The Greatest Conqueror in History!

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.

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?

Originally posted by Alliance
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.

WTF? Napoleon reinstituted "father rules household absolutely" laws in his Code, and his ambition and aggression left a deep-seated hatred and desire for revenge in the Prussian kingdom, which went on to make on of the most impressive armies in Europe. This leads to isolation of France by the newly founded German empire and eventually to a criss-cross web of treaties that made WWI possible.

If anything, Napoleon's wild tenure as emperor reinforced the Prussian faith in the nobility and crown because they were afraid of their nation becoming some near-anarchical state like France. Napoleon didn't lead Europe into the age of enlightenment- he lead Europe into tension and conflict far greater than the previous petty squabbling over territories and thrones that had preceded him.

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.

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

^ First, read that.

Then, read this from Reference.com:

In 55 B.C., Caesar made explorations into Britain, and in 54 B.C. he defeated the Britons, led by Cassivellaunus. Caesar met his most serious opposition in Gaul from Vercingetorix, whom he defeated in Alesia in 52 B.C. By the end of the wars Caesar had reduced all Gaul to Roman control. These campaigns proved him one of the greatest commanders of all time. In them he revealed his consummate military genius, characterized by quick, sure judgment and indomitable energy. The campaigns also developed the personal devotion of the legions to Caesar. His personal interest in the men (he is reputed to have known them all by name) and his willingness to undergo every hardship made him the idol of the army—a significant element in his later career.

Obviously people with some insight on the man disagree with your accessment.

Originally posted by Janus Marius
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_career_of_Julius_Caesar

^ First, read that.

Then, read this from Reference.com:

In 55 B.C., Caesar made explorations into Britain, and in 54 B.C. he defeated the Britons, led by Cassivellaunus. Caesar met his most serious opposition in Gaul from Vercingetorix, whom he defeated in Alesia in 52 B.C. By the end of the wars Caesar had reduced all Gaul to Roman control. These campaigns proved him one of the greatest commanders of all time. In them he revealed his consummate military genius, characterized by quick, sure judgment and indomitable energy.

Obviously people with some insight on the man disagree with your accessment.

some of your points on Napoleon are valid, but to Caesar.

I'm a major in Classical History...I have SOME insight thank you. If you look at my orignial comment closely, I said that he did have succeses in Gaul. Is conquering one region making you deseriving of best conquereor in history. most people here were referencing his rise as emperor.

"The campaigns also developed the personal devotion of the legions to Caesar. His personal interest in the men (he is reputed to have known them all by name) and his willingness to undergo every hardship made him the idol of the army—a significant element in his later career."

If you know Roman history, Caesar is last in a ver long line of late-Republican generals to do this. Gaius Marius enacted the reforms that made Roman generals powerful. Didication to the troops was very significant, but Caesar's relation to his army was not a significant or new development and he was hardly the first Roman general to do anything significnat with his Marian style army. Practically everything Caesar did in relation to rising to the imperial throne had been done before, except for claiming himself dictator for life and the triumverate.

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... 😛