The Greatest Conqueror in History!

Originally posted by Seth Wynd
I voted "other" since my vote goes to Sargon the Great.

He didn't conquer near as much land as anyone listed, but at the time; he literally conquered all of the known world. If there were people there, or if it had a use, and it was known to exist in the first place; he took it.

He was also the first to boast having a standing army, which was close to 5400 men (huge for the time period; since this was VERY early on in civilization). He was an outright dick and a merciless tyrant, but he *was* good at conquering land.

What was the time period? Because back then, the "known world" may have been a 100 acre field of poppies.

(From history-world.org)

SARGON OF AKKAD was an ancient Mesopotamian ruler who reigned approximately 2334-2279 BC, and was one of the earliest of the world's great empire builders, conquering all of southern Mesopotamia as well as parts of Syria, Anatolia, and Elam (western Iran).

Which at the time? Covered most of the settled areas of the world.

Didn't quite reach Egypt, poor man. 😉

I honestly don't think he knew Egypt was even there o_O

After all, he displayed a remarkable tendency to invade a country the moment he knew where it was >_> ...

😂 Sounds like he had too much time on his hands.

Of course he did. Those solid-stone X-box consoles just never quite caught on, so he had to occupy himself with invading places *nod*

Lucky man, he was.

I myself find it a bit surprising that a huge majority of people dont even know who Sargon The Great is, let alone what he accomplished.

I decided to vote on this poll, and after much deliberation, the vote went to Ghengis Khan.

Im not a big fan, but Mongolian Empire WAS the biggest one, so...I guess he deserves a vote.

And considering he built his empire from nothing but a few goat-herders, a worthy choice...

Definitely Alexander The Great. 😉

It is difficult to decide between Alexander and Genghis Khan regarding this subject.

But Genghis Khan gets my vote.

Here is a view of Khan's conquest: Click here!

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
It is difficult to decide between Alexander and Genghis Khan regarding this subject.

But Genghis Khan gets my vote.

Here is a view of Khan's conquest: Click here!

They both achieved great things. Alexander Took all of Greece, brought down the Persian Empire, etc. etc. and all he started with was a small, relatively insignificant kingdom.

G took a small tribe of, basically, foragers and farmers, and ended up uniting all the mongols, whose empire spread far and wide, but once the Mongols were united he didn't actually do much himself. Most of his conquests were a reesult of his policy of letting his most trusted generals start wars of their own accord.

He did a good job with the Tartars, but I think Kublai and Ogedei were more impressive as far as conquering foreign lands went. Of course, they wouldn't have been able to conquer anything if G hadn't given them a platform to build on.

All in all, a very tough decision, but I'd personally go with Alexander simply because he did so much in so little time, and he did it all himself.

Originally posted by Lord Coal
They both achieved great things. Alexander Took all of Greece, brought down the Persian Empire, etc. etc. and all he started with was a small, relatively insignificant kingdom.

G took a small tribe of, basically, foragers and farmers, and ended up uniting all the mongols, whose empire spread far and wide, but once the Mongols were united he didn't actually do much himself. Most of his conquests were a reesult of his policy of letting his most trusted generals start wars of their own accord.

He did a good job with the Tartars, but I think Kublai and Ogedei were more impressive as far as conquering foreign lands went. Of course, they wouldn't have been able to conquer anything if G hadn't given them a platform to build on.

All in all, a very tough decision, but I'd personally go with Alexander simply because he did so much in so little time, and he did it all himself.

Haha. I like how you refer to Genghis Khan, as ''G''.

Whose da most gangsta khan in tha hood? It's Genghis da 'G' fo' shizzle..... etc.

Originally posted by Council#13
What was the time period? Because back then, the "known world" may have been a 100 acre field of poppies.

So did many of the mentioned characters, most of the material dating from that say that they all more ore less conquered the known world.

I will go for Khan for numerous reasons mainly he showed, great skills in both warfare and the economic aspects of the empire that he created, it is also a well known fact that if he hadn't decided to go elsewhere with his armies instead of continue through middle Europa nothing except the sea would have proved to be a strong enough factor to defeat him, perhaps halt his advance but not defeat him.

Don't get me wrong Alexander is a great Character as well, but his empire was reduced to rubble upon his death because of bad leadership from his part on the purely social and so on perspective of leading a empire.

Julius Caesar only conquered Most of northern Europa nothing when it is compared with the other mentioned characters.

Originally posted by Utrigita
Don't get me wrong Alexander is a great Character as well, but his empire was reduced to rubble upon his death because of bad leadership from his part on the purely social and so on perspective of leading a empire.

In fairness, Alexander's empire crumbled upon his death because he didn't have an heir. His legitimate son was unborn and was later murdered, almost certainly on the orders of one of his generals, and Craterus (Who, it is debated, Alexander may have named as his successor) was also assasinated before he could assume control.

This left the Empire to be divided between his generals, who squabbled for years.

Actually, the Diodochi(Successor) States, that Alexander left, didnt crumble. They each forged Macedonian dynasties which lasted for centuries.

Also, just becuase someone conquers a huge amount of territory, doesnt make them the greatest. The skills that were used by the conqueror to initiate total victory should be looked at.

No, the Successor states, for the most part, didn't crumble. Who said they did?

What was said was that his empire, as an individual entity, did. Obviously Macedon and Greece still exist today, Seleucia stood for a while, and Egypt was a hugely influential land right up until the death of Cleopatra VII before being absorbed into the Roman Empire. It flourished again the middle ages and still exists today, though not as great as it once was....

As far as the skills used to achieve the victory in the first place go, Genghis probably takes that hands down. You have to do something special to do what he did with what he started with.

Originally posted by Lord Coal
In fairness, Alexander's empire crumbled upon his death because he didn't have an heir. His legitimate son was unborn and was later murdered, almost certainly on the orders of one of his generals, and Craterus (Who, it is debated, Alexander may have named as his successor) was also assasinated before he could assume control.

This left the Empire to be divided between his generals, who squabbled for years.

Yet the fact that he never decided to take the time to built up the land he conquered also had a great effect.

For Record I was not speaking of the empires that rose from Alexanders but fact is that the Empire of Alexander crumbled.