? Then I'd have to go with some Roman Emperor at the height of Rome's power (probably not Julius). They were certainly the most culturally influential of the great empires of human history.

...there's probably some I'm forgetting, or that haven't been mentioned yet, but it's certainly an interesting discussion by any criteria. Cool thread.

Regarding the question (which really is two part.)

In terms of most land conquered, and power gained, ...you have to give it up to Alexander first. This is where "party lines" were seriously confused. This is where people first realized that "just because we're the same race, doesn't mean we have to be ruled by someone of that race".

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Regarding the question (which really is two part.)

In terms of most land conquered, and power gained, ...you have to give it up to Alexander first. This is where "party lines" were seriously confused. This is where people first realized that "just because we're the same race, doesn't mean we have to be ruled by someone of that race".
It was by option then choice.

Originally posted by Fatal Smoke
It was by option then choice.

I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying.

Perhaps you're saying he gave them a choice. But, that's not really true. There is a clear alternative between force, and peaceful acceptance of reality.

I meant to put: It was more by option than choice.which is what you basically said.

There was no option granted by Alexander. The choices were, either respect the gods that have conquered you, with all due respect to those you worship, or face the consequences. Alexander never said "abandon your gods"! He simply said respect those who have subdued you. And, with such respect comes freedom of religion.

Alexander' s conquests are what have made him admired, vilified, emulated, and studied for over two millennia. He was one of the greatest generals of all time.

"Do you think I have not just cause to weep, when I consider that Alexander at my age had conquered so many nations, and I have all this time done nothing that is memorable?"
- Julius Caesar -

Originally posted by Storm
Alexander' s conquests are what have made him admired, vilified, emulated, and studied for over two millennia. He was one of the greatest generals of all time.

"Do you think I have not just cause to weep, when I consider that Alexander at my age had conquered so many nations, and I have all this time done nothing that is memorable?"
- Julius Caesar -


Also, where did you get that quote from and are any more?

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
There was no option granted by Alexander. The choices were, either respect the gods that have conquered you, with all due respect to those you worship, or face the consequences. Alexander never said "abandon your gods"! He simply said respect those who have subdued you. And, with such respect comes freedom of religion.
That is what I meant. OMG.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness


Also, where did you get that quote from and are any more?
I' m quite familiar with ancient history and anecdotes due to the studies I took.

Originally posted by DigiMark007


Are we talking largest land mass conquered? If that's the case, it would be Khan, whose Mongol dynasty covered more land than even Rome in its height.



You can't pin the achievements of a dynasty on one person, and if you do, the British win the territory race by a lonnnnnnnnnnnnnng way.

As for the greatest Roman Emperor- hard to say, but it was at its greatest extent under Trajan, and maps that show the Roman Empire at its largest part are always called maps of the Roman Empire "under Trajan".

I would say that Ghengis Khan is the greatest conquer in of all history because of the size of his army and his strategies.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
You can't pin the achievements of a dynasty on one person, and if you do, the British win the territory race by a lonnnnnnnnnnnnnng way.

As for the greatest Roman Emperor- hard to say, but it was at its greatest extent under Trajan, and maps that show the Roman Empire at its largest part are always called maps of the Roman Empire "under Trajan".

Dynasty was the wrong word to use...he had most of the land in his own lifetime anyway.

And I thought his was still the largest. England had colonies and territory everywhere, but it was impressive due to how spread out it was. I was under the impression it still wasn't the largest in terms of land mass.

Meh, pseudo-history from half-recollected high school lectures probably isn't the best basis for this stuff anyway....but it would be interesting to see some statistics on this or something.

El Cid is on the poll because he did unified both Moors and Christians to conquer Valencia. That was consider to be impossible to have both Moors and Christian fight in the same side.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Dynasty was the wrong word to use...he had most of the land in his own lifetime anyway.

And I thought his was still the largest. England had colonies and territory everywhere, but it was impressive due to how spread out it was. I was under the impression it still wasn't the largest in terms of land mass.

Meh, pseudo-history from half-recollected high school lectures probably isn't the best basis for this stuff anyway....but it would be interesting to see some statistics on this or something.

The British Empire is the largest that ever was. But it wasn't formed purely out of conquest, so that might be the thing.

Originally posted by Janus Marius
julius Caesar. Unlike the rest of these dopes, his empire lasted.
Thank-you!

I'm gonna go with Ghengis Khan, sure he lost it all fairly swift, but so did Alexander. Never the less he was bold enough to take on the Chinese and the Persians, and all the people in between, quite impressive if you see the size of the conquests on the map from Bulgaria to China that's pretty decent.

And ofcourse he was way way way beyond his time in the organisation of both country and the mongols in general.

I'd have to say Alexander because his empire had the most lastimg impact. Since he spread Hellinism through out a large majority of the known world, there was a great cultural integration like had never been seen before.

Napoleon is getting shated here, without the French Empire, Europe would probalby still be in serfdom, its due to him Europe enteredt eh enlightenment age.

Kahn was good, especially for the Mongols, but I don't see him doing much for the world.

