It's all about Ghengis Khan, with Napoleon as a runner-up.
Ghengis was such a force that Chinese had to build the only human-made structure visible from space to keep him out of their lands. The dude was a lawn mower, but was chopping head instead of grass. The only way his ennemies stopped him was by waiting that he died.
As for Napoleon, both him and Alexender brought novelty to warfare, but you have to take in count the quality of the dudes Napoleon taked care off.
Originally posted by Bouboumaster
It's all about Ghengis Khan, with Napoleon as a runner-up.Ghengis was such a force that Chinese had to build the only human-made structure visible from space to keep him out of their lands. The dude was a lawn mower, but was chopping head instead of grass. The only way his ennemies stopped him was by waiting that he died.
As for Napoleon, both him and Alexender brought novelty to warfare, but you have to take in count the quality of the dudes Napoleon taked care off.
And it's not visible from space, no more than any interstate highway.
"Ghengis was such a force that Chinese had to build the only human-made structure visible from space to keep him out of their lands. The dude was a lawn mower, but was chopping head instead of grass. The only way his ennemies stopped him was by waiting that he died. "
The building of the Great wall of Chnia had nothing to do with Gengis Khan. The Great Wall was built by the ancient Chinese to keep out invaders from other parts of Asia. Chinas's first Emperor, ordered that ie be built more than 2000 years ago.
Because the Great Wall was discontinuous (built in segments over along period of time), Mongol invaders led by Genghis had no problem going around the wall on their horses and proceeding to conquer the rest of northern China (1211 and 1223 AD).
During the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644), the Great Wall was made larger and more sections were added and it was in this dynasty (after Gengis), that the most considerable extensions were accomplished.
I fail to see how the GWC enhances Gengis' military career.
BTW its highly questionable that the GWC can be seen even from a close orbit with the unaided eye.
--- EOL.
Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
I read somewhere that 1 in 200 men in Asia are descendants of Genghis Khan.Dude was a player.
And doesn't afraid of anything.
This only proves Gengis loved spreading his genes around. He himself confessed what his greatest pursuit in life, was:
"Man's greatest joy is to slay his enemy, plunder his riches, ride his steeds, see the tears of his loved ones and embrace his women ." -- Genghis Khan
That doesnt make him a great conquerer, it makes him a great 'lover'.
Wasn't afraid of anything? But apply the right amount of pressure and the egg will crack. My guess is the right amount of pressure wasnt applied.
Did he ever see 6000 war elephants stampeding his front lines all at once? Did he ever see his greatest general right at his side - get blown apart by an invisible cannonball? And still press forwards?
Medieval battlegrounds had everything terror and danger Gengi's battlegrounds had - and much, much more...
This guy called Gengis only traversed the battlegrounds of Asia. That's nothing.
* I can provide clear historiucal examples of Alexander the 'Great' showing fear in battles as he traverses the continents and encounters new battlegrounds.
Originally posted by johnthebaptist7
Alexander the greatest? This is what you need to prove...
Alexander's empire never reached India or Asia, although in many places its presented as such. His last battle before retreating to Babylon, was in Bhera of Punjab, in modern day Pakistan also known as the Battle of the Hydaspes. His empire never stretched into Asia or India. But halted at the heart of Pakistan (the Middle East). That's an eyeopener. And a major setback for his 'great' 'intercontinental' empire.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
No-one needs to prove anything, johnthebaptist7. This is just about opinion.I think you should consider why you are not convincing anyone.
Seeing as this is a 'General Discussion' forum, posters should at least present some valid points on why they'd consider who they chose as the greatest.
If not, then practically anyone in history we like would be the greatest (which, of course, would be factually false).
Originally posted by Ushgarak
No-one needs to prove anything, johnthebaptist7. This is just about opinion.I think you should consider why you are not convincing anyone.
Right. How about an opinion based on the facts? Rather than an opinion based on lies? Or an opinion based on popularity? Or an opinion based on half-truth's?
As per your second comment, well... there is nothing I can do to change that, since this is in an "opinion" forum, as you so well put it.
And, i am assuming you have spoken to everyone in this forum, before you made that statement "anyone", too.
Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
He's got a point though.Seeing as this is a 'General Discussion' forum, posters should at least present some valid points on why they'd consider who they chose as the greatest.
If not, then practically anyone in history we like would be the greatest (which, of course, would be factually false).
+1