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.
__________________
BlackZero30x created this a-'Maize'-ing signature! =)
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 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
Last edited by SmyRNiaN on Oct 25th, 2006 at 09:19 PM
Registered: May 2006
Location: Beverly Hills, California
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.
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.
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.
__________________ Knowledge first before wisdom, facts first before judgement - The Master
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.
Aug 31st, 2006 06:42 AM
