Just curious i know this does not have anything to do with civ 4 but i was looking at the scenarios and a question came to mind. What country had the greatest conquest. I want to hear your opinions and sorry there is not many choices i just put the major ones down.
For me i would say Napoleon because he had such great tactics and strategy.

Just curious i know this does not have anything to do with civ 4 but i was looking at the scenarios and a question came to mind. What country had the greatest conquest. I want to hear your opinions and sorry there is not many choices i just put the major ones down.
For me i would say Napoleon because he had such great tactics and strategy.

If you ask me I would have say the Mongols. I think they carved the largest empire ever in known history. They have great strategist and fierce warrior/generals not to mention the most ferocious horseman and horsearcher known in history. And being a nomadic tribe / nation they adept and learn fast from their enemies. (learned the usage of cannon from the Jing and later numerous other first in siege weapons.

If you mean the largest and most stable empire then I would say the Tang Dynasty in China where their territory come all the way to almost present day turkey. ;) And on another note, Tang Dynasty is an extremely good example of how religion help in empire building as the then nation around China (including stretching all the way to almost present turkey are all buddist nations. :)

Napoleon, Hitler and Julius... conquested?

Taking into account the time period the Mongols.
In terms of the conquered territories becoming part of a long-lasting empire Caesar.
The 1 you missed who deserves to be up IMO there was Cyrus. He led a minor tribe of the Median Empire to conquer the Medes, Babylonians, Phonecians, Lydians and the Greeks in Asia Minor. For approx 2 centuries the Persian Empire was the superpower of its day.

Try history forum.

genghis, funny too, because in civ unmodded his sort of a weak leader.

I would suppose either Alexander the Great or Genghis Khan.

I would suppose either Alexander the Great or Genghis Khan.

yeah either of those two could be it, i dont count a single roman leader as, rome wasnt built in a day :D

genghis and alexander both counquered huge territories in their lifetimes

cant really say hitler or napoleaon as they both conquered and then lost their empires

alex and genghis died with their empires at their largest and intact

cortes-he and a few hundread adventurers took on an empire and won.
lenin-trotsky-a few hundread bolsheviks conquered the biggest country in the world
castro-he, and a few dozen men invaded cuba, and after a few years overthrew the government.

napoleon was not a conquerer. he never fought an aggressive war. all his wars were defensive.

hitler conquered poland, big deal, and france, got lucky. failed to conquer england because he started bombing london instead of the RAF, and totally screwed up operation barbarossa. if it were not for hitler, germany might have won the war, so hitler is not a good conqueror at all.

alexander the great might be #1. He took his army, and invaded a country 100x bigger then his own, and conquered it. within 7 years he increased the size of his empire 100 or 1000 fold.

genghis khan- okay, he created the biggest empire in history, but most of the land he conquered was empty wilderness.

it all depends on the criteria you use. most land conquered, hardest fought victory, greatest against-all-odds win, an empire that actually lasted, etc..

cortes-he and a few hundread adventurers took on an empire and won.
lenin-trotsky-a few hundread bolsheviks conquered the biggest country in the world
castro-he, and a few dozen men invaded cuba, and after a few years overthrew the government.

napoleon was not a conquerer. he never fought an aggressive war. all his wars were defensive.

hitler conquered poland, big deal, and france, got lucky. failed to conquer england because he started bombing london instead of the RAF, and totally screwed up operation barbarossa. if it were not for hitler, germany might have won the war, so hitler is not a good conqueror at all.

alexander the great might be #1. He took his army, and invaded a country 100x bigger then his own, and conquered it. within 7 years he increased the size of his empire 100 or 1000 fold.

genghis khan- okay, he created the biggest empire in history, but most of the land he conquered was empty wilderness.

it all depends on the criteria you use. most land conquered, hardest fought victory, greatest against-all-odds win, an empire that actually lasted, etc..


lenin & castro, no, not really

your right about the mongols though, the areas they conquered were for the most part pretty sparesly populated

I think Alexander is the best choice, Macedonia is tiney compared to the area he conquered, he did it earlier then anyone else to, and the territory he conquered was quite advanced for its time (egypt, greece, persia), unlike cortez who basically conquered a relatively technologically inferior people, also Alexander actually fought side by side with his troops and was wounded in battle numerous times. Genghis wasnt really all that physically courageous when compared to Alexander.

Carved out an empire before age 35, Alexander really was impressive.

Since the debilitating conquests of the Memymenmentos virus isn't an option, I couldn't vote in the poll :(

To the people calling the Mongol Empire "sparsely populated", uh... by 1279 they had conquered nearly all of geophysical Eurasia (i.e. not the Indian or Arabian plate) east of Hungary and south of the Baltic, with the exceptions being Southeast Asia and the near-miss of their Japanese invasion fleet being taken out by the weather.

It wasn't just the steppe. Not even close.

British Empire - 36.6 million km²[1] (under King George V in 1922)
Mongol Empire - 33.2 million km²[1] (under Khublai Khan in 1268)

:king:

To the people calling the Mongol Empire "sparsely populated", uh... by 1279 they had conquered nearly all of geophysical Eurasia (i.e. not the Indian or Arabian plate) east of Hungary and south of the Baltic, with the exceptions being Southeast Asia and the near-miss of their Japanese invasion fleet being taken out by the weather.

It wasn't just the steppe. Not even close.

yeah i forgot about china and russia

British Empire - 36.6 million km²[1] (under King George V in 1922)
Mongol Empire - 33.2 million km²[1] (under Khublai Khan in 1268)

:king:


33.2 was more impressive in an age without battleships and destroyers

and the near-miss of their Japanese invasion fleet being taken out by the weather.


