They both achieved great things. Alexander Took all of Greece, brought down the Persian Empire, etc. etc. and all he started with was a small, relatively insignificant kingdom.
G took a small tribe of, basically, foragers and farmers, and ended up uniting all the mongols, whose empire spread far and wide, but once the Mongols were united he didn't actually do much himself. Most of his conquests were a reesult of his policy of letting his most trusted generals start wars of their own accord.
He did a good job with the Tartars, but I think Kublai and Ogedei were more impressive as far as conquering foreign lands went. Of course, they wouldn't have been able to conquer anything if G hadn't given them a platform to build on.
All in all, a very tough decision, but I'd personally go with Alexander simply because he did so much in so little time, and he did it all himself.
Registered: Jan 2007
Location: Roaming the Universe
So did many of the mentioned characters, most of the material dating from that say that they all more ore less conquered the known world.
I will go for Khan for numerous reasons mainly he showed, great skills in both warfare and the economic aspects of the empire that he created, it is also a well known fact that if he hadn't decided to go elsewhere with his armies instead of continue through middle Europa nothing except the sea would have proved to be a strong enough factor to defeat him, perhaps halt his advance but not defeat him.
Don't get me wrong Alexander is a great Character as well, but his empire was reduced to rubble upon his death because of bad leadership from his part on the purely social and so on perspective of leading a empire.
Julius Caesar only conquered Most of northern Europa nothing when it is compared with the other mentioned characters.
In fairness, Alexander's empire crumbled upon his death because he didn't have an heir. His legitimate son was unborn and was later murdered, almost certainly on the orders of one of his generals, and Craterus (Who, it is debated, Alexander may have named as his successor) was also assasinated before he could assume control.
This left the Empire to be divided between his generals, who squabbled for years.
Registered: May 2006
Location: Beverly Hills, California
Actually, the Diodochi(Successor) States, that Alexander left, didnt crumble. They each forged Macedonian dynasties which lasted for centuries.
Also, just becuase someone conquers a huge amount of territory, doesnt make them the greatest. The skills that were used by the conqueror to initiate total victory should be looked at.
__________________
Last edited by Penelope on Mar 23rd, 2007 at 11:21 AM
No, the Successor states, for the most part, didn't crumble. Who said they did?
What was said was that his empire, as an individual entity, did. Obviously Macedon and Greece still exist today, Seleucia stood for a while, and Egypt was a hugely influential land right up until the death of Cleopatra VII before being absorbed into the Roman Empire. It flourished again the middle ages and still exists today, though not as great as it once was....
As far as the skills used to achieve the victory in the first place go, Genghis probably takes that hands down. You have to do something special to do what he did with what he started with.
Jan 26th, 2007 12:21 PM
Sounds like he had too much time on his hands.
