Re: Re: Re: The Greatest Conqueror in All History!
Originally posted by Penelope
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.
Well well well.
And how many innocent people - men, women and children - died thanks to your beloved Alexander ? And how many were taken away and sold as slaves ?
5 ? 20 ? 100 ? 800 ? 2000 ? 15000 ?
Alexander may have been a great conqueror, he had a lot of blood on his hands. This is not up for debate.
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Greatest Conqueror in All History!
Originally posted by who?-kid
Oh I see, that was "the only murdering"...Well well well.
And how many innocent people - men, women and children - died thanks to your beloved Alexander ? And how many were taken away and sold as slaves ?
5 ? 20 ? 100 ? 800 ? 2000 ? 15000 ?
Alexander may have been a great conqueror, he had a lot of blood on his hands. This is not up for debate.
Every single great conqueror has a lot of blood on the hands. Though Alex had a lot of blood on his hands, Genghis Khan made sure that most of the cities or villages that he pillaged, had no survivers. Now who is the murderer here? And by the way, there are many other great conquerors and leaders besides Alex.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Greatest Conqueror in All History!
Originally posted by Penelope
Every single great conqueror has a lot of blood on the hands. Though Alex had a lot of blood on his hands, Genghis Khan made sure that most of the cities or villages that he pillaged, had no survivers. Now who is the murderer here? And by the way, there are many other great conquerors and leaders besides Alex.
Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
Alexander took over and controlled the most in the Shortest ammount of time, and I don't think he ever lost a battle (might have on India, can't remember) His only problem was his Heir was too young to take over when he died, and he didn't proclaim a successor
India is considered to be his bloodiest victory, and his "heir" wasnt even born when he died, he was born after his death. And yes, he never lost a single battle.
There is alot of interesting thoughts and persepectives in this thread in this thread.
Originally posted by dr. pookie
alexander was the "real life" version of Achilles, the greatest warlord ever born
That is not one of them. I suggest that you read either more about Achilles or more about Alexander.
Originally posted by Mr Parker
Hmm I was going to say-thats easy,Napolean since he's the most well known but Ghengis Khan is also very well known so I would say its a tie between those two.
You are basing your decision on who is more well known as opposed to accomplishments? Am I to assume that you think that Britney Spears is one of this generations greatest entertainers because she is so well known?
When I first saw the poll, I immediately thought Alexander of Genghis Khan.
However, having thought a bit deeper about it, I think Hernan Cortes has a good shout, as he did conquer an entire empire with only 200 men. "But they had far superior weaponry" you shout. However, as anyone who has seen 'Zulu Dawn' (not the Michael Caine film, the other one with Peter O Toole) and knows about the massacre of the British at Isandlwhana by the Zulus, having superior weaponry doesn't guarantee anything!
Originally posted by Mithlond
When I first saw the poll, I immediately thought Alexander of Genghis Khan.However, having thought a bit deeper about it, I think Hernan Cortes has a good shout, as he did conquer an entire empire with only 200 men. "But they had far superior weaponry" you shout. However, as anyone who has seen 'Zulu Dawn' (not the Michael Caine film, the other one with Peter O Toole) and knows about the massacre of the British at Isandlwhana by the Zulus, having superior weaponry doesn't guarantee anything!
Ya, the massacre happened because of the British underestimated them, and you also have to take into account the fact that the Zulu army was crippled soon after because they lose 1,000-2,000 men, even though they still had every advantage except for superior weaponry, which is what killed them. Cortes used manipulation to win, and I do agree you have to give him cred for that.
I'd say Genghis Khan. Why? Cuz he conquered, but ensured that he wouldn't have problems in areas he's already been by putting loyal, qualified people into positions of power, instead of just ones who were related to him.
Originally posted by Emily Rose
i CHose Alexander too, but i also think cYrus the great shouldnt be forgotten, after all he is the fOunder of the pErsian empire
I agree. Cyrus was the first Emperor of Persia and founder of the Achaemenian dynasty. He also wrote the very first Declaration of Human Rights.
Khan. How do you beat nomads who drink horse blood and can shoot arrows at you while riding horses?! Although, if Hannibal actually ever managed to conquer Rome, I'd say he was the greatest military leader, but since he didn't, he's only one of the greatest. As far as tacticians go, I'd say King Leonidis. Battle of Thermopylae.
Originally posted by Neutro
Although, if Hannibal actually ever managed to conquer Rome, I'd say he was the greatest military leader, but since he didn't, he's only one of the greatest.
He would have handed Rome's ass to them if his countrymen had of supported him.
As far as leonidas' ability as a tactician? I'd say that he was more of a warrior general then a tactition. If he were technically sound he would have made sure that all passes were posted with sentries.
Wow, very interesting thread! Takes me way back to the old history class.
Well, there are quite a few good choices here. A lot of good conquerers representing some of the most well known empires throughout history with the exception of one major one. Where is the Ottoman Empire? Where is Mehmed II or Suleiman?
Also, there is some confusion as far as who is the greater conquerer the one who originally started the empire or the one who expanded it and ruled during it's height. It's height obviously referring to the most powerful time and the most land it had acquired at the time of the empire's existence.
Examples of this...
It's true Phillip II basically laid the groundwork for most of the success that Alexander accomplished but it was Alexander who took it a step further by expanding the empire and taking it to its height of greatness.
The same can be said for the Persian empire. Cyrus laid the groundwork but it was under Xerxes rule that the empire expanded to its most powerful height.
The great Roman Empire is even more complicated. Once again Caesar laid the groundwork for all future Caesars that would rule Rome afterwards by his victories in Gaul, defeating other roman dictators and his political victories of taking power away from the Senate and bringing Rome under one ruler. But it was Agustus who later really unified Rome, taking it from yrs of civil war and laying the blueprint of real government that every other Caesar would come to follow for yrs to come bringing forth the great Pax Romana. But it was really under Marcus Aurelius' rule that the Roman Empire was at it's height and it was he who expanded the empire to it's biggest state by winning great victories against both germanic and britanic tribes or the barbarians as the Romans called them.
In any case, we're voting on best conquerer and not greatest empire which would of course be Rome. So out of the available choices, my vote goes to Alexander. At the height of his Empire he had conquered most of the known world, he was a great military strategist as well as ruler who actively fought in most of his epic conquests. He was responsible for spreading the Greek culture and establishing modern architecture, developing arts and systems of education throughout the territories he conquered like Alexandria in Egypt.
But above all, the main reason why I choose to go with Alexander from all the other conquerers on this list is the method in which he chose to spread his Greek culture throughout the world. In most of the towns he conquered he would kill off the men and then have his army impregnate the local remaining women. So in other words he spread his culture by spreading his seed. What a great way to spread culture huh? This is why to this day you still see some Persian women with blue eyes. Yep you can thank good 'ole Alex the great for that. If this alone doesn't make you the greatest conquerer I don't know what does?