Which guy came closest to conquering the globe? I'd say GK. His empire stretched from China to Arabia. If he was also a good politicain and could maintain that gigaintic kingdom, he COULD have conquered the world!

In terms of total area, Genghis Khan was closest, as he conquered the largest empire in the world. But if you ask about potential, I'd say Alexander the Great - though I don't think he had potential to conquer the world. And I don't think anyone has had such potential.

RATS! I knew I was forgeting someone!

Queen Victoria :)

RATS! I knew I was forgeting someone!

it happens to everyone, one time or another... :jump:

willam the conquerer

Alcibiates of Athenae, who will move this thread to the History forum when he sees it.

The beatles

Queen victoria had the potential

History topics go in the history forum...moved.

Alexander, who conquered the KNOWN world in his time, and civilized while he conquered.

I agree with those who said Alexander the Great. He conquered a lot in a very short time. If he had lived longer who knows how far he would I have gone. Genghis is a close second but IIRC quite a bit of the Mongol empire was conquered by his successors.

Genghis is prob the one, had he not died, they would probobly have taken the hole of europe. But when he did, the general at that task turn home to see to his powerbase, history tells...

Hitler could prob have taken europe, a bit of afrika and some of asia - if a few more things had gone in his way(or thay had finished his two stage rocked that would have reached USA). But I don't think he had been intressted of conquering the whole world... and then he would have had taken on Japan, and the US, and what had been left of russia. Nah, but europa was in his reach.

Out of those, Genghis. Overall, Alexander.

nah, alexander was great, but genghis did more conquering

Gehngis by far. If you purchase the book What If (various authors), you will find many essays about alternate history. One of them is about hwo if Genghis Khan had not died on that day when the Mongols were outside Vienna, Europe would have easily fallen to the Mongols. Also, if the Mongols conquered Europe, the world as we know it would be drastically changed. There would probably no America, only a new Mongolia.

Originally posted by jdd2007
nah, alexander was great, but genghis did more conquering

Look at what he conquered though: weak powers, for the most part.

Alexander's enemies, for his time, were more formidable in comparison to him.

I voted Genghis, although Hitler could have easily conquered Europe and won in Africa and the USSR had he not been blinded by his hatred of commuism.

I'd vote for alexander.

I voted other... Alexander would be my pick.
As for potential.... How about George W. Bush... Afghanistan, Iraq, what's next North Korea????

Originally posted by SeleucusNicator


Look at what he conquered though: weak powers, for the most part.

Alexander's enemies, for his time, were more formidable in comparison to him.

Utter Nonsense! With that name, you ought to know better. Alexander took over the Persian empire and made expeditions to some border territories to ensure their acknowledgemen; that was it! How can you possibly compare his coup to Genghis' conquest of most of Eurasia. Genghis built his army, Alexander inherited his from his daddy. Genghis created a new empire, Alexander took an old and decaying one over. The bit about Alexander's enemies being more formidible was the silliest thing you said: do you actually know anything about either empire?

Originally posted by Parsifal


Utter Nonsense! With that name, you ought to know better. Alexander took over the Persian empire and made expeditions to some border territories to ensure their acknowledgemen; that was it! How can you possibly compare his coup to Genghis' conquest of most of Eurasia. Genghis built his army, Alexander inherited his from his daddy. Genghis created a new empire, Alexander took an old and decaying one over. The bit about Alexander's enemies being more formidible was the silliest thing you said: do you actually know anything about either empire?

That is highly incorrect. At Philip's death, he only ruled Greece. Alexander conquered Egypt, Asia Minor, and parts of India.

If his troops weren't so lazy, they could have finished off India and taken China, thus rewritting history.

Originally posted by naervod
Gehngis by far. If you purchase the book What If (various authors), you will find many essays about alternate history. One of them is about hwo if Genghis Khan had not died on that day when the Mongols were outside Vienna, Europe would have easily fallen to the Mongols. Also, if the Mongols conquered Europe, the world as we know it would be drastically changed. There would probably no America, only a new Mongolia.

Actually, it was the death of Ogadai Khan that turned the Mongols away from Europe. Ogadai was the chosen successor of Genghis. when he died, Batu, ruler of the Golden Horde, rode his troops from Vienna back to Karakorum to participate as a possible seccessor of Ogadai.

Alexander the Great and the Macedonians did have more potential than Genghis and the Mongols in taking over the world. The Macedonian's own culture spread throughout their conquered lands. With the Mongols, it was the other way around. They lost their culture when the cultures of the conquered people gobbled them up.

Originally posted by archer_007


That is highly incorrect. At Philip's death, he only ruled Greece. Alexander conquered Egypt, Asia Minor, and parts of India.

If his troops weren't so lazy, they could have finished off India and taken China, thus rewritting history.

You misunderstand. I know what Alexander ruled when he came to power. He couldn't have taken over India, and his troops weren't lazy. That's propaganda. Alexander started with Macedonia and then he overthrew the Persian king. That's the limit of his achievement. As for taking over China...pure fantasy:scan:

A long line of US presidents. Of course, its still an ongoing thing...