I think Caesar is a horrible if nto the worst option because he did very little conquering. Sure he was successful in Gaul, but a lot of genreals were. He did very little to actually forge an Empire. Most of the work was already done for him by Marisu, Sulla, Crassus, and Pompey. There were Roman dictators before Caesar, he actually did very little. He was just assassinated and made into a play so he's famous.

And why isn't Adolf up there?

Where I went off on you was the assertion that he did "very little to forge an empire". I agree that Marius' reforms helped make things easy for Caesar (And good point), however, you are glossing over his achievements.

For one thing, Caesar's conquest of Gaul was much more permanent than say, Alexander's conquest of parts of Asia Minor. In fact, it was pretty much under control of Rome for the next 400-500 years, if I recall correctly.

Also, Caesar effectively crushed any opposition to his rule- something even Sulla didn't manage with such ease. Marching to Hispania and destroying Pompei's goons, turning around and defeating Pompey despite an almost two to one odds against him. Then the Battle of Zela, where he crushed Pharnaces, the victory over Mettelus and Cato the Younger, and then over Pompey's sons... I mean, he really mopped up and stablized an empire, willing everything to Octavian.

You know, I'm surprised no one picked Qin Shi Huang; he only conquered and solidified what we now call China.

Originally posted by Janus Marius
You know, I'm surprised no one picked Qin Shi Huang; he only conquered and solidified what we now call China.

The Ultimate Unifier.....In my eyes, he was a brilliant tactician: Taking his time taking out the less powerful states, then going after Qi last.

Outside of China, I don't see him as that much of a powerful conqueror however.

It really depends on what quality you're looking for in a conquer, though.

I would have to go with Caesar.

Veni, vedi,vici.

Originally posted by Jonathan Mark
I would have to go with Caesar.

Veni, vedi,vici.

You mean; Venit Vidit Vicit. He came he saw he conqured! You didn't quote!

When we used the term "ruthless" what exactly are you guys referring too? If all these people are conquerors...isn't conquering other lands ruthless?

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
When we used the term "ruthless" what exactly are you guys referring too? If all these people are conquerors...isn't conquering other lands ruthless?

I would assume they are referring to a leader's use of the 'scorched earth' policy in conquering.

Degrees of ruthless, obviously.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
You mean; Venit Vidit Vicit. He came he saw he conqured! You didn't quote!

Oops...

Originally posted by Jonathan Mark
Oops...



Ceaser said, "Veni, Vedi Veci" or I came, I saw, I conqured.

But you where talking bout Ceaser so what you should say is Venit, Vidit, Vicit. He came, He saw, He conqured.



Sorry, just felt i had to prove that I had talents outside Dr Paul Joseph Goebells and Adolf Hitler!

Originally posted by Janus Marius
Degrees of ruthless, obviously.

One conqueror was more ruthless than the other....ehh..yeah. I agree with that...but the times were different from one to the other. If Caesar had the technology that Napoleon had in his time then we would be under Roman rule....today.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
One conqueror was more ruthless than the other....ehh..yeah. I agree with that...but the times were different from one to the other. If Caesar had the technology that Napoleon had in his time then we would be under Roman rule....today.

No, that is silly, when things get bigger, they collapse! Via greed and more things.

Also...Hindsight is not a very good historical trait.

What about William the Conqueror...

Originally posted by Alliance
I'd have to say Alexander because his empire had the most lastimg impact. Since he spread Hellinism through out a large majority of the known world, there was a great cultural integration like had never been seen before.

Napoleon is getting shated here, without the French Empire, Europe would probalby still be in serfdom, its due to him Europe enteredt eh enlightenment age.

Kahn was good, especially for the Mongols, but I don't see him doing much for the world.

I think Caesar is a horrible if nto the worst option because he did very little conquering. Sure he was successful in Gaul, but a lot of genreals were. He did very little to actually forge an Empire. Most of the work was already done for him by Marisu, Sulla, Crassus, and Pompey. There were Roman dictators before Caesar, he actually did very little. He was just assassinated and made into a play so he's famous.

And why isn't Adolf up there?

True but for the mongols he was with out a doubt their greatest king ever, not really relevant tho.

Adolf could be up there yea.

Nice to see another Marius fan btw.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
One conqueror was more ruthless than the other....ehh..yeah. I agree with that...but the times were different from one to the other. If Caesar had the technology that Napoleon had in his time then we would be under Roman rule....today.

You could really say that about anyone though..... Alex the Great, Genghis Kahn, etc.

Though you all have made good points, keep in mind that you have only mentioned a mere fraction of histories greatest conquerors. There were many others as well. Case in point Tamerlane or Timur, and even Attila to name a few. Lets not forget the Seleucid emperors as well. But i can go on and on. Pharoah Thutmose lll, who was in fact the "Napolean" of Egypt.

And please let us not forget Peter The Great, who invaded Europe, and built his new capital which was a "slap in the face" to all european nations at that time. Russia became a superpower.

Oh good one! Peter The Great! First Tzar of Russia right?

Is T?ar spelled with an Z or an S?