It is pretty interesting how many times in history more superior (in numbers) fleet was destroyed due to weather (Greeks vs Persians, Spanish vs English, Mongols vs Japanese, and I am sure those are not only examples)

I'm not that impressed by Alexander the Great as an empire-builder rather than a military leader. His empire split in many parts almost immediately after his death and had much less lasting influence than the Persian or Roman empires.

cortes-he and a few hundread adventurers took on an empire and won.
lenin-trotsky-a few hundread bolsheviks conquered the biggest country in the world
castro-he, and a few dozen men invaded cuba, and after a few years overthrew the government.

napoleon was not a conquerer. he never fought an aggressive war. all his wars were defensive.

hitler conquered poland, big deal, and france, got lucky. failed to conquer england because he started bombing london instead of the RAF, and totally screwed up operation barbarossa. if it were not for hitler, germany might have won the war, so hitler is not a good conqueror at all.

alexander the great might be #1. He took his army, and invaded a country 100x bigger then his own, and conquered it. within 7 years he increased the size of his empire 100 or 1000 fold.

genghis khan- okay, he created the biggest empire in history, but most of the land he conquered was empty wilderness.

it all depends on the criteria you use. most land conquered, hardest fought victory, greatest against-all-odds win, an empire that actually lasted, etc..

actually napolean was not definding he was conquiring europe. i would call that aggresive

Caesar was the only conqueror on that list that really helped to build an empire, whereas the others made extensive but very temporary gains and the Mongols were just a wave of murderous horsemen. I'm not gonna count it as conquering if all you do is kill pretty much everybody. (I am ready for a Mongol expert to yell at me.)

I think this would be better in the history forum first off.

Secondly I thought the options didn't match the question. Personally I think the arabs/muslims starting under the rashidun were the greatest conquerors namely Khalid ibn al-walid or the sword of god.

I won't say the mongols because their conquests fell apart or rather disappeared underneath the powerful local cultures plus their sheer brutality almost changes the meaning of conquest. If you are willing to wipe clean the land of people and civilization then yes conquering is easy compared to say not killing them and learning to rule the local populations.

genghis khan- okay, he created the biggest empire in history, but most of the land he conquered was empty wilderness.
Now I am not sure if all of these are were conquerred by Genghis, but he first conquered the opposing Mongols (who had the same military capabilities as him), Persia and China (two of teh largest and most powerful Empires of the time). Much of central Asia is now a sparsely inhabited backwater, but back in the Days of the mongols, there were large and powerful nations there.

I think Alexander is the best choice, Macedonia is tiney compared to the area he conquered, he did it earlier then anyone else to, and the territory he conquered was quite advanced for its time (egypt, greece, persia), unlike cortez who basically conquered a relatively technologically inferior people
Genghis started with a nomadic tribe, I would say that is a smaller power-base than Macedon, and Philipp II had conquered parts of Greece.
The Macedonian army (built by Phillip II) was far more advanced than the Persians and other armies they faced. The Macedonians were professional soldiers, their enemies mostly peasant levies. The Macedonian Phalanx with sarrissas was far more powerful than any military formation they faced. Elephants and numbers were the only real equalizers that his enemies had.

napoleon was not a conquerer. he never fought an aggressive war. all his wars were defensive.
Yes his invading foreign countries was defensive, even when he initiates hostilities (Invasion of Russia, for example).

If you are willing to wipe clean the land of people and civilization then yes conquering is easy compared to say not killing them and learning to rule the local populations.
Which they often did. Many Mongols adopted the local customs. And they didn't just raze every city, just those that opposed them.

Also the question isn't "Who built the greatest empire, but who had the greatest conquest (thread title and poll), or which country did (OP).
The former is a toss-up between Genghis and Alexander.
Of the other poll options:
Hitler failed in his conquests. He only defeated one modern nation (France) other conquests were: Greece, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway etc.... nothing that had any possible way of defeating a well equipped modern fighting force.
Napoleon is slightly behind the other two. He defeated many nations that should have been able to stop him (he overcame greater opposition than Alexander) and I would rate him as the top tactician here. But he failed and did not make peace when neccessary.
Julius Caesar is a hard on to judge, he conquered the backwatrds people og Gual, with extensive use of local Allies. While a great achievement holds little against the greatest conquests in history. Now it is hard to judge his success in teh civil war compared to the massive expansion of the other options.

Some people that deserve to be in teh poll:
Cyrus the Great (Conquered Mesoptamia, Asia Minor, Palestine, Modern Iran, and parts of Central Asia, establish a powerful ad long lasting Empire, until Alexander comes along)
Qin Shi Huang (uniting China was no simple task)

I would put Trajan ahead of Caesar, but maybe I'm wrong. Anyway, the question is too ambiguous to answer.

Anyway, this belongs in the World History forum, doesn't have anything to do with Civ4.

I would like to point out that you guys are consistently bringing up up the fact that the Mongol Empire was the largest empire in the world. But, the poll clearly asks which is the greatest conquest. I chose Alexander because this millitary genius took over a small country called Greece (+ Macedonia) at the age of 19 after his father's death. Within a few years, he had conquered the whole known world and due to his conquests he ushered the known world into a new period of history. Alexander was a strategical genius and routinely wiped Persian forces from the map that were at least twice his number in men.

Genghis, meanwhile, took a band of fighting nomads and turned it into one of the greatest military forces the world has ever seen. He rutinely defeated far larger forces.
At the same time, Alexander recieves much credit that should go to his father. The stage was set, the army recruited, trained, and equipped. Many people also look at numbers to much, sure the Macedonians were generally heavily outnumbered, but they had the best troops in the world, especially once Persia's Immortals were destroyed.

They both achieved amazing things, along similar lines (taking a small, or no, nation and turning it into a vast Empire in a rather short period of time). For overall strategy and diplomacy Genghis is by far the superior and it clearly aided him in his conquests. Alexander was his match on the tactical level, though I can not say definitively which was superior.

Originally posted by markiz2001

genghis khan- okay, he created the biggest empire in history, but most of the land he conquered was empty wilderness.