Napoleian, Gengis Khan, The Duke of Normandy Whilliam the Conquerer, and Ceser.

Out of these above only Hitler could have conquered (or destroyed) the whole world.And as there were "minor" races everywhere he would've done it if he had the chance.

Though I admire Caesar,I can't consider him the greatest conquerer when he was beaten by Germanics,Britanics and almost even the Gaullish (his victory was far from being sure).

I once read an essay by Toynbee about Alexander not dying in 323 BC and a Hellenic empire stretching all across the globe (a bit unrealistic,but not too much) with Heron inventing trains and steamboats and Hannibal discovering America.

Television and Internet...

Cimbri the Fanatic

Originally posted by Parsifal


You misunderstand. I know what Alexander ruled when he came to power. He couldn't have taken over India, and his troops weren't lazy. That's propaganda. Alexander started with Macedonia and then he overthrew the Persian king. That's the limit of his achievement. As for taking over China...pure fantasy:scan:

How is this propaganda?

Another vote for Alexander.

Puglover I'm surprised you haven't mentioned the man who conquered the most people without ever spilling blood...

:jesus:

Alexander, especially when taking in consideration the technology of his time. :king:

I'd rate Genghis first. Alexander second. Both shaped the history of the world. Both left a legacy. Genghis went from being a lone, exiled nomad at age 8 to ruler of what would quickly become the largest empire the world has ever seen at his death. Alexander inherited the army and a fairly stable kingdom fom his dad; and conquered a decaying, overstretched empire.

Originally posted by puglover
Which guy came closest to conquering the globe? I'd say GK. His empire stretched from China to Arabia. If he was also a good politicain and could maintain that gigaintic kingdom, he COULD have conquered the world!

It was not a kingdom, not even an empire in the true sense. The land area was huge, even by modern standards and the population back then was much smaller. Also, there were no means of communication secure a strong grip on the conquered lands. The differences in peoples and languages were far to great to be overcome. In a few years, the mongols were assimilated by the local populations and Gengis Khan's empire faded into oblivion. The remainder of the mongol empire would be the Golden Horde which would survive for a few more centuries...

Maybe someone knows more about this ...

Besides the Golden Horde, there also was the Great Mongol Horde, the Chagataiid Horde, the Il-Khanate, the Sibir Horde, the Dzungarian Horde, and later the Timurid Empire. And it only took a week for a Mongol to get from one end of the empire to the other. There were no differences with people, it was to a Mongol a "them or us" situation. And some of the hordes assimilated into their region culture like the Il-Khans, whereas some like the Chagataiids forced a lot of there culture on the conquered lands. But you have to admit, it would take a good conquerer to conquer all of that.

Gengis Khan, no doubt.

Compare the population of the mongol tribes united by GK, and the population of China in the middle age (even considering that GK conquered only the Kin Empire, and not South Song Empire). China was the most populated and advanced civilisation of the world. If GK and his successors had not ravaged the entire Eurasia (Kubilay: the Songs, Hulagu: middle east, Ogodai: eastern Europe, Baber and Akbar: India), except Western Europe , we would not speak english in this forum.
GK's conquest changed the development of the world.
Alexander's one did not. The persian civ survived. The greek would have survived without Alexander.
Therefore GK is the greatest conqueror.

If the Mongols did conquer all of Eurasia, this forum wouldn't exist. In fact, a great many technological developments wouldn't exist if the Mongols managed to keep possesion of that Empire.

"If the Mongols did conquer all of Eurasia, this forum wouldn't exist. ", Dark Ascendant
I think I may have not been clear. I tried to say:
"the Mongols did conquer all of Eurasia, but Western Europe",
because of Ogodai's death, as you explained in an earlier reply.

"In fact, a great many technological developments wouldn't exist if the Mongols managed to keep possesion of that Empire"
It's not wrong. But managing to keep an empire is another question.
In fact, the empires of both GK and Alexander were divided into their successors, and eventually disappeared, in 3-4 centuries for the Macedonians, as for the Mongols: the macedonians did not manage to keep their empire better than the mongols.
Besides, managing to keep an empire eternally is not a condition to change the development of the world.
Ravaging China, and middle east, but not Europe (outsider in 1206), was sufficient to make the future "great many technological developments" take place in Europe.

Hmmm i'm gonna betray all my usual rabblings about Egypt and go with Alexander the Great (who else)

Originally posted by carniflex
the macedonians did not manage to keep their empire better than the mongols.


Okay, the Macedonians couldn't find someone big enough to fill Alexander the Great's shoes. That's one place where GK did well; a smooth transition from him to Ogodai. I guess that was because GK had the foresight to think things through about his successors. It didn't help the empire in the end but at least it didn't split the empire between the sons of the Khan then and there.

Originally posted by Sultan Bhargash
Puglover I'm surprised you haven't mentioned the man who conquered the most people without ever spilling blood...