Alexander The Great was truly "Great". His ideology was truly ahead of his time and even ahead of ours. Plus he was the only man in history that was ever able to Conquer the entire Known World at the time

Originally posted by Janus Marius
julius Caesar. Unlike the rest of these dopes, his empire lasted.

Qin Shi Huang his empire lasted and is still lasting..... plus all of the good things he did, not to mention the beauty of his tomb. with rivers and ponds of liquid mercury and gold and silver tombing im pretty sure this shows how much he had and did.

Originally posted by Tangible God
Is T?ar spelled with an Z or an S?

can be spelled with either z or s. the pronunciation stays the same.

Originally posted by Tallis
Alexander The Great was truly "Great". His ideology was truly ahead of his time and even ahead of ours. Plus he was the only man in history that was ever able to Conquer the entire Known World at the time


True, Alexander was very great. But also, dont forget that his FATHER created the most powerful army to ever walk the earth at that time. The army that Alexander would use. Plus, he did the impossible, which was UNITE most of Greece under his rule. The fact that King Philip ll was able to do this, also puts him in the catagory of GREATNESS. He conquered Greece. Alexander owes almost everything to his father.

Tzar is acceptable....

That would be a minus for Alexander if he inherited power. Not all the conquerors had the benefits of Alexander. Most of them started from the bottom.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Tzar is acceptable....

That would be a minus for Alexander if he inherited power. Not all the conquerors had the benefits of Alexander. Most of them started from the bottom.

Exactly, and very well put.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Clearly it can only be Caesar, why? because WD's question was quite clear.

In the words of Julius Caesar

I came I saw conquered! However he didn't just conquer large amounts of land, as Khan is famous for, Caesar conquered something even more powerful. The ruling Oligarchs of Rome, and thus Caesar became Most Powerful man in the world. Perhaps he was assassinated by those he had defeated but it is undeniable that for a short time at least he truly conquered and ruled not only territories in Gaul or Britannia. But Julius Caesar conquered the Roman Republic, the largest "empire" in the world in terms of power and trade as well as landmass.

Although I am a huge fan of Roman History I would not say that Julius Ceasar was "the greatest conquerer" in history. I would say that he one of the most influential people in hisotry and definately one of the most interesting along with being one of the most impressive politicians ever, but not a great conquerer.

Originally posted by calvs
Naplolean.

I'd give a big no to Naps.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Are we talking largest land mass conquered? If that's the case, it would be Khan, whose Mongol dynasty covered more land than even Rome in its height.

Khan and Alexander did conquer alot of land. However I don't think that Alexander could have done it without the position and power that was granted to him by Phillip.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Or simply influence and power? Then I'd have to go with some Roman Emperor at the height of Rome's power (probably not Julius). They were certainly the most culturally influential of the great empires of human history.

Sulla was pretty powerful, he had Rome on it's knees before him. I've always been a fan of Gaius Marius though.


Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Also, where did you get that quote from and are any more?

If you want some could quoteable material concerning roman historical figures read Seutonius' 12 Ceasars.

Originally posted by JacopeX
Ghengis Khan, Very very hard worker

does anyone else find that statement humorous?

Exactly, Philip ll was not only a great conqueror, but he was also a great RULER. He represents the true definition of empire "builder", since he practically "built" Macedonia into a rich and powerful nation, and was able to conquer Greece to become the first and ONLY person to ever unite the land under one crown. Becoming King of Greece is an astronomical feat, and the One-Eyed King, would definately have conquered the world if he hadnt have been killed.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Clearly it can only be Caesar, why? because WD's question was quite clear.

In the words of Julius Caesar

I came I saw conquered! However he didn't just conquer large amounts of land, as Khan is famous for, Caesar conquered something even more powerful. The ruling Oligarchs of Rome, and thus Caesar became Most Powerful man in the world. Perhaps he was assassinated by those he had defeated but it is undeniable that for a short time at least he truly conquered and ruled not only territories in Gaul or Britannia. But Julius Caesar conquered the Roman Republic, the largest "empire" in the world in terms of power and trade as well as landmass.

'Of all the Gauls the Belgians are the bravest.' lol

But I give my vote to Hernan cortez.

Words fail to describe how I look up to that man. You guys should read the book: La histria verdadera de la conquista de la Nueva Espana ( :cool by Bernal Diaz. Amazing. That man conquered a worldpower with 300 men, most of them thiefs and murderers.

It's the best adventurebook ever. :laugh

:quote:
(post)
Originally posted by JacopeX
Ghengis Khan, Very very hard worker




Well he worked till he was 60 to conquer Mongolia.

Cortes? Why him?

who is he and what did he do?

Even before I clicked this poll, I immediately thought, "Alexander the Great".



I thought General Tsao Tsao should have been up there too. He has a resturant chain named after him, I think.

hmm Cortes is a nice choice tho his military victories weren't that special imo

Alexander actually physically faught in every single one of his battles. The rest of these guys merely stood on the sidelines and shouted orders. Ceaser, Ghenghis, Qin(First Emperor), and so on...these guys were not true warriors, they only gave orders. In fact, if im not mistaken, Ghenghis was already an old man when he united the Mongol tribes. So there is no way that he could have physically partaken in all of the conquering and pillaging his golden horde did. He merely sat back and gave orders.

