The Greatest Conqueror in History!

Regardless, johnthebaptist7's reply to FOTN was inappropriate as it implied that his post had no value if it was not 'proven'.

That is NOT an obligatory part of this thread. If people just want to leave their opinion, leave them be and most certainly do not say that just because their opinion differs from yours it is based on 'lies'. You may prefer it if they back it, but that is neither here nor there. Don't make posts like that again. It's also pretty clear that you are not being convincing. You should tone down your confrontational style.

Also please stop making repeated posts in the same thread in short periods of time.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Regardless, johnthebaptist7's reply to FOTN was inappropriate as it implied that his post had no value if it was not 'proven'.

That is NOT an obligatory part of this thread. If people just want to leave their opinion, leave them be and most certainly do not say that just because their opinion differs from yours it is based on 'lies'. You may prefer it if they back it, but that is neither here nor there. Don't make posts like that again. It's also pretty clear that you are not being convincing. You should tone down your confrontational style.

Also please stop making repeated posts in the same thread in short periods of time.

Because I find this post to be quite oppressive, tbh.

I find confrontational attitudes to those just leaving their opinion distasteful. It is john's posts in that style I do not want repeated.

I've made my ruling, and that is that.

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

Rome burned in a day..

Well that was a post from memory lane. And the empire survived the burning.

Do we count Constanitopla as the Roman empire?

The eastern empire was just a direction. It was all Caesarian.

I meant if we count it as the Empire's survival and staying power.

Yes, of course. The empire had been cut in half and lost its namesake, but it survived for centuries afterward.

I really don't see Julius Caesar as comparable to Alexander or Genghis if we're assessing them on their conquests. Julius Caesar likely would have beaten Alexander if it came down to it (Genghis is another matter entirely, as much as I like the Roman Empire I think they'd be next to helpless against the massed cavalry and horse archers the Mongols used to crush the armies of Imperial China) but when we compare what Alexander did in less than twenty years to what Caesar did in what...a thirty year career? It's not a real comparison.

As to Caesar being given credit for the entirety of the Roman Empire...well that's just silly. He conquered Gaul and invaded England and Germany but conquered neither (he won both campaigns more or less, but he didn't conquer).

His territorial contributions were Gaul, mostly. He also whooped the Pontics and solidified Roman control of Egypt. But in terms of territory conquered in a given time frame, he falls well under many conquerors from other eras. Alexander created his entire empire in the span it took Caesar to tame Gaul. Same with Genghis. Similarly with Cyrus the Geat, Qin, Timur, Pizarro, Napoleon, Hitler and others I'm sure.

Caesar's conquests were relatively small, but I think what made him one of the greats was the manner in which he did--namely, being vastly outnumbered on most occasions. The siege of Alesia was brilliant.

George W. Bush.

No, he's more like the Sexiest Conqueror.