:jesus:


But his empire was not of this world but of heaven. :)

Originally posted by Dark Ascendant
Okay, the Macedonians couldn't find someone big enough to fill Alexander the Great's shoes. That's one place where GK did well; a smooth transition from him to Ogodai. I guess that was because GK had the foresight to think things through about his successors. It didn't help the empire in the end but at least it didn't split the empire between the sons of the Khan then and there. It wasn't much of a foresight; only an ancient nomadic and Mongol custom of dividing the father's inheritance equally amongst the sons. So the sons (or their representatives) each got parts of Mongol empire. And Ogodei became the Great Khan and had nominal control over all the khanates (although even this nominal control evaporated after Kublai Khan's time). But in effect, it was a division of GK's empire, in accordance with custom.

If Alexander had a stronger heir, the whole empire would have passed to him and mayhaps the Macedonian empire would survive longer.

Originally posted by carniflex
Compare the population of the mongol tribes united by GK, and the population of China in the middle age (even considering that GK conquered only the Kin Empire, and not South Song Empire). China was the most populated and advanced civilisation of the world. If GK and his successors had not ravaged the entire Eurasia (Kubilay: the Songs, Hulagu: middle east, Ogodai: eastern Europe, Baber and Akbar: India), except Western Europe , we would not speak english in this forum.The only reason why the Mongols never returned to loot Western Europe was because there's nothing worth looting there. ;) Under Batu, a Mongol formation had recon all the way to Germany, Poland and Hungary, gathering info and conducting some looting (they fought and defeated a combined German-Polish-Hungarian army). When Ogodei died, Batu returned to attend the kurikiltai (sp?), to decide on the succession (Mongke). But he never returned and striked deeper into Western Europe, because fr his intelligence gathering there wasn't much to reward for his efforts. So Western Europe was 'spared'.

The Mongols instead turned their attention elsewhere, like the riches of Nan-Song, India, the Middle-East etc. And moved their forces accordingly - the majority going to participate in the conquest of Southern China (took them one whole generation).

BTW, Baber and Akbar were Mughals, not Mongols, and they're fr a much later period (like 1-3 centuries). And Ogodei was in Mongolia and N China, not Eastern Europe. Batu was in charge of that theatre.

Knight Dragon, thanks for correcting my confusion between Batu and Ogodei, and precise the underdeveloppement of Europe of the 13th century.
About Baber, he took Dehli in the mid 15th century and found the Moghol empire in north India. But he was a descendant of Tamerlan, who claimed being a descendant of Gengis Khan, and was a Mongol.
Therefore, I place Baber in GK's "successors" and Mongols.

ok, to answer this you have another quastion...
It's Ceaser, becouse he conquered many areas with very early weopns, swords...
It's Gengis Khan, becouse what I said about ceaser, and he had the biggest empier...
It's not napoleon, couse he didn't conquered much, but it could be him, couse he invented things and ideas for his armies to use...
I t could be any miliatery man, depends on when and where...

btw it's NOT hitler. first he NEVER won realy (1 war, 1 loose) and he wasn't the general... when he was the general the germans realy lost...

Originally posted by carniflex
About Baber, he took Dehli in the mid 15th century and found the Moghol empire in north India. But he was a descendant of Tamerlan, who claimed being a descendant of Gengis Khan, and was a Mongol.
Therefore, I place Baber in GK's "successors" and Mongols. Timur was more Turkic, than Mongol IMO. He was a great Central Asian warlord, who pushed in all directions and routed the Golden Horde (the remnants anyway).

Thank God, he died, before invading Ming China with 200,000 troops. :)

By the time of Baber, the link with the original Mongol core had become pretty strenous. I think Baber attached himself to the Mongol (and GK) name for prestige, as with Timur.

The greatest conqueror is not a single individual.
At this point I think western culture is the greatest conqueror of all times ;)

Cimbri

Originally posted by Cimbri
The greatest conqueror is not a single individual.
At this point I think western culture is the greatest conqueror of all times ;)

Cimbri

How very accurate. :)

I think the greatest conqueror is Ghengis Khan and he conquered China(world's wealthiest and most advanced country), Kharezm Empire(under Turkish rule, one of the strongest countriest-perhaps the strongest one), petty kingdoms in Middle East and Eastern Europe.

However Alexander's only dangerous rival was Persia, an empire in decline.

When we compare tactics and strategies of Alexander and Ghengis, I think in a possible war between each other, Ghenghis would crash Alexander's unwieldy phalanxes with his light cavalry.

Just a note that German Panzer generals before WW2 studied the tactics of Ghengis' general Subutai(I think that was his name)

If we need to talk about cultures of Mongols and Macedonians, we see Mongols were assimilated. In Chaina they became Buddhists and Chinese and in middle east they became faithful followers of Muhammed just because they were nomads and the countries they conquered possesed a higher culture than they had.

