Originally posted by Jonathan Mark
Oops... 😛
😂
Ceaser said, "Veni, Vedi Veci" or I came, I saw, I conqured.
But you where talking bout Ceaser so what you should say is Venit, Vidit, Vicit. He came, He saw, He conqured.
😛
Sorry, just felt i had to prove that I had talents outside Dr Paul Joseph Goebells and Adolf Hitler! 😛
Originally posted by Janus Marius
Degrees of ruthless, obviously.
One conqueror was more ruthless than the other....ehh..yeah. I agree with that...but the times were different from one to the other. If Caesar had the technology that Napoleon had in his time then we would be under Roman rule....today.
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
One conqueror was more ruthless than the other....ehh..yeah. I agree with that...but the times were different from one to the other. If Caesar had the technology that Napoleon had in his time then we would be under Roman rule....today.
No, that is silly, when things get bigger, they collapse! Via greed and more things.
Also...Hindsight is not a very good historical trait.
Originally posted by Alliance
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?
True but for the mongols he was with out a doubt their greatest king ever, not really relevant tho.
Adolf could be up there yea.
Nice to see another Marius fan btw.
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
One conqueror was more ruthless than the other....ehh..yeah. I agree with that...but the times were different from one to the other. If Caesar had the technology that Napoleon had in his time then we would be under Roman rule....today.
You could really say that about anyone though..... Alex the Great, Genghis Kahn, etc.
Though you all have made good points, keep in mind that you have only mentioned a mere fraction of histories greatest conquerors. There were many others as well. Case in point Tamerlane or Timur, and even Attila to name a few. Lets not forget the Seleucid emperors as well. But i can go on and on. Pharoah Thutmose lll, who was in fact the "Napolean" of Egypt.
Originally posted by Janus Marius
julius Caesar. Unlike the rest of these dopes, his empire lasted.
Qin Shi Huang his empire lasted and is still lasting..... plus all of the good things he did, not to mention the beauty of his tomb. with rivers and ponds of liquid mercury and gold and silver tombing im pretty sure this shows how much he had and did.
Originally posted by Tallis
Alexander The Great was truly "Great". His ideology was truly ahead of his time and even ahead of ours. Plus he was the only man in history that was ever able to Conquer the entire Known World at the time
True, Alexander was very great. But also, dont forget that his FATHER created the most powerful army to ever walk the earth at that time. The army that Alexander would use. Plus, he did the impossible, which was UNITE most of Greece under his rule. The fact that King Philip ll was able to do this, also puts him in the catagory of GREATNESS. He conquered Greece. Alexander owes almost everything to his father.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Clearly it can only be Caesar, why? because WD's question was quite clear.In the words of Julius Caesar
I came I saw conquered! However he didn't just conquer large amounts of land, as Khan is famous for, Caesar conquered something even more powerful. The ruling Oligarchs of Rome, and thus Caesar became [B]Most Powerful
man in the world. Perhaps he was assassinated by those he had defeated but it is undeniable that for a short time at least he truly conquered and ruled not only territories in Gaul or Britannia. But Julius Caesar conquered the Roman Republic, the largest "empire" in the world in terms of power and trade as well as landmass. [/B]
Although I am a huge fan of Roman History I would not say that Julius Ceasar was "the greatest conquerer" in history. I would say that he one of the most influential people in hisotry and definately one of the most interesting along with being one of the most impressive politicians ever, but not a great conquerer.
Originally posted by calvs
Naplolean.
I'd give a big no to Naps.
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.
Khan and Alexander did conquer alot of land. However I don't think that Alexander could have done it without the position and power that was granted to him by Phillip.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Or simply influence and power? Then I'd have to go with some Roman Emperor at the height of Rome's power (probably not Julius). They were certainly the most culturally influential of the great empires of human history.
Sulla was pretty powerful, he had Rome on it's knees before him. I've always been a fan of Gaius Marius though.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Also, where did you get that quote from and are any more?
If you want some could quoteable material concerning roman historical figures read Seutonius' 12 Ceasars.
Originally posted by JacopeX
Ghengis Khan, Very very hard worker
does anyone else find that statement humorous?
Exactly, Philip ll was not only a great conqueror, but he was also a great RULER. He represents the true definition of empire "builder", since he practically "built" Macedonia into a rich and powerful nation, and was able to conquer Greece to become the first and ONLY person to ever unite the land under one crown. Becoming King of Greece is an astronomical feat, and the One-Eyed King, would definately have conquered the world if he hadnt have been killed.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Clearly it can only be Caesar, why? because WD's question was quite clear.In the words of Julius Caesar
I came I saw conquered! However he didn't just conquer large amounts of land, as Khan is famous for, Caesar conquered something even more powerful. The ruling Oligarchs of Rome, and thus Caesar became [B]Most Powerful
man in the world. Perhaps he was assassinated by those he had defeated but it is undeniable that for a short time at least he truly conquered and ruled not only territories in Gaul or Britannia. But Julius Caesar conquered the Roman Republic, the largest "empire" in the world in terms of power and trade as well as landmass. [/B]
'Of all the Gauls the Belgians are the bravest.' lol
But I give my vote to Hernan cortez.
Words fail to describe how I look up to that man. You guys should read the book: La histria verdadera de la conquista de la Nueva Espana ( 😎) by Bernal Diaz. Amazing. That man conquered a worldpower with 300 men, most of them thiefs and murderers.
It's the best adventurebook ever. :laugh
:quote:
(post)
Originally posted by JacopeX
Ghengis Khan, Very very hard worker
Does anyone else find that statement humorous?
Well he worked till he was 60 to conquer Mongolia.