China was not empty wilderness...:(

btw, I think Qin Shi Huang was the greatest conquerer

It is pretty interesting how many times in history more superior (in numbers) fleet was destroyed due to weather (Greeks vs Persians, Spanish vs English, Mongols vs Japanese, and I am sure those are not only examples)

Oh goodness, can you imagine how annoying it would be if that was incorporated ingame? Your carefully prepared SOD sunk en route to target by some bad weather! The defeat of the Spanish Armada was also down to English naval superiority don't forget, not just the weather!

Alex or Gengis? I've got to go with Alex. He marched a foot army (some horsemen, but no stirrup) from Greece to India with a side trip to conquer Egypt and the Levant. Was grossly outnumbered in every battle, but still won all of them. A tactical genius whose battles are still studied in all the major war colleges to this day. And the only reason he turned back from India was because his army revolted and demanded to go home and enjoy their booty. Throw in the spread of Hellenic culture as a result of his conquests and you're talking about the one individual probably most responsible for the creation/dissemination of what would become "western culture". Best conquerer? Definitely. Probably the most important non-religious leader in all of human history? Yeah, I'd have to give him that one too.

The defeat of the Spanish Armada was also down to English naval superiority don't forget, not just the weather!
The English and Dutch Fleet did its part to force the Armada away from England and the Netherlands, but it was the storms that destroyed the ships.

On teh same line, weather has always been an immense factor in naval warfare, far greater than on land (especially during the age of sail), and a storm is so much more dangerous to those at sea. I believe those account for the number of historical fleets destroyed in bad weather.

Shouldn't it be Alexander of Macedonia instead of Greece?

when heconquerd greece i think his nation took the name of greece

I read somewhere recently that something like 96% of people now living in Temujin's original conquests are decended from him. I don't see how you can beat THAT. (Maybe it wasn't quite that high, but it WAS an amazingly high percentage.)

"An international group of geneticists studying Y-chromosome data have found that nearly 8 percent of the men living in the region of the former Mongol empire carry y-chromosomes that are nearly identical. That translates to 0.5 percent of the male population in the world, or roughly 16 million descendants living today."

The poll seems a bit limited. Two remarkable conquerors are omitted:

Robert Clive - added India to the British Empire.
Francisco Pizarro - Conquered the Incas.

Also which Caesar are we voting for Julius or Augustus?
Augustus is famous for the Pax Augusta (Augustan peace) and was more concerned with sorting out the internal problems of the existing empire rather than expanding it.
Julius conquered Northern Gaul (N France, Switzerland, Belgium and SW Germany) so has some claim to be there but his two failed attempts to invade Britain count against him.

genghis khan- okay, he created the biggest empire in history, but most of the land he conquered was empty wilderness.


Now that's just silly. Genghis took most of the world that was really worth having.
Modern day china, which was perhaps the most advanced and cultured region in the world at this time.
The original unification of the steppe tribes.
Central asia, and the muslim caliphate during its golden age.
And he also made a start on Russia.

Compared to any of these places, western Europe was a bit of a backwater.
This isn't the enlightenement and European dominace we're talking about here.



I won't say the mongols because their conquests fell apart or rather disappeared underneath the powerful local cultures

This is also a bit of a misconception. Genghis forged an empire that lasted for the better part of two centuries, unlike some other popular figures Ahem *Alexander im looking at you*

And during this his military machine expanded into Europe, crushing the Rus and humiliating the forces of western Europe.

Additionally, despite initial brutality, it did forge the pax mongolia and create unprecedented levels of Asia-Europe trade.

But seriously, History forum?

i voted for rome because i think they conquered a huge amount of land

Mongols, uniting the tribes, conquering the most technilogically advanced empire of the time, then wiping out Russia and Persia, then wiping out the Middle East, but the conquest stopped at Hungary because Genghis died.

Even with all that, Alexander of MACEDON still comes close.

Like everybody else, this should be in the history forum.

but the conquest stopped at Hungary because Genghis died.
Nope, Genghis died long before then the Western expansion halted at Ogedai's death.

[quote]when heconquerd greece i think his nation took the name of greece[/quote
Nah, it just sounds better if he was a Greek (for much of history since the dark ages, the Greeks have been revered, so they include him).

Genghis conquered the northern half of China. Kublai conquered the half still ruled by the Song.

Despite that, I put Genghis first. Sort of like Philip II and Alexander combined.

The greatest conquest of all time happened on January 1st 2008 around 4 am Pacific Standard Time - Conquerer - Me- conquered - here name is Joanna ;) :p

Wudi, because he conquered Vietnam and his people kept it that way for 1000 years... quiet an achievement.

but more seriously, Genghis. pathetic kid with horrible childhood turns into the most feared conqueror of his time, largest continuous land empire, millions subjugated (or dead!), extremely important to Western contact with the East, upset natural balance of power, destroyed ancient civilizations, etc...

Alexander was also pretty amazing too. imagining conquering much of the known world... under the age of thirty. thats like a university student being Dictator of the World.

I'll rank them:
Genghis Khan
Hitler
Alexander III
Napoleon
Ceasar

according to the post its genghis, alexander, ceasor, napolean and hitler but i would definitly put napolean as number one because of his strategies. (i know i already said it first post)

according to the post its genghis, alexander, ceasor, napolean and hitler but i would definitly put napolean as number one because of his strategies. (i know i already said it first post)

Napoleon was pretty good, but he lost all that he gained too quickly.



I was ranking them in my opinion.:king:

yea i know i was not responding to your post just checking up on the polls.
everyone has their opinions:)

yea i know i was not responding to your post just checking up on the polls.
everyone has their opinions:)

Glad that you clarified.:goodjob:

I'd have to say that when the Federatorial managed to Conquer Europe in 6 days, that was impressive. Not to mention the countries in Asia, the Middle East, and the coast of North Africa (of course, that wasn't really hard, that just required some people to stick up a flag and some ships to block off the naval cities.)