Overall I think Ghengis Khan overwhelms Alexander in success.

Was Casanova a great conqueror?

Alexander the great, he went from greece to india in 13 years, genghis khan went from mongolia to russia in 20. Both used revolutionary tactics and ideas, but alexander was faster in his goals.

Ghenghis Khan because he conquered from the Pacific to modern day Kiev, alexander did barely anything, he basically walked through the world with a couple of soldiers, that is why when u see maps its just an arrow of where he went, not the total area he controlled.

Originally posted by Lynx
Alexander the great, he went from greece to india in 13 years, genghis khan went from mongolia to russia in 20. Both used revolutionary tactics and ideas, but alexander was faster in his goals.

Mongolia to Russia is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay longer than Greece to India. And it only took GK 7 years more.

Wildbore,
You have just underestimated Alexander. He had brilliant military strategies. He also took in the culture of the lands he conquered so he can go on. The thing is his men were not motivated. GK's men lived in the desert barely surviving while Alex's men were drinking wine in Macedonia. GK's men were motivated to become a great and rich nation while Alexander's men were only doing it for glory which didn't take them far. Alexander was a terrific conquerer but his mission did not motivate his men.

Originally posted by Wildbore
Ghenghis Khan because he conquered from the Pacific to modern day Kiev, alexander did barely anything, he basically walked through the world with a couple of soldiers, that is why when u see maps its just an arrow of where he went, not the total area he controlled.
Well, you are underestimating Alexander really much!

khan.
he was probably the most recognized leader for war.
He ruled with an iron fist, and didnt tak nuttin from nobody.:slay:

Yet now, his ignorance led to his perish...

Originally posted by Wildbore
Ghenghis Khan because he conquered from the Pacific to modern day Kiev, alexander did barely anything, he basically walked through the world with a couple of soldiers, that is why when u see maps its just an arrow of where he went, not the total area he controlled.

Alexander's top three generals divided the conquered lands amongst themselves after Alexander's death. That included Greece, Egypt, Asia Minor, the Middle-East, and Persia. I wouldn't call that just some arrows.

BTW, Alexander inherited Macedonia from his father, GK tried to become the tribal chief after his father died and the men wouldn't follow him because he was only thirteen. He and his family was split from the tribe. When GK unified the Mongol tribes and invaded The Kin, he was already 40. I respect him more than Alexander because he was just a lot tougher.

Well, it is true that the mongols conquered a very big part of the world, but that wasn't only Ghengis Kahn. He died when they were invading China, I believe, so most conqest was done by his follow-ups. Alexander the Great did well too, in 30 years. But the biggest conquerer is Hitler, since there is no-one who conquered/allied about entire Europe (except GB and SU) in just 2 years

Originally posted by Cecasander
Well, it is true that the mongols conquered a very big part of the world, but that wasn't only Ghengis Kahn. He died when they were invading China, I believe, so most conqest was done by his follow-ups.No, he died while the Mongols were returning to savage Xi Xia, the Sinicized Tangut kingdom on China's north-western frontier. In remembrance, the Mongols completely razed the Xi Xia capital...

GK's greatest achievement was to establish a formidable new-style military machine, out of the diseparate nomadic tribes of Mongolia, that went on conquering, even after his demise.

Alexander the Great did well too, in 30 years. But the biggest conquerer is Hitler, since there is no-one who conquered/allied about entire Europe (except GB and SU) in just 2 yearsThat's an application of the technology of the times; nothing about inherent 'conqueror' abilities in Hitler. Considering what GK had at his disposal, the Mongols did amazingly well.

The Mongols conquered a big part of the world, but they didn't conquer any important European empires. Most of their territory was underdeveloped, empty, poor and had no important culture at the moment. So the Mongols didn't gain the (relative) power and supremacy the Roman Empire or Alexander the Great gained.

Originally posted by addiv
The Mongols conquered a big part of the world, but they didn't conquer any important European empires. Most of their territory was underdeveloped, empty, poor and had no important culture at the moment. So the Mongols didn't gain the (relative) power and supremacy the Roman Empire or Alexander the Great gained. A listing of some of the Mongols' conquests...

N China, the Jin empire
S China, the Southern Song
Persia and Mesopotamia, the Abbasid Caliphate (?)
Central Asia, the Khwarzm sultanate
Korea (allied)
NW China, the Tangut kingdom of Xi Xia
Xinjiang, the Kara-Khitai (Black Khitans)
Russia, the Rus Kievan principalities

Plus, Mongol forces recon and ravaged into N India, SE Asia (in particular Burma and Java), Japan, Palestine...

One particular column, under Batu, ravaged thru Poland, Germany, Hungary before returning eastwards to attend the kurikhiltai (sp?) to decide the next Great Khan. They never returned, 'cause there's nothing to loot in Europe, as compared with the riches available elsewhere.

China alone has enough culture, population and development to match a couple of Europes in the 13th century... :rolleyes:

No I don't respect conquerors. They just plunder and kill and perhaps 'civilize' people by force and that's all they do. Besides most conquerors lost their empires very soon after their own deaths.