GK: He didn't fight his battles, atleast not he conquests, but the battles needed to unite the Mongol tribes saw him as an active warrior, tho only briefly.

And I'm pretty sure caesar did some fighting as well.

Fire, i seriously doubt that Ceaser did any physical fighting in Gaul, but only in his younger years he did.

And Ghenghis, ofcourse, he had no choice but to fight when he was younger. Since the mongol tribes were at constant war with one another, much like ancient Greece.

Originally posted by Penelope
Alexander actually physically faught in every single one of his battles. The rest of these guys merely stood on the sidelines and shouted orders. Ceaser, Ghenghis, Qin(First Emperor), and so on...these guys were not true warriors, they only gave orders.

The question was who was the greatest conqueror, not most physically gifted or greatest warrior, there is a VERY big difference.

Also, with your example of Alexander you have to mention his age, as a young man he relished the fray. You admit that Julius Caesar also fought in his younger days. What's your point?

When Julius defeated the Gauls he was an elder man, to always fight on the front lines would have been stupid. Ceasar did, on occasion, ride his horse into or near the fray to inspire his troops, but his position of general was far more important than his individual efforts as a soldier.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
The question was who was the greatest conqueror, not most physically gifted or greatest warrior, there is a VERY big difference.

Also, with your example of Alexander you have to mention his age, as a young man he relished the fray. You admit that Julius Caesar also fought in his younger days. What's your point?

When Julius defeated the Gauls he was an elder man, to always fight on the front lines would have been stupid. Ceasar did, on occasion, ride his horse into or near the fray to inspire his troops, but his position of general was far more important than his individual efforts as a soldier.

I was not trying to make a point about ceasar, i was responding to Fire. Read it again.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Vote for who you think conquer more lands and became most powerful.

Hitler?

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
Hitler? Wouldnt say he was the best at keeping an empire together but he sure gets a conqueror award. just because he isnt 400 years old doesnt disclude him.

Originally posted by cking
who is he and what did he do?

Cortes was a spannish explorer, he went to America and met up with the Aztec people, after abit of "happy times" Cortes wiped out the Aztec people, now, that's very vauge....why? Because I'm going to open a thread about Cortes!

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
Wouldnt say he was the best at keeping an empire together but he sure gets a conqueror award. just because he isnt 400 years old doesnt disclude him.


Well, in all fairness, not many people who built an empire were very good at keeping it together. Granted, most were dead, but still.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Vote for who you think conquer more lands and became most powerful.
You mean the greatest mass murderer ?

a contest between julious ceasar and alexander the great., but julious's empire llasted unlike alexanders

depends on what you mean by conquer.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Cortes was a spannish explorer, he went to America and met up with the Aztec people, after abit of "happy times" Cortes wiped out the Aztec people, now, that's very vauge....why? Because I'm going to open a thread about Cortes!

Wasn't Cortez one of the conquistadors with long red hair? I remenber reading something about some conquistador's red hair scaring the natives. They consider him a devil with fire in his head.

Have to go with Alexander the Great on this one. Not only was he a military genius and a cunning warrior on the field, the extent of his conquests were unprecedented at the time. He Helleninized a good portion of the ancient world, wiping out a vastly numerically superior Persian force, and established control over a huge Eurasian land mass. In terms of enduring cultural influence, his empire also should rank number one--he spread the influence of Greek thought to the ancient near east and beyond and probably insured the survival of a large portion of Greek literature up to the present day. Of no small cosequence, was his founding of the city of Alexandria, which was the cultural/intellectual capital of the ancient world.

None of the other figures can really top him. Khan was a brilliant tactian but can't match the lasting cultural influence achieved by Alexander. Caesar was a brilliant military leader who conquered the transalpine Gauls and consolidated his power over the reigns of Roman government, but didn't match the overall military feats of Alexander. Most of Rome's expansion occurred before Ceasar's rise during the Republic's earlier wars with Carthage, Numidia, and others.

Napolean was a brilliant land tactitian but seriously underestimated the potential strength of British naval power and its ability to inflict lasting economic blockades. And well, he was French...Er, Corsican, excuse me.

Yep. The winner is....Alexander the Great. And he was...

Originally posted by who?-kid
You mean the greatest mass murderer ?

Alexander was not a mass murderer, in fact, the only "murdering" he may have done was when he sacked and pillaged the ancient Persian city of Persepulis. Other than that, he was concidered by almost All of his subjects as a Liberator.

Originally posted by dark wizard
a contest between julious ceasar and alexander the great., but julious's empire llasted unlike alexanders

Thats not true at all, becuase Alexander's empire actually lasted centuries after his death. It was divided among his generals and they each started kingdoms and empires which were continuously ruled by MACEDONIAN kings and queens, with MACEDONIAN successors.

alexander was the "real life" version of Achilles, the greatest warlord ever born

Originally posted by Penelope
Alexander was not a mass murderer, in fact, the only "murdering" he may have done was when he sacked and pillaged the ancient Persian city of Persepulis. Other than that, he was concidered by almost All of his subjects as a Liberator.
Oh I see, that was "the only murdering"...

