Alexander actually physically faught in every single one of his battles. The rest of these guys merely stood on the sidelines and shouted orders. Ceaser, Ghenghis, Qin(First Emperor), and so on...these guys were not true warriors, they only gave orders. In fact, if im not mistaken, Ghenghis was already an old man when he united the Mongol tribes. So there is no way that he could have physically partaken in all of the conquering and pillaging his golden horde did. He merely sat back and gave orders.
Originally posted by Penelope
Alexander actually physically faught in every single one of his battles. The rest of these guys merely stood on the sidelines and shouted orders. Ceaser, Ghenghis, Qin(First Emperor), and so on...these guys were not true warriors, they only gave orders.
The question was who was the greatest conqueror, not most physically gifted or greatest warrior, there is a VERY big difference.
Also, with your example of Alexander you have to mention his age, as a young man he relished the fray. You admit that Julius Caesar also fought in his younger days. What's your point?
When Julius defeated the Gauls he was an elder man, to always fight on the front lines would have been stupid. Ceasar did, on occasion, ride his horse into or near the fray to inspire his troops, but his position of general was far more important than his individual efforts as a soldier.
Originally posted by KharmaDog
The question was who was the greatest conqueror, not most physically gifted or greatest warrior, there is a VERY big difference.Also, with your example of Alexander you have to mention his age, as a young man he relished the fray. You admit that Julius Caesar also fought in his younger days. What's your point?
When Julius defeated the Gauls he was an elder man, to always fight on the front lines would have been stupid. Ceasar did, on occasion, ride his horse into or near the fray to inspire his troops, but his position of general was far more important than his individual efforts as a soldier.
I was not trying to make a point about ceasar, i was responding to Fire. Read it again.
Re: Re: Re: The Greatest Conqueror in All History!
Originally posted by The Black Ghost
Wouldnt say he was the best at keeping an empire together but he sure gets a conqueror award. just because he isnt 400 years old doesnt disclude him.
Well, in all fairness, not many people who built an empire were very good at keeping it together. Granted, most were dead, but still.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Cortes was a spannish explorer, he went to America and met up with the Aztec people, after abit of "happy times" Cortes wiped out the Aztec people, now, that's very vauge....why? Because I'm going to open a thread about Cortes!
Wasn't Cortez one of the conquistadors with long red hair? I remenber reading something about some conquistador's red hair scaring the natives. They consider him a devil with fire in his head. 😂
Have to go with Alexander the Great on this one. Not only was he a military genius and a cunning warrior on the field, the extent of his conquests were unprecedented at the time. He Helleninized a good portion of the ancient world, wiping out a vastly numerically superior Persian force, and established control over a huge Eurasian land mass. In terms of enduring cultural influence, his empire also should rank number one--he spread the influence of Greek thought to the ancient near east and beyond and probably insured the survival of a large portion of Greek literature up to the present day. Of no small cosequence, was his founding of the city of Alexandria, which was the cultural/intellectual capital of the ancient world.
None of the other figures can really top him. Khan was a brilliant tactian but can't match the lasting cultural influence achieved by Alexander. Caesar was a brilliant military leader who conquered the transalpine Gauls and consolidated his power over the reigns of Roman government, but didn't match the overall military feats of Alexander. Most of Rome's expansion occurred before Ceasar's rise during the Republic's earlier wars with Carthage, Numidia, and others.
Napolean was a brilliant land tactitian but seriously underestimated the potential strength of British naval power and its ability to inflict lasting economic blockades. And well, he was French...Er, Corsican, excuse me.
Yep. The winner is....Alexander the Great. And he was...
Re: Re: The Greatest Conqueror in All History!
Originally posted by who?-kid
You mean the greatest mass murderer ?
Alexander was not a mass murderer, in fact, the only "murdering" he may have done was when he sacked and pillaged the ancient Persian city of Persepulis. Other than that, he was concidered by almost All of his subjects as a Liberator.
Originally posted by dark wizard
a contest between julious ceasar and alexander the great., but julious's empire llasted unlike alexanders
Thats not true at all, becuase Alexander's empire actually lasted centuries after his death. It was divided among his generals and they each started kingdoms and empires which were continuously ruled by MACEDONIAN kings and queens, with MACEDONIAN successors.