The Islamic Conquests was quite impressive, as was the Mongol Conquests. Alexander the Great was a good general but his empire fell after his death, while the Mongol and Islamic Empires lasted for about a hundred years each before breaking up. Caesar was overrated - the only real piece of territory he added to Rome was Gaul, and even then he had some difficulties, both on the political front and on the battlefield. Napoleon and Hitler were great conquerers but failed to win a conclusive victory and ended up imprisoned (Napoleon) and committing suicide (Hitler).

The Islamic Conquests was quite impressive, as was the Mongol Conquests. Alexander the Great was a good general but his empire fell after his death, while the Mongol and Islamic Empires lasted for about a hundred years each before breaking up.
Fair enough, but in the theoretical side of warfare Alexander is by far more useful than the Muslims. The conquests of the early Caliphs merely proved that it is easy to take over large tracts of land from empires that are already exhausted by war. Besides, Alexander's Empire really didn't disintegrate immediately after his death; it took twenty-two years of fun, destructive war before that happened. Due to Alexander, Hellenic (or rather, Hellenistic) culture was spread all the way to India and dominated most of the Near East and Middle East all the way up to the Muslim invasion.
Caesar was overrated - the only real piece of territory he added to Rome was Gaul, and even then he had some difficulties, both on the political front and on the battlefield. Napoleon and Hitler were great conquerers but failed to win a conclusive victory and ended up imprisoned (Napoleon) and committing suicide (Hitler).
Caesar managed to beat up the best trained armies in the world under some of the best commanders of the time, conquered a truly vast tract of land in Gaul, and developed Marian and Polybian Roman legions to their utmost. Winning the civil war at the disadvantage at which he started is an achievement unparalleled in history. And I'm not sure what "difficulties" you mean on the political front; if you're referring to the assassination about which he knew and allowed to go forward, then I don't see how that qualifies him as "overrated".

Napoleon contributed a good deal to tactical and operational art early in his campaigns (after 1806 or so he had a disturbing tendency to just mass artillery to blow open a big hole in the enemy) and transformed the map of Europe, while Hitler and his staff gave us the supreme application of indirect attacking. The transience of their empires doesn't detract from their accomplishments (although yes, Hitler did get much of what he did in spite of himself as opposed to due to his genius; he was no military man after all), and that transience, with regards to Napoleon, is somewhat misleading. After all, Napoleonic institutions forever altered European law and the European economy and even had effects in America (Louisiana...ever seen A Streetcar Named Desire? :p).

Of the options, I'd say Ghengis Khan. While his empire only lasted a few generations past his death, Alexander's fell apart just after his death, while Napoleon and Hitler's didn't even last as long as they did.
As for Caesar, I think he's often over-estimated as a conqueror. His real achievement was his seizure of power within Rome and his laying the foundations for Imperial Rome.

I'm going to have to go with Gengis for reasons already mentioned.

It's got to be Temujin, how many times have you seen a technologically inferior, non-sedintary people destroy sophisticated technologically advanced empires with vastly more numerous populations? The Mongol army in my opinion was the greatest military force of all time (considering its era). Alexander's Greece was just as advanced if not more so than Persia.

how many times have you seen a technologically inferior, non-sedintary people destroy sophisticated technologically advanced empires with vastly more numerous populations?

The Arabs? The Persians? I don't think the Mongols were the only ones to manage the feat, though they certainly did it up right.

I would say the Mongols as well. I mean it is the largest land empire in the world. And various successors such as the Golden Horde lasted a long time. And then there's the Timurid Empire, and the Mughals are considered an off shoot of the Timurids and such. The Arabs were also impressive.

I would say the Mongols as well. I mean it is the largest land empire in the world. And various successors such as the Golden Horde lasted a long time. And then there's the Timurid Empire, and the Mughals are considered an off shoot of the Timurids and such. The Arabs were also impressive.
Nomadic conquests of civilised states has happened many of times, from the Indo-Aryan conquest of the Harappan (Indus Valley) civilisation to the Manchu conquest of China. The number becomes even greater when you include conquests by migriting, temporarily nomadic peoples, such as the Hyskos conquest of Egypt or the Dorian conquest of Greece.

Nomadic conquests of civilised states has happened many of times, from the Indo-Aryan conquest of the Harappan (Indus Valley) civilisation to the Manchu conquest of China. The number becomes even greater when you include conquests by migriting, temporarily nomadic peoples, such as the Hyskos conquest of Egypt or the Dorian conquest of Greece.

Or the Huns' near conquest of Rome...

Or the Huns' near conquest of Rome...
Where'd you get that little tidbit? They came just about as close as Arminius did. Attila conquering Rome is if anything less believable than the Mongols conquering Europe - at least the Mongols won battles.

I'd probably say the Mongols, but I would also throw in the Arab conquests just because most of the conquered lands stayed.

Hitler and Napolean don't count -- they lost.

Its between Alexander and Khan and Khan has an edge.

Greatest conqueror? Toss up between Walt Disney and Coca Cola?

Seriously, I reiterate my position from last month that Alexander is far and away the greatest conqueror of all time. There were Greek cities in Afghanistan and India for a 1000 years after he died (giving rise to the myths of "Prestor John"); find me a Mongol outside of Mongolia.

And a shout out to the kid who got laid on New Year's Eve: Congratulations (even though it's New Year's - not exactly the toughest night of the year), just don't go around referring to women as "conquests" or you might spark a "guerilla uprising" and find yourself "expelled from her territiory". Capece?

Seriously, I reiterate my position from last month that Alexander is far and away the greatest conqueror of all time. There were Greek cities in Afghanistan and India for a 1000 years after he died (giving rise to the myths of "Prestor John"); find me a Mongol outside of Mongolia.
Good point- even Alexanders short-lived empire had far-reaching cultural effects, albeit through the various successor states that emerged, while the Mongol Empire did nothing but fragment and assimilate. If you're measuring "greatness" in terms of individual legacy, few people match up to Alexander.

Although, just as a technical point, the very fact that "Mongolia" is a country shows the Great Khan's influence- prior to him, the Mongols were just one of many tribes in the region, but today they are the dominant ethnicity. Not as impressive as the spread of Hellenism, I'll grant you, but worth remembering.