"The Mongols conquered a big part of the world, but they didn't conquer any important European empires. Most of their territory was underdeveloped, empty, poor and had no important culture at the moment. So the Mongols didn't gain the (relative) power and supremacy the Roman Empire or Alexander the Great gained."

Addiv, I'm sorry but I have to pick you up on this. Europe had nothing! Absolutely nothing. It was backwards in all respects with a miserable climate and inhabited by people who would mutilate each other rather than fight off an outside threat. China had extreme wealth and technology. Central Asia was also very rich. Same with the Middle East. Russia had nothing, but the Mongols conquered it anyway. They didn't want to waste their time on Europe when there were better places to conquer.

Originally posted by Cecasander
Well, it is true that the mongols conquered a very big part of the world, but that wasn't only Ghengis Kahn. He died when they were invading China, I believe, so most conqest was done by his follow-ups.

your information is inaccurate. Under GK, the mongols with less than 200000 warriors breached the Great Wall to invade the Kin Empire of Northern China. The Kin had about a dozen major cities, all with population in and over hundreds of thousands. They split their forces to attack Korea and the Kin. The Kin emperor didn't have will to spend the full military might of the empire against the Mongols despite the insistence of his generals. The Mongols raided the countryside, attacking, pillaging and ambushing. All this made them seem larger than less than 200000. They took the major cities with deception and cunning and forced the emperor to flee south. In the end, the Mongols conquered Korea, all of Northern China, and learned things like bridge-building and siege warfare. The Mongols sent spies and caravans to learn about the outside world and to conduct trade. They sent envoys to the Khwarzm empire, but the envoys were executed by the emperor, Mohammod. The Mongols declared war and marched against them. That was a repeat of the Kin, except the Mongols had better siege experience. They forced through city walls with trechbuts, deception and driving captives towards the walls to force the surrender of a garrison. When GK died, the Mongols had plundered Northern China, Central Asia and Nothern India. GK successors did even more, taking southern China, Russia, Eastern Europe, the Muslim Caliphate in the Middle East, and the Indus valley.

Julius Caesar would be my choice. Ghengis Khan is up there too, but his empire was destroyed so quickly that I can't put him at #1.

Alexander the Great has to be one of the most overrated generals of all time. He conquered an empire that was already already in its death throws, and his phalanxes that many of you consider "revolutionary" had been developed years before Alexander, and even before his father, King Phillip, began using them. Alexander fought an unorganized, poorly led army that any phalanxes of the time could have defeated.

Originally posted by Gandalf13
Julius Caesar would be my choice. Ghengis Khan is up there too, but his empire was destroyed so quickly that I can't put him at #1.

The Mongols were nomads, great conquerors, not administrators. That's why they had Chinese be the clerks and administrators. So, would you like to state why Caesar is a great conqueror? Alexander and Genghis Khan fought and defeated larger and powerful empires(Persia, Kin, Khwarzm), Caesar fought a pack of Gallic barbarians.

Originally posted by Dark Ascendant
The Mongols were nomads, great conquerors, not administrators. That's why they had Chinese be the clerks and administrators. Not really. The Chinese definitely staffed most of the lower end admin posts in Yuan China, but the Mongols wouldn't trust them with real power. Most of the admin posts with significance went to Central Asians like Uighurs, or even Europeans, like the Marcos. Just so long it wasn't Chinese. ;)

USSR is just as big as Gangus's Empire but there was the posibility of winning a WWIII. though not much would be left:nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :( :( :(

the ussr wasn't as big as ghengi's empire. They didn't have china, or the middle east. The Mongol's actually created russia from lands they took over.

Germany and Japan had the best chance of Conquering the world, they should've stuck with Germany's plan than Japan's plan. Than USA wouldn't develop a nuclear weapon and They would've conquered America.

Originally posted by NewDestroyer
the ussr wasn't as big as ghengi's empire. They didn't have china, or the middle east. The Mongol's actually created russia from lands they took over.

It was indead comprable, although not as big thats true. russians also had support for its Empire from many world nations (about 1/2). this is becouse they supported those contries with wealth and other needs. these could be assimilated into a bigger communist union, an equivilant to the UN, only stronger.

The kingdoms of novgorod and Kiev existed before the mongols took them over it was a moskovsky (sp?) prince that reunited russa, under his greed.

remmember also the posibility of WWIII.

"Germany's plan" please enlighten me.

That must've been the German brilliant plan of opening a front against the Soviet Union before the first front was won.

Originally posted by Plastic
That must've been the German brilliant plan of opening a front against the Soviet Union before the first front was won.

That didn't work, Japan's plan didn't work. Do too many things at one time and things don't get done. Wonder what would have happened if the Nazis opened the eastern front and then the Japanese invaded the Far East.

Germany knew how to fight Americans which would've help Japan capture Pearl Habour. Japan should've attacked Russia to help Germany like it demanded.