Well well well.

And how many innocent people - men, women and children - died thanks to your beloved Alexander ? And how many were taken away and sold as slaves ?

5 ? 20 ? 100 ? 800 ? 2000 ? 15000 ?

Alexander may have been a great conqueror, he had a lot of blood on his hands. This is not up for debate.

Originally posted by who?-kid
Oh I see, that was "the only murdering"...

Well well well.

And how many innocent people - men, women and children - died thanks to your beloved Alexander ? And how many were taken away and sold as slaves ?

5 ? 20 ? 100 ? 800 ? 2000 ? 15000 ?

Alexander may have been a great conqueror, he had a lot of blood on his hands. This is not up for debate.

Every single great conqueror has a lot of blood on the hands. Though Alex had a lot of blood on his hands, Genghis Khan made sure that most of the cities or villages that he pillaged, had no survivers. Now who is the murderer here? And by the way, there are many other great conquerors and leaders besides Alex.

Originally posted by Penelope
Every single great conqueror has a lot of blood on the hands. Though Alex had a lot of blood on his hands, Genghis Khan made sure that most of the cities or villages that he pillaged, had no survivers. Now who is the murderer here? And by the way, there are many other great conquerors and leaders besides Alex.
This is sad.

Originally posted by who?-kid
This is sad.

Very.

Hmm I was going to say-thats easy,Napolean since he's the most well known but Ghengis Khan is also very well known so I would say its a tie between those two.

Alexander took over and controlled the most in the Shortest ammount of time, and I don't think he ever lost a battle (might have on India, can't remember) His only problem was his Heir was too young to take over when he died, and he didn't proclaim a successor

Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
Alexander took over and controlled the most in the Shortest ammount of time, and I don't think he ever lost a battle (might have on India, can't remember) His only problem was his Heir was too young to take over when he died, and he didn't proclaim a successor

India is considered to be his bloodiest victory, and his "heir" wasnt even born when he died, he was born after his death. And yes, he never lost a single battle.

i CHose Alexander too, but i also think cYrus the great shouldnt be forgotten, after all he is the fOunder of the pErsian empire

There is alot of interesting thoughts and persepectives in this thread in this thread.

Originally posted by dr. pookie
alexander was the "real life" version of Achilles, the greatest warlord ever born

That is not one of them. I suggest that you read either more about Achilles or more about Alexander.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
Hmm I was going to say-thats easy,Napolean since he's the most well known but Ghengis Khan is also very well known so I would say its a tie between those two.

You are basing your decision on who is more well known as opposed to accomplishments? Am I to assume that you think that Britney Spears is one of this generations greatest entertainers because she is so well known?

When I first saw the poll, I immediately thought Alexander of Genghis Khan.

However, having thought a bit deeper about it, I think Hernan Cortes has a good shout, as he did conquer an entire empire with only 200 men. "But they had far superior weaponry" you shout. However, as anyone who has seen 'Zulu Dawn' (not the Michael Caine film, the other one with Peter O Toole) and knows about the massacre of the British at Isandlwhana by the Zulus, having superior weaponry doesn't guarantee anything!

kharmadog is a moron

Originally posted by dr. pookie
kharmadog is a moron

Instead of embarassing yourself further by making such a comment, you could perhaps try and defend (or elaborate on) your earlier comment.

Originally posted by Mithlond
When I first saw the poll, I immediately thought Alexander of Genghis Khan.

However, having thought a bit deeper about it, I think Hernan Cortes has a good shout, as he did conquer an entire empire with only 200 men. "But they had far superior weaponry" you shout. However, as anyone who has seen 'Zulu Dawn' (not the Michael Caine film, the other one with Peter O Toole) and knows about the massacre of the British at Isandlwhana by the Zulus, having superior weaponry doesn't guarantee anything!

Ya, the massacre happened because of the British underestimated them, and you also have to take into account the fact that the Zulu army was crippled soon after because they lose 1,000-2,000 men, even though they still had every advantage except for superior weaponry, which is what killed them. Cortes used manipulation to win, and I do agree you have to give him cred for that.

I'd say Genghis Khan. Why? Cuz he conquered, but ensured that he wouldn't have problems in areas he's already been by putting loyal, qualified people into positions of power, instead of just ones who were related to him.

Originally posted by Emily Rose
i CHose Alexander too, but i also think cYrus the great shouldnt be forgotten, after all he is the fOunder of the pErsian empire

I agree. Cyrus was the first Emperor of Persia and founder of the Achaemenian dynasty. He also wrote the very first Declaration of Human Rights.

Achilles.

Originally posted by Penelope
I agree. Cyrus was the first Emperor of Persia and founder of the Achaemenian dynasty. He also wrote the very first Declaration of Human Rights.

cyrus the great should definately be remembered, but the greatest ruler Persia ever had was none other than darius the great

Khan. How do you beat nomads who drink horse blood and can shoot arrows at you while riding horses?! Although, if Hannibal actually ever managed to conquer Rome, I'd say he was the greatest military leader, but since he didn't, he's only one of the greatest. As far as tacticians go, I'd say King Leonidis. Battle of Thermopylae.