Good point- even Alexanders short-lived empire had far-reaching cultural effects, albeit through the various successor states that emerged, while the Mongol Empire did nothing but fragment and assimilate. If you're measuring "greatness" in terms of individual legacy, few people match up to Alexander.

Alexander and his successor states Hellenized much of the known world and would be on a short list (very short list) of 'most influential and important people ever' in history up to that point. (and for centuries after)

Mongols didn't so much as leave a distinctively 'Mongolian' stamp on their lands, but the impact of their conquests and empire, directly and indirectly ushered in the modern world as we know it. Black plague and the long term social repercussions that resulted, decline of the Islamic Golden age, Age of Exploration and the rise of Europe, to a lesser extent the Renaissance and countless other things a fair argument can be made that they came about due to (as I said, directly or indirectly) the Mongols.

Since I've already discussed that topic at length in another thread, I won't expand on them here. But if anyone would like to dispute a specific 'achievement', I'll be happy to discuss it.


If I was forced to pick between them for 'greatest conquerer', i'd probably go with Genghis. There was simply a much greater disparity in technology and might between what he had and faced vs. what Alexander had and faced. Sure the Persians were massive, but Alexander had arguably greatest, most advanced (technology up to date and significant strategy advantages) army in the world at the time. Improved phalanxes from the land that made em famous and the best cavalry anywhere in the world at that time. The Persians tripled and quadrupled them, sure. But they didn't have anything approaching Alexander's elite forces. (Immortals were actually fairly lightly armored and not great against the horse)

Genghis Khan faced off the wealthiest, most advanced, and powerful states of his time. The horse archer was nothing new. It had been effective since the time of the Huns, but had its limitations. And he was facing a numerically and economically superior foe with massive fortifications, the earliest cannons, guns, and rockets (not that they were a major factor at that time), that could field armies that could dwarf them. And in the span of his lifetime the Mongols became some of the premiere siege artists of the day (alot of help from conquered subjects in China/Mideast), created the largest contiguous land empire in history, and (as I acknowledge above) paved the way for the modern world.

You're welcome to dispute it, but I think the Mongols faced more of an uphill battle than Alexander did at the time as far as foe superiority vs. their initial inferiority goes.

cortes-he and a few hundread adventurers took on an empire and won.
lenin-trotsky-a few hundread bolsheviks conquered the biggest country in the world
castro-he, and a few dozen men invaded cuba, and after a few years overthrew the government.

Mao took a handful of followers and conquered China.

Personally, I think Napoleon and Hitler fought the toughest opponents, Genghis conquered the most, Alex conquered the most efficiently, and Caesar shouldn't be on the list because he took an already formidable army and conquered the smallest area against one of the weaker opponents; then, he won a coin-flip battle against his only remaining rival (Pompey) and got himself killed. Most people could have done what he did.

I'd have to say that when the Federatorial managed to Conquer Europe in 6 days, that was impressive. Not to mention the countries in Asia, the Middle East, and the coast of North Africa (of course, that wasn't really hard, that just required some people to stick up a flag and some ships to block off the naval cities.)
WTF is the Federatorial? O_o;

Why does Hitler always get more credit then Tojo? All things considered, Tojo's conquest was much more impressive.

WTF is the Federatorial? O_o;

It's this massive european/north african/asian empire that existed between 2012 and 2075.
(PS: I made it up. It's the evil empire in my novel.)

Alrighty....

In terms of pure conquest, I'd say the Mongol and Manchu conquests of China rank pretty high.

Why does Hitler always get more credit then Tojo? All things considered, Tojo's conquest was much more impressive.
Because the vast majority of people on this site are Westerners, and thereby focus on Western history, and ignore the laughable East.
That being said, I wouldn't be able to pick between the two. The complete collapse of both, followed by their re-emergence as major economic powers, really make it difficult.

Why does Hitler always get more credit then Tojo? All things considered, Tojo's conquest was much more impressive.
Last time I checked, Hitler screwed around more with the actual military decisions than did Tojo; while I do know a lot more about the higher military leadership of Nazi Germany than Imperial Japan, in my mind Hitler's interference in the planning of "Sicklestroke" and the Balkan invasions - along with the prewar political strokes in Czechoslovakia and Austria that secured advantageous German positions for the invasion of Poland - and even his interference in the Eastern Front military operations (frankly "Blue" had a better chance of success than did further attacks on Moscow) had some merit, but for his meddling at the tactical and operational levels (send more troops into the Stalingrad meat grinder, guys! Genius! :p). While the Japanese government could have made those Pacific conquests without Tojo, the Germans couldn't have done as well - or as poorly - as they did without Hitler.

A tough choice: hum...
Between Genghis and Alexander...
hum...
I can't decide between them.

The poll seems a bit limited. Two remarkable conquerors are omitted:


Francisco Pizarro - Conquered the Incas.



Pizarro - 2 pts
Incans - 0 Points
Disease - 98 points

Greatest conquest? That's like asking what was the greatest gang rape or genocide.

Sure, what do you think the greatest (as in most impressive) genocide was?
Some criteria I would consider:
Number killed, speed, amount of success, benefits to the other people etc....
I can't say, since I don't know much about historic genocides.
I will say that the holocaust was probably one of the worst. Helped rally people against Germany in the war, sucked many potential resources from the Nazi war machine, tarnished the image of Germans in general, a lot of Jews are still around, it was a significant contribution to the founding of the state of Israel. Not to say that the amount of people killed in that short period of time while embroiled in a major war wasn't impressive, but the surviving Jews gained a lot more than the Nazis.

BTW: I am totally serious, IMO that would be a very valid discussion.

Disclaimer: I am not supporting genocide or saying the holocaust was good.