Originally posted by Sayounara
Germany knew how to fight Americans which would've help Japan capture Pearl Habour. Japan should've attacked Russia to help Germany like it demanded. They did; a few years before 1939. But they got trounced so badly by Soviet armor under Zhukov in Mongolia (which was why Zhukov wasn't purged I think), that they made a peace treaty with the Soviets and sticked to it until almost the end of the war (the Soviets broke it and attacked Manchuria per agreement with the other Allies).

By the time the Germans opened a new front against the Russians, the Japanese were heavily engaged in the south anyways - with up to 4/5 of their troops tied in China. And the rest in SE Asia, the Pacific islands, Japan etc.

Originally posted by Sayounara
Germany knew how to fight Americans which would've help Japan capture Pearl Habour. Japan should've attacked Russia to help Germany like it demanded.

Germany and Japan allied with their own seperate agendas. They weren't buddies, just people with the same enemies. The Japanese cdidn't want to attack Russia while they were already in a gurriella war with the Chinese.

*Alexander and Genghis Khan fought and defeated larger and powerful empires(Persia, Kin, Khwarzm), Caesar fought a pack of Gallic barbarians.*-by Dark Ascendant

That "pack of gallic barbarians" that Caesar fought were actually battle hardened fighters that had for years destroyed Roman attempts to colonize the land. The Gauls had fought through years of tribal warfare, knew the terrain, and were brave and courageous. And if you want more proof of Caesar's military accomplishments, look at the Roman Civil War, in which Caesar faced an army double his size, and which was led by one of Rome's most celebrated generals, Pompey the Great. In the battle of Pharsalus, Caesars troops routed Pompeys forces. Also, look at the battle of Alesia, during the Gallic revolt led by Vercingetorix. At Alesia, Caesar faced 2 gallic armies both larger than his. He was forced to construct 2 lines of defenses to protect his army. Completely surrounded, Caesar managed to destroy both of the Gallic armies and put down the rebellion.

Originally posted by Gandalf13
*Alexander and Genghis Khan fought and defeated larger and powerful empires(Persia, Kin, Khwarzm), Caesar fought a pack of Gallic barbarians.*-by Dark Ascendant

That "pack of gallic barbarians" that Caesar fought were actually battle hardened fighters that had for years destroyed Roman attempts to colonize the land. The Gauls had fought through years of tribal warfare, knew the terrain, and were brave and courageous. And if you want more proof of Caesar's military accomplishments, look at the Roman Civil War, in which Caesar faced an army double his size, and which was led by one of Rome's most celebrated generals, Pompey the Great. In the battle of Pharsalus, Caesars troops routed Pompeys forces. Also, look at the battle of Alesia, during the Gallic revolt led by Vercingetorix. At Alesia, Caesar faced 2 gallic armies both larger than his. He was forced to construct 2 lines of defenses to protect his army. Completely surrounded, Caesar managed to destroy both of the Gallic armies and put down the rebellion.

yes but ceasar did not come close to conquering the workd as the question asks.

GK faced longer odds than that, and unlike Caesar, he was the tribal barbarian going to conquer civilized empires. The Mongols had basically nothing except their horses and their weapons and food. No supply lines, not even seige weapons when they took Northern China.

yes ceaser was a better strategist but the topic is who came closer to taking over the world and that by far is ghengis kahn.

GK definately. At a time when communication ability was limited he held a pan-Asian empire together masterfully. If he hadn't died, and if Kubilai hadn't moved the capital from Karakorum to Khanbalak (Peking/Beijing) then he might have finished off Europe and Africa too.

Originally posted by Sobieski II
GK definately. At a time when communication ability was limited he held a pan-Asian empire together masterfully. If he hadn't died, and if Kubilai hadn't moved the capital from Karakorum to Khanbalak (Peking/Beijing) then he might have finished off Europe and Africa too.

I doubt it. Why would the Mongols want to attack Europe or Africa. Europe had nothing valuable to loot at the time and the Mongols didn't plan to mess with the Mamluks in Egypt. If they had conquered Europe and North Africa, they probably couldn't hold it for long. Too much distance whether the capitol was in Beijing or Karakorum. Independent Mongol empires would have sprung up, or the Golden Horde increase its power.

Originally posted by Sobieski II
GK definately. At a time when communication ability was limited he held a pan-Asian empire together masterfully. If he hadn't died, and if Kubilai hadn't moved the capital from Karakorum to Khanbalak (Peking/Beijing) then he might have finished off Europe and Africa too. I think GK died quite a good many years before Khubilai ever even started commanding armies... He wasn't around to do anything (finishing off Europe or what), when Khubilai moved the capital.

Moving the capital to Beijing (or Dadu - meaning great city or capital in Chinese) was the smartest thing Khubilai could have done. It enabled him to stabilize his hold over China and its vast resources, and brought it to bear on the steppe world, in the fashion nomads understood it - thru gifts and bribes with the power-holders in the steppe.