Originally posted by Neutro
Although, if Hannibal actually ever managed to conquer Rome, I'd say he was the greatest military leader, but since he didn't, he's only one of the greatest.

He would have handed Rome's ass to them if his countrymen had of supported him.

As far as leonidas' ability as a tactician? I'd say that he was more of a warrior general then a tactition. If he were technically sound he would have made sure that all passes were posted with sentries.

Wow, very interesting thread! Takes me way back to the old history class.

Well, there are quite a few good choices here. A lot of good conquerers representing some of the most well known empires throughout history with the exception of one major one. Where is the Ottoman Empire? Where is Mehmed II or Suleiman?

Also, there is some confusion as far as who is the greater conquerer the one who originally started the empire or the one who expanded it and ruled during it's height. It's height obviously referring to the most powerful time and the most land it had acquired at the time of the empire's existence.

Examples of this...

It's true Phillip II basically laid the groundwork for most of the success that Alexander accomplished but it was Alexander who took it a step further by expanding the empire and taking it to its height of greatness.

The same can be said for the Persian empire. Cyrus laid the groundwork but it was under Xerxes rule that the empire expanded to its most powerful height.

The great Roman Empire is even more complicated. Once again Caesar laid the groundwork for all future Caesars that would rule Rome afterwards by his victories in Gaul, defeating other roman dictators and his political victories of taking power away from the Senate and bringing Rome under one ruler. But it was Agustus who later really unified Rome, taking it from yrs of civil war and laying the blueprint of real government that every other Caesar would come to follow for yrs to come bringing forth the great Pax Romana. But it was really under Marcus Aurelius' rule that the Roman Empire was at it's height and it was he who expanded the empire to it's biggest state by winning great victories against both germanic and britanic tribes or the barbarians as the Romans called them.

In any case, we're voting on best conquerer and not greatest empire which would of course be Rome. So out of the available choices, my vote goes to Alexander. At the height of his Empire he had conquered most of the known world, he was a great military strategist as well as ruler who actively fought in most of his epic conquests. He was responsible for spreading the Greek culture and establishing modern architecture, developing arts and systems of education throughout the territories he conquered like Alexandria in Egypt.

But above all, the main reason why I choose to go with Alexander from all the other conquerers on this list is the method in which he chose to spread his Greek culture throughout the world. In most of the towns he conquered he would kill off the men and then have his army impregnate the local remaining women. So in other words he spread his culture by spreading his seed. What a great way to spread culture huh? This is why to this day you still see some Persian women with blue eyes. Yep you can thank good 'ole Alex the great for that. If this alone doesn't make you the greatest conquerer I don't know what does?

RZA, i agree with you 100%, Mehmet ll The Conqueror is also considered to be one of the greatest conquerors who ever lived.

Originally posted by RZA
The great Roman Empire is even more complicated. Once again Caesar laid the groundwork for all future Caesars that would rule Rome afterwards by his victories in Gaul, defeating other roman dictators and his political victories of taking power away from the Senate and bringing Rome under one ruler.


Actually, one could argue that Sulla, Marius and Pompey actually laid the groundwork for Gaius Julius Caesar.

yea Marius and Sulla had a great effect on Caesar

i would have to say khan...given that its been shown that his family genes are the most prolific in the world with around 35,000,000 being traced to his lineage

I would the Mughal emperors, while not THE GREATEST, they are certainly up there. Under Babur, they conquered the whole Indian subcontinent and the regions of Pakistan, Afghanistan, and parts of Afghanistan's bordres. Under Prince Akbar and evil Prince Aurangzeb, the Mughal Empire rose to quite a power before collapsing to minor princes and then to the British East India Company.

But besides that, I would say Khan.

Originally posted by jaden101
i would have to say khan...given that its been shown that his family genes are the most prolific in the world with around 35,000,000 being traced to his lineage

his family apparently had a lot of sex

Originally posted by Fire
yea Marius and Sulla had a great effect on Caesar

And a great effect on the development of the empire.

Originally posted by dr. pookie
his family apparently had a lot of sex
LOL...
seriously..i would also say khan..

I believe Mehmet ll The Conqueror was a significant conqueror in history.he demolished about twenty states in history and i am disappointed when i did not see his name in the poll.

I vote for Mehmet ll and agree with neverlank

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehmed_II

I cannot explain all the details about him but you can (if you want) read from here. We (Turks) know much about him (of course in history lessons) his tactics, strategies, how he took the Istanbul...

Can you please put his name in the poll...

Thank you

khan for the short term

Cessar for the lasting empire

Originally posted by bogen
khan for the short term

Cessar for the lasting empire

If you include all of the Diodochi states, Alexander's empire actually did survive a very long time. The Diodochi states each had continuous Macedonian bloodlines for centuries.

What about Hitler. I think what he did being the 1940's is more memorable than some of the other conquers. Also what Attila was able to do in Europe and parts of Asia was amazing. THe Huns charged right through Europe and Asia

Hitler didn't do shit as far as conquering goes. He knew politics, and he was an amazing politician, turning Germany right around, but as a conqueror he should never be compared to the likes of Alexander, Attila, Shaka Zulu, Julius Caesar, Augustus Caesar, Barbarossa, Ghengis and so many others.