If one more person says Alexander conquered the known world one more time, Ill choke that person. The world is made more of than just Greece to Afganistan. And if your talking about the known world the greek knew then ill choke you again. Much of Europe, the Mediterean, the Arab penisula and Africa was not conquered. And also, the Mongolian world was just China, Japan Korea and some SEA states, Genghis pushed to the door steps of Europe and stretched an Empire from The Yellow Sea to the Black Sea more impressive than Alexander ever did. Also the options and posts in this forums is so western centric

But Hitler was a military retard. Had he just let Rommel run the war, they would have fared much better. Hitler was not a great strategist or a field commander.

Gheghis and Alexander could paralyze opponents just by staring at them.

I say Nazi Germany, not so much Hitler though. The fact they took over practically all of continental Europe in modern times against organized powers to me is much more impressive then Alexander or Genghis or Caesar who took down relatively disorganized powers by comparison. Napoleon was very impressive for the same reasons, but he got taken down by Europe itself whereas it took an outside power (the US) to finish off Germany.

I say Nazi Germany, not so much Hitler though. The fact they took over practically all of continental Europe in modern times against organized powers to me is much more impressive then Alexander or Genghis or Caesar who took down relatively disorganized powers by comparison. Napoleon was very impressive for the same reasons, but he got taken down by Europe itself whereas it took an outside power (the US) to finish off Germany.

I don't consider the Persian Empire "A relatively disoranganzed power". They were the 900lb Gorilla at the time.

I don't consider the Persian Empire "A relatively disoranganzed power". They were the 900lb Gorilla at the time.
Very true, but ancient world organized is slightly different then modern world organized. Even relatively disorganized modern powers would have been pretty highly centralized by ancient standards. I mean we are talking about powers where it would take weeks to get a message to the capital.

I say Nazi Germany, not so much Hitler though. The fact they took over practically all of continental Europe in modern times against organized powers
Huh? They took on 3 powers in Europe (Poles, Czechs, etc... were insignificant compared to the Germans), with the support of 2 second rate powers, and a bunch of weaker countries. They beat one, couldn't get to the other and eventually lost, and got their rear ends handed to them by the third.

Napoleon fits that statement far better. He defeated every power that opposed him (except maybe the British) at least once, often in humiliating fashion. He controlled more of Europe (sure they were "independent states" but they were puppets, until he started losing.

Huh? They took on 3 powers in Europe (Poles, Czechs, etc... were insignificant compared to the Germans), with the support of 2 second rate powers, and a bunch of weaker countries. They beat one, couldn't get to the other and eventually lost, and got their rear ends handed to them by the third.

Napoleon fits that statement far better. He defeated every power that opposed him (except maybe the British) at least once, often in humiliating fashion. He controlled more of Europe (sure they were "independent states" but they were puppets, until he started losing.
Germany did everything Napoleon did essentially in addition to causing devastation to Britain that Napoleon couldnt dream of.

Napoleonic France
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/Europe_map_Napoleon_1811.png

nazi Germany
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7e/Second_world_war_europe_1941-1942_map_en.png/654px-Second_world_war_europe_1941-1942_map_en.png

Germany also ended up with more territory before its eventual collapse, which like I said took an European outsider to bring about as opposed to Napoleon who was defeated by Europe.

Hitler never would have defeated Britain, sure he bombed their cities, but that wasn't going anywhere. Sure they received material from the US, but the US military was unnecessary in the end.
Even put this way, Hitler faced 4 powers (Britain, France, Russia, US) and beat one.
Napoleon defeated Spain, Prussia, Austria, Russia, Sweden (all of whom were contemporary powers. He did not necessarily occupy them, and they did end up coming back to bite him, but he forced them to accept peace on his terms, which Hitler failed to do) while only consistently failing to defeat Britain.

Hitler never would have defeated Britain, sure he bombed their cities, but that wasn't going anywhere. Sure they received material from the US, but the US military was unnecessary in the end.
Even put this way, Hitler faced 4 powers (Britain, France, Russia, US) and beat one.
Napoleon defeated Spain, Prussia, Austria, Russia, Sweden (all of whom were contemporary powers. He did not necessarily occupy them, and they did end up coming back to bite him, but he forced them to accept peace on his terms, which Hitler failed to do) while only consistently failing to defeat Britain.

No, I'm quite sure Napolean got pwned by Russia in the end.

As for Hitler taking Britian, I think he could have taken Britian, US or No. The US had not declared war at that point. There was a certain period where the RAF was completely dead. Had Hitler chosen to bomb the airfields and communication towers instead of Bombing London, he could have cut all communications and done an airdrop in my opinion.

Hitler never would have defeated Britain, sure he bombed their cities, but that wasn't going anywhere. Sure they received material from the US, but the US military was unnecessary in the end.
Even put this way, Hitler faced 4 powers (Britain, France, Russia, US) and beat one.
Napoleon defeated Spain, Prussia, Austria, Russia, Sweden (all of whom were contemporary powers. He did not necessarily occupy them, and they did end up coming back to bite him, but he forced them to accept peace on his terms, which Hitler failed to do) while only consistently failing to defeat Britain.

In the end though, even if it took a decade, Germany would have defeated Britain.

I voted Alexander since he was able to defeat multiple superpowers with a force many times smaller than theirs. He defeated the gargantuan Persian Empire and the Egyptian Empire, and was only stopped by the extent of his conquests. He also did it all with 90% infantry, very little mobility throughout his empire.

No, I'm quite sure Napolean got pwned by Russia in the end.

As for Hitler taking Britian, I think he could have taken Britian, US or No. The US had not declared war at that point. There was a certain period where the RAF was completely dead. Had Hitler chosen to bomb the airfields and communication towers instead of Bombing London, he could have cut all communications and done an airdrop in my opinion.