Khubilai also didn't cut off entirely fr Mongolia - he still maintained a summer capital at Shangtu (or famed Xanadu) in Inner Mongolia. To present his Mongol credentials to the nomads and to train his Mongol cavalrymen thru 'great hunts'.

If Genghis had lived he would have wiped out all opposition.

Alexander still would have had to conquer China, India and Japan.

Caesar still had to conquer China and Japan and wasn't even close to them.

Napoleon had alot to conquer and probably couldn't have in his lifetime, anyway.

Hitler had some chance but Britain, the Soviet Union and America could have squashed him.

I voted Genghis Khan.

If Hitler was in power Germany, could've won WWI but not world war two. WWII was impossible.

Originally posted by Sayounara
WWII was impossible.

I don't think so. Germany could have conquered everything West of the Urals if Hitler had any competence and attacked in the spring of '42 and let the generals do the job right. He also could have continued to attack RAF bases instead of terror-bombing, eventually finishing the RAF. That and the Kriegsmarine in the Northern Atlantic could have forced the Brits to peace. And not canceling the atomic bomb project because it was a "Jewish science" would have given the Germans something, eh?

Originally posted by Knight-Dragon
I think GK died quite a good many years before Khubilai ever even started commanding armies... He wasn't around to do anything (finishing off Europe or what), when Khubilai moved the capital.

I meant them as two different reasons why it didn't go further. The death of GK led to the halt of the advance into Europe, and the later rise of Kubilai disrupted the communication routes, since where before the capital was more less in the middle of the empire it was now at the fringe, doubling the distance from the western edge to the capital.

This topic is a bit contradictional. I think Genghis Khan was the greatest conqueror, but there is now way he could have conquered the whole world. He did not have the technology to send soldiers to America, Australia and other remote places, making world conquest impossible.

The first conqueror, who theoretically could send soldiers anywhere people lived, was probably Napoleon. He's actual conquest was not much, as he did not even manage to conquer Europe. On the other hand, Europe ruled the world those days. If Napoleon had managed to conquer Europe, he would easily have taken all its colonies too, and then there would be just a few powerful nations left in the world. No mach for a united Europe:soldier:

England was pretty powerful those days too, and several British monarchs could possibly have conquered the world, but they didn't even try:p

I'm sure there were other nations with some potential too, but I don't think anyone had that ambition again before WWII. Then both Hitler and the Japanese emperor probably were dreaming about world conquest. They could have won the war, but I don't think they would have been able or willing to conquer each other.

Stalin was also ambiguous those days. If Hitler hadn't invaded Soviet, Stalin would probably have tried to conquer the world later. With the rest of the world pretty much in ruins after WWII, a communist world conquest could have been achievable, but this is of course just wild speculation.

After WWII the European world dominance collapsed, and since then world conquest have been virtually impossible.

To sum up: I think Napoleon was closest to conquer the world, but even he wasn't close at all.

Europe collapsed because of Emigration, death rates, and serious reserve loss(to American Exports). It's like Japan's and Germany's glory in 1995. Japanese GDP rose to $5.15 trillion, Germany's at $2.56 trillion, and America's only at $6.97 trillion. Here, so much of America's reserves went to Germany or Japan. Germany and Japan combined was greater than America! Currently, of course, this is not the case at all. While America's GDP rose 3.5 trillion, Japan's GDP and especially Germany's GDP were crushed and fell.

Originally posted by archer_007


That is highly incorrect. At Philip's death, he only ruled Greece. Alexander conquered Egypt, Asia Minor, and parts of India.

If his troops weren't so lazy, they could have finished off India and taken China, thus rewritting history.

That is not even remotely possible. China's military strength and sophistication at that time can swallow Alexander's armies whole. Besides, how the hell will Alexander's army be able to march into China? Is he going to go through the Himalayas mountain range directly on the border, the mongolian highlands up north, or the jungles in Indo-China?

Originally posted by Sobieski II
I meant them as two different reasons why it didn't go further. The death of GK led to the halt of the advance into Europe, and the later rise of Kubilai disrupted the communication routes, since where before the capital was more less in the middle of the empire it was now at the fringe, doubling the distance from the western edge to the capital.It was the death of Ogodei, the 2nd Great Khan, that led to Batu stopping the Mongol recon into Europe, and returning to Mongolia, for the great khurikhiltai, to decide the next Great Khan... :p

And Karakoram was in Mongolia; it could never be at the 'center' of the empire. Even in GK's time, it wasn't the geographic center (this would be somewhere in Xinjiang, or the Dzungarian Basin, way way to the west of Karakoram :p).

You do know Mongolia is directly north of China, no? ;)

Originally posted by Pikachu
This topic is a bit contradictional. I think Genghis Khan was the greatest conqueror, but there is now way he could have conquered the whole world. He did not have the technology to send soldiers to America, Australia and other remote places, making world conquest impossible.To GK and his cohorts, the 'world' was simply the steppes, and south of that, the Jin empire of N China, and Xi Xia, and also the Kara-Khitai to the west, and Uighur holds in Xinjiang. They barely had knowledge of Song-held S China; other than it existed.