Alexander the great was just that. But made the awful decision of pushing it too far.

Napoleon would be a choice as well for me. Although he made the mistake of trying to get into Russia. How did that work out?

How does any invasion of Russia work out? Remember the Germans made the same mistake.

You just don't attack Russia in the winter. It wouldn't be as tough these days with planes, electric blankets and instant coffee, but......

Personally I think Alexander's biggest mistake was actually leeting himself believe he was the son of Zeus Amman, and therefore a god. He came to mistreat his generals and in his arrogance still trusted them.

Originally posted by Lord Coal
How does any invasion of Russia work out? Remember the Germans made the same mistake.


This is true.

Khan is the greatest conqueror. He nearly conquered the world, if i'm not mistaken i think the only thing that stopped him was the pacific and atlantic oceans.

Originally posted by Lord Coal
You just don't attack Russia in the winter. It wouldn't be as tough these days with planes, electric blankets and instant coffee, but......

I think it's foolish to say any campaign is impossible. You could say that Washington's attempt to win the war of independence against the British was impossible, or Alexander's engineering feats were impossible. Both Hitler and Bonaparte made the same mistakes. They both took too large armies that were hard to feed, house and for that matter, even command. They both failed to be competent when it came to logistics. Lastly, both Hitler and Bonaparte took too long to get to Moscow. They delayed at cities with depots some times for as long as half a month, only to see the winter come faster. A problem is that when you combine these you get big problems. 675,000 under the french flag in August 1812, turned to 5,000 when they reached Berlin after the retreat in December of the same year. To help prove my point only 125,000 French troops actually reached Moscow. This means that the Russian Winter was not the only problem. I can imagie Bonaparte taking instead maybe 300,000 troops starting Moscow in May, force marching with limited breaks and reaching the city maybe as early as August and so still have time to take out St. Petersburg if necessary.

I would have to agree with Bonaparte. He took on 4 European powers at once and managed to stay in power of a fragile, nevertheless far-reaching European based empire. The reason for his fall was two fold. First, with the 1800's come strong feelings nationalism, and freedom. This gave Prussian, Russian and Spanish troops more will to fight. Khan and Alexander never faced armies who had these feelings. Second, other European countries began to imitate Napoleon's armies. This obviously led to a higher importance of the numerical advantage of an army because of the diminishing value of the emperors trooops. The campaigns of 1813-1815 brought armies much larger than Bonaparte's to the field against him. These armies were also able to achieve to powerful manuevers and formations, that came from Napoleon's armies. He did make some mistakes, but name a conqueror who hasn't.

Qin Shi Huang is definatly a main choice, his empire was quite illustrious.

Well, big deal, so you say. Everyone elses was, too.

But Qin's nation actualy lasted the years, and was the empire which kept it's mpower the longest. In fact, it still has that power today. And it's getting stronger. Like a perpetual motion device, China has continued, not for 100, or even 500 years, but SINCE IT'S CONCEPTION! And it has a lot of people. And a lot of space, it's one of the largest Asian countries, nay, one of the largest of ALL contries, and has mantained itself in that shape despite many hardships.

Cortes was in the right place at the right time, and he knew the proper manipulations to magnify that advantage many fold. His conquest wasn't much to speak of, but he deserves an award for making the biggest possible use of the resources he was given. With a mere 200 or so soldiers, he assimilated soldier after soldier, army after army, until he took down one of the greatest latin American military powers of the day, a far reaching militeristic empire.

Originally posted by KingTut

Good post man, one of the best I've read over here in a while.

Originally posted by KingTut
Cut because it's to long

Of course every conquerer makes mistakes the difference however lies in the mistakes they made. When Hitler invaded Germany his generals told him to do one thing he as an idiot who believed a sergeant could command army's better then trained officers refused to listen and did things differently. He made a mistake he could have seen coming and many did. And in the end his generals were right.

Napoleon should have known as well and his mistake was moving into a land he could have known about without informing himself well enough and without knowing the risks fully. He paid the price, he was still brilliant though but I must say that mistake was one he should not have and easily could not have made and that in my opinion takes him away from the greatest conquerers ever. Still damned good, but not the greatest.

Originally posted by Fishy
Of course every conquerer makes mistakes the difference however lies in the mistakes they made. When Hitler invaded Germany his generals told him to do one thing he as an idiot who believed a sergeant could command army's better then trained officers refused to listen and did things differently. He made a mistake he could have seen coming and many did. And in the end his generals were right.

Napoleon should have known as well and his mistake was moving into a land he could have known about without informing himself well enough and without knowing the risks fully. He paid the price, he was still brilliant though but I must say that mistake was one he should not have and easily could not have made and that in my opinion takes him away from the greatest conquerers ever. Still damned good, but not the greatest.

Why?