I disagree, Germany was losing too many pilots just by scouting. The RAF and the anti-air guns would had prevailed in the end. Also trying to find comunication lines and airfields was quite hard back then. The aiming system of plans was also pretty whack. Attacking railways and roads were a pain and they missed plently of times. No way would Germany try to find these things and accuratly hit it. It would be too much of a damage to do so

As for Hitler taking Britian, I think he could have taken Britian, US or No. The US had not declared war at that point. There was a certain period where the RAF was completely dead. Had Hitler chosen to bomb the airfields and communication towers instead of Bombing London, he could have cut all communications and done an airdrop in my opinion.
Wishful thinking. Germany had no chance, even IF they had broken the RAF (which still had plenty of assets out of range of the luftwaffe to counter an invasion) they had nothing to take on the RN with. They might be able to get some troops to Britain, but there would be no way to keep them supplied.

Wishful thinking. Germany had no chance, even IF they had broken the RAF (which still had plenty of assets out of range of the luftwaffe to counter an invasion) they had nothing to take on the RN with. They might be able to get some troops to Britain, but there would be no way to keep them supplied.

I'd agree with this. In fact, anyone who thinks that Germany ever had any real chance of outright conquering Britain is either a kook or misinformed. Germany never had the Navy to land and supply a sufficient land force on Britain and it would be years before they'd be able to build one. Batter them into submission via bombing and continually hitting their shipping? Maybe. But outright conquering? Not a chance.

As for NAZI Germany, Hitler was no general. And many of his decisions later in the war were contrary to conventional military wisdom and failed miserably. His choices earlier in the war worked so effectively because he was facing antiquated, ill prepared, and/or poorly led militaries. Germany of 1939 did not need any tactical geniuses to take Poland. They also significantly outclassed France and unit for unit, Russia. Russia of course had more units and those came to bear later in the war. Germany's success was checked once they came up against more equivilent teched, better maintained and led armies.

And also, the Mongolian world was just China, Japan Korea and some SEA states, Genghis pushed to the door steps of Europe and stretched an Empire from The Yellow Sea to the Black Sea more impressive than Alexander ever did. Also the options and posts in this forums is so western centric
Marching over Siberia, the Sung Empire at its weakest, the weak northern Chinese states, and the decentralized Russians is definitely more impressive than smashing the Achaemenids (who were the greatest power in the world at that time). :p Fundamentally, Alexander and Genghis achieved the same result: they both crushed a huge powerful Persian empire (one beat the Achaemenids, the other killed the Khwarezmians; the relatively lower power of the Khwarezmians is somewhat offset by the relatively larger number of combatants Genghis had to deal with) and added some extra stuff. Genghis just got a lot more "extra stuff" because his enemies were generally weaker and he had the perfect extant tool to exploit it. That doesn't denigrate either of their achievements, because they were both generals barely paralleled in history, but neither was a fundamentally better warlord than the other. Besides, the seizure of large chunks of land really isn't a measure of great conquests: one of the most historically significant conquests was that of Silesia in 1740-2 by old Friedrich II, and that's one of the smallest pieces of land you can find, even by European standards. But it turned Brandenburg/Prussia into a viable member of the European Pentarchy and paved the way for the Prussian-dominated Second Reich.

I'd say Alexander and Genghis. They're equals.....

Marching over Siberia...
Central Asia doesn't equate to Siberia. In fact, the Northern frontier of the Mongol Empire more or less runs along the edge of Siberia.

In terms of Millitary conquest, I would say Genghis comes first, because he started as a boy living in a tribal wasteland. His own tribe had been destroyed by his enemies, and he was almost made into a slave. But he rose out of this state and became the ruler of nearly all the civilized parts of Asia, save Arabia, Japan and India, and also had a good try at conquering Europe as well.
I would put Alexander as a close second. Though his empire was a bit smaller and very short-lived, he was also certainly a great commander and leader, who marched an ancient army to India, being stopped by nobody.
Hitler would come third, in my opinion. He may have been beaten and reviled in the end, but at the start of his campaigns he could take entire countries in weekends, and brutally overran anybody who opposed him, save Britain and the USA.

In terms of cultural spread, I think that the most mightiest conquerors (in no real order) were Britain, who spread protestantism and western culture, the Arabs, who managed to spread Islam and Islamic culture even through areas that were once predominantly Christian and Hindu, and the Chinese, who created one of the oldest and most stable states in the world. The Spanish are also close runner-ups.

Alex or Gengis? I've got to go with Alex. He marched a foot army (some horsemen, but no stirrup) from Greece to India with a side trip to conquer Egypt and the Levant. Was grossly outnumbered in every battle, but still won all of them. A tactical genius whose battles are still studied in all the major war colleges to this day. And the only reason he turned back from India was because his army revolted and demanded to go home and enjoy their booty. Throw in the spread of Hellenic culture as a result of his conquests and you're talking about the one individual probably most responsible for the creation/dissemination of what would become "western culture". Best conquerer? Definitely. Probably the most important non-religious leader in all of human history? Yeah, I'd have to give him that one too.

Greatest conqueror? Toss up between Walt Disney and Coca Cola?

Seriously, I reiterate my position from last month that Alexander is far and away the greatest conqueror of all time. There were Greek cities in Afghanistan and India for a 1000 years after he died (giving rise to the myths of "Prestor John"); find me a Mongol outside of Mongolia.

Alot of good points and sound arguments have been advanced here in support of Genghis, but I still hold to the position that Alex is probably the single most important non-religious leader in human history. GK grabbed alot of ground, but he just didn't have anywhere near the same impact as Alex.

Alot of good points and sound arguments have been advanced here in support of Genghis, but I still hold to the position that Alex is probably the single most important non-religious leader in human history. GK grabbed alot of ground, but he just didn't have anywhere near the same impact as Alex.
But where is that influence today? They certainly did have greater influence culturally than the Mongols, but where is Alexander's Hellenic culture now?

On this topic (but not in response to any particular post), there was recently a list made by a historian of who the most infuential people were. The top three were:
1. Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) (obvious reasons)
2. Isaac Newton (making modern physics)
3. Jesus Christ (peace be upon him) (also obvious reasons)

That influence today is the bedrock of all that is considered Western Civilization.