The entire Mongol conquest enterprise was amazing, in such a light... The Mongols had to gather intelligence, recon further out, each time before embarking on their next phase of conquests...

Alexander the Great..
How much he would conquered??, but he died too early..
Nobody know what world would like if..

Originally posted by orangebear
Alexander the Great..
How much he would conquered??, but he died too early..
Nobody know what world would like if..

He was allready way overextended. The boy told his troops to throw away all their loot when they croosed the Himalayas for God's sake. He couldn't have kept on going without futher cutting himself off from his supply.

Conquerors are not great.

Victorian England under the reign of Queen Victoria as has been stated already.


Coming a close second, Ghenghis Khan.


Alexander the Great would have been a much greater contender had he lived longer, but he died young having to a great extent simply hammered the Persian Empire.

Originally posted by phoenix_night
Conquerors are not great.

Nice assertion.

Originally posted by kittenOFchaos
Victorian England under the reign of Queen Victoria as has been stated already.


Coming a close second, Ghenghis Khan.



Genghis Khan definitely. He and his successors conquered every established Old World civilization west of Poland and Byzantium.

Queen Victoria: a virtually powerless, out-of-touch figurehead. Victorian England: great ruler of desert, pygmies, its own colonials and millions of comparatively backward Indians. Conqueror of no nation technologically even closely matched with itself.

i definetlly have to Alexander.Why? well none of you have pointed put that at the very beginning of his rule all greece revolted,which he put down quite brilliantlly,he improve3d the phalanx tactic, which was nearlly invinciable from frontaly assulte anyway, conqured persia, who dipite being an empire near collasps, was able to field at any one battle a force 2-3 times as large as the entire macedonin forces, as for motivation, any one who can rouse his troops to battle by using a pickle to make obscene gesturs at his enemies is certainlly a good people person which is a qulity for leadership, had he not died and his troops willing to push out farther from Greece china would have fell easylly, after just comparing there tactics there is no contest, but india, with its war elephants would have been the real test, and as we all know the few times he did make contact with indian forces he won.

Originally posted by calgacus


Genghis Khan definitely. He and his successors conquered every established Old World civilization west of Poland and Byzantium.

Queen Victoria: a virtually powerless, out-of-touch figurehead. Victorian England: great ruler of desert, pygmies, its own colonials and millions of comparatively backward Indians. Conqueror of no nation technologically even closely matched with itself.

It was called Pax Britannica...no other major power dared to fight Britain for one thing it would end their Colonial Empire and seabourne trade and would probably see the British Navy sink their fleet. The Victorian Era followed the defeat of Napoleon, the 1812 War with America and left Britain in a position where her navy could match that of her two nearest rivals. In the Scramble for Africa Britain competed with other Colonial Powers and gained the largest slice, despite the relatively small number of Europeans involved, the threat of disease and hostility of the peoples (africans didn't just sit there looking cute!).

Britain in that period defeated Russia during the Crimea war which was the only European War she needed to conduct from 1815 till 1914, a display of how Britain could retain nearly a quarter of the World without contention from any major rival until the rise of German trade at the start of the 20th Century.

Originally posted by Sayounara
Europe collapsed because of Emigration, death rates, and serious reserve loss(to American Exports). It's like Japan's and Germany's glory in 1995. Japanese GDP rose to $5.15 trillion, Germany's at $2.56 trillion, and America's only at $6.97 trillion. Here, so much of America's reserves went to Germany or Japan. Germany and Japan combined was greater than America! Currently, of course, this is not the case at all. While America's GDP rose 3.5 trillion, Japan's GDP and especially Germany's GDP were crushed and fell.

The only reason y japan is so close to usa is beacuse we let them. Half the crap we need we have japan build for us.

My vote is for Alexander the Great. Who knows what he might have done had he lived longer.

conqure carthage, subdue the greek colonies in Italy, and expand his "influence in Italy for one thing....

Alexander was going for the Arabian kingdoms along the Persian Gulf, along the Red Sea and in Yemen next. He already had battle plans worked out when he died.

Kublai Khan

Stalin, man, he demolished the Third Reich and spread Russian control from East Germany to Northern Japan. He then pushed control through East Europe. He established Russian control of the Caucuses and Dardnelles. I mean, whow.

He was a sunuvabich, but then again weren't most conquerers?

victoria ruled over a widespread empire

So id go for her

I'm really suprised that EUropeans believe that Caesar was such a great conquerer. What has He conquered except for (most of) Gaul and part of Numidia?
Pompeius' contemporary conquests were much more important.

Caesrer was the king of Propaganda my freind.q

Originally posted by kittenOFchaos


Nice assertion.

Would you care to elaborate?

Originally posted by kittenOFchaos


Nice assertion.

Would you care to elaborate?