Alexander the Great failed when traversing difficult Persian terrain. Caesar had not taken proper account of the Channel's weather and so when he incorrectly beached and moored his transports many of them were flailed about and were badly damaged or sunk as they were flung into one another. Khan wasted much of the potential resources of his empire via taxation by pillaging and looting many of their rich cities. These are all significant mistakes. The first two meant the loss the conquerors' army, just like Napoleon. Everyone will make egregious mistakes in the end, it's just a matter of time. Therefore, the best way to measure a conqueror's ability is to see how much they had to achieve to reach their highest peak of glory. Napoleon, had to survive two 3-pronged attacks from Russia, Austria and Prussia with the monetary backing of the entire British economy. Pretty impressive. Khan got China, Caesar got France, Alexander the Great got the Persians. Great for them.

Originally posted by KingTut
Why?

Alexander the Great failed when traversing difficult Persian terrain. Caesar had not taken proper account of the Channel's weather and so when he incorrectly beached and moored his transports many of them were flailed about and were badly damaged or sunk as they were flung into one another. Khan wasted much of the potential resources of his empire via taxation by pillaging and looting many of their rich cities. These are all significant mistakes. The first two meant the loss the conquerors' army, just like Napoleon. Everyone will make egregious mistakes in the end, it's just a matter of time. Therefore, the best way to measure a conqueror's ability is to see how much they had to achieve to reach their highest peak of glory. Napoleon, had to survive two 3-pronged attacks from Russia, Austria and Prussia with the monetary backing of the entire British economy. Pretty impressive. Khan got China, Caesar got France, Alexander the Great got the Persians. Great for them.

Khan got China most of the Middle East and Eastern Europe, but not really the point...

Alexander when moving through especially things like India where he lost his real power had no knowledge of the terrain and could not have had it either. He was moving through unknown land, and yet still he won battles there. His biggest mistake was his retreat, his move home. Which was quite frankly when the war was over.

Caesar also could not have known the climate on the other side, well he could have known a few things but nothing much. The allies when they landed on Normandy took months to prepare collecting as much as they could from the soil on the beaches to weather charts of the last years and predict everything they could. Caesar did not have that ability.

Napoleon however did have the chance to know what was in Russia, making the mistakes is not really what is important. Why you made the mistakes and how much you could have done to prevent it is what matters. Napoleon was absolutely brilliant but he screwed up with Russia something that he could have prevented.

Originally posted by Fishy
Khan got China most of the Middle East and Eastern Europe, but not really the point...

Alexander when moving through especially things like India where he lost his real power had no knowledge of the terrain and could not have had it either. He was moving through unknown land, and yet still he won battles there. His biggest mistake was his retreat, his move home. Which was quite frankly when the war was over.

Caesar also could not have known the climate on the other side, well he could have known a few things but nothing much. The allies when they landed on Normandy took months to prepare collecting as much as they could from the soil on the beaches to weather charts of the last years and predict everything they could. Caesar did not have that ability.

Napoleon however did have the chance to know what was in Russia, making the mistakes is not really what is important. Why you made the mistakes and how much you could have done to prevent it is what matters. Napoleon was absolutely brilliant but he screwed up with Russia something that he could have prevented.

Lets remember that no on had to tried to take out Russia like Napoleon did before. There wasn't any record of how badly the russian winter would treat enemy soldiers. Much like Caesar and Alexander, Napoleon lacked a lot information himself.

Originally posted by KingTut
Lets remember that no on had to tried to take out Russia like Napoleon did before. There wasn't any record of how badly the russian winter would treat enemy soldiers. Much like Caesar and Alexander, Napoleon lacked a lot information himself.

Can't think of any other that wanted to conquer Russia however there were Russians in their lands there were plenty of people that had gone to Russia and trade was going on. Meaning quite simply he could have known if he took any effort. Caesar and Alexander would have had a far harder time to do so.

Of course Napoleon his mistake is not so severe that he's not a brilliant commander all the same but I still wouldn't rate him as the best.

Originally posted by Fishy
Can't think of any other that wanted to conquer Russia however there were Russians in their lands there were plenty of people that had gone to Russia and trade was going on. Meaning quite simply he could have known if he took any effort. Caesar and Alexander would have had a far harder time to do so.

Of course Napoleon his mistake is not so severe that he's not a brilliant commander all the same but I still wouldn't rate him as the best.

I respect your opinion, but I think your arguments are lame. Even if Napoleon had lived in Russia for a portion of his life, he would not know the rates of which attrition would kill off an enemy army.

Originally posted by KingTut
I respect your opinion, but I think your arguments are lame. Even if Napoleon had lived in Russia for a portion of his life, he would not know the rates of which attrition would kill off an enemy army.

No he wouldn't have known exactly, but he could have known about the incredibly strong winters there and he could have prepared better for it. The result may not have been very different or perhaps it would have been and perhaps he would have made it.

Originally posted by Fishy
No he wouldn't have known exactly, but he could have known about the incredibly strong winters there and he could have prepared better for it. The result may not have been very different or perhaps it would have been and perhaps he would have made it.

He knew Russia had strong winters. How strong is the question he couldn't answer.

Originally posted by KingTut
He knew Russia had strong winters. How strong is the question he couldn't answer.

Couldn't? Or didn't take the time too try and find out?