That influence today is the bedrock of all that is considered Western Civilization.
How so? Alexander never conquered any of Europe outside Greece.

But where is that influence today? They certainly did have greater influence culturally than the Mongols, but where is Alexander's Hellenic culture now?

On this topic (but not in response to any particular post), there was recently a list made by a historian of who the most infuential people were. The top three were:
1. Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) (obvious reasons)
2. Isaac Newton (making modern physics)
3. Jesus Christ (peace be upon him) (also obvious reasons)


See, besides Jesus Christ and perhaps Mohammed(I put Jesus before Mohammed because Christianity is bigger than Islam), Alexander is the single most influentual person in history.

There's this thing called western civilization and Greek Hellanism inspired and evolved into, you should look into it.

For the same reason, I believe Salamis(and marathon) is the single most important military battle in history.

See, besides Jesus Christ and perhaps Mohammed(I put Jesus before Mohammed because Christianity is bigger than Islam)
The author had other reasons to put Muhammad (peace be upon him) at the top of the list than just religion size (such as being a successful political leader, practically creating Islamic civilization etc.), but I'll leave it since it isn't quite on the topic, and topics like this also tend to attract n00bs who start stupid flame wars...

There's this thing called western civilization and Greek Hellanism inspired and evolved into, you should look into it.
Again, the Greeks may have come up with western civilization, but Alexander certainly didn't directly bring it to Western Europe. The Romans did that.

yeah, Alexander spread his culture eastward not westward...

Encapsulating the development and dissemination of Hellenic Culture (particularly in the arts and philosophy) and it's impact in a short paragraph may just be too great an endeavor for a man of my meagre talents to undertake. Greek arts/craftsmanship/religion/social mores/and, most importantly for this discussion, philosophy, have been ridiculously important to the development of intellectual traditions the world over. Greek pottery patterns and styles were adopted into localized traditions from N Africa to India. Greek religious practices were adopted wholesale by Rome and spread throughout the Empire, but also absorbed into Buddhism. Greek arts and letters formed the structural basis for drama, comedy, poetry, and music through to the current day. Philosophy (particularly the school of Socrates/Plato/Aristotle) and it's advocacy of detached criticism and free inquiry underpin the entire history of scientific and rational thought. How did this come about? Simply because Alexander built cities along the lines of his conquests. And even though he died young, the various entities that his empire broke up into were all ruled by a Greek elite that reveled in the culture of their homeland. These cities became cultural engines that spread Greek ideas and the Greek language throughout the known world. Long before the various Greek successor states had been aborbed into the Roman Empire, Hellenic Culture had been adopted enthusiastically by Rome to the extent that Greek was the universal language of the Empire. The Western Empire was overrun, the Eastern Empire continued until 1453, and the language and culture were Greek. The early-Caliphates and their remarkable output in science and the arts were inspired by translations of the Greek masterworks and educational tradition. And upon the fall of the Byzantines, the learned refugees of the east brought about the Renaissance in Italy; an explosion of science, culture, and the arts not seen since Athens a thousand years earlier. If Alexander had been merely a conqueror out to pillage and subjugate, Hellenic culture may have vanished with the city states of Ancient Greece. Instead, he created cultural incubators that transmitted and elaborated that tradition down through the ages and made possible the multiplication of human knowledge.

Again, the Greeks may have come up with western civilization, but Alexander certainly didn't directly bring it to Western Europe. The Romans did that.

The cities that Alexander built and the fact that he destroyed the Persian empire are enough influence. Hellenistic Culture may have spread eastward by conquest but it was Alexander's Conquests that eventually paved the way for Rome. Rome pretty much re-conquered most of Alexander's territories and expanded the empire, but they adopted alot of the things that Alexander had established.

Rome pretty much re-conquered most of Alexander's territories and expanded the empire

You can't really say that because Alexander's Empire was largely Middle-Eastern and Central Asian; that is, the Persian Empire plus fairly large tracts of land in Central Asia and north-western India. The Roman Empire was much more Mediterranean-based, encircling the Mediterranean Sea as well as some other extensions, such as Britain. The Romans never reached India or Central Asia and aside from temporary conquests of Mesopotamia and even areas of modern Iran, never had much control beyond Syria/Palestine due to strong resistance from the Parthians/Sassanids, as well as numerous other factors.

You can't really say that because Alexander's Empire was largely Middle-Eastern and Central Asian; that is, the Persian Empire plus fairly large tracts of land in Central Asia and north-western India. The Roman Empire was much more Mediterranean-based, encircling the Mediterranean Sea as well as some other extensions, such as Britain. The Romans never reached India or Central Asia and aside from temporary conquests of Mesopotamia and even areas of modern Iran, never had much control beyond Syria/Paletine due to strong resistance from the Parthians/Sassanids, as well as numerous other factors.

Looking at the maps, I would say the Eastern Roman empire included much of Alexander's empire. It may have no come as far, but it covered alot of the same land.

Also, much of what formed the incarnation of the Persian Empire that confronted Rome was descended from Alexander's conquests, thus also incorporating a very strong Hellenistic influence. And don't forget the Ptolemeic Kingdom of Egypt which did much to spread Hellenism in the Med (Alexandria and the Great Library anyone?).

Looking at the maps, I would say the Eastern Roman empire included much of Alexander's empire. It may have no come as far, but it covered alot of the same land.

I suppose that in a way you could say that though they (the Eastern Romans/Byzantines) largely stuck to their territories which had been gained from Rome's earlier conquests; after all, they faced considerably more pressure from foreign powers than Alexander did. Think about it, Alexander only had to (mo or less) push forward and as mighty (at least in size and manpower) as the Persian Empire was, his tactical genius and skill and organisation of his army was able to outweigh these challenges; whereas the Byzantines were often being pressured on many fronts, such as from the Bulgars, the Sassanids, the Arabs, the Seljuk Turks etc and leaders like Belisarius and Basil II couldn't be everywhere at once.

yeah, I agree, once they split, they captured little or no new territory....