Genghis Khan vs Alexander the Great

Which one to you think was the best in real life?Why?

What about playing style in civ?

Would you prefer Genghis as a friend or a foe?Same goes with Alexander

I personally go for Genghis Khan

The early Temujin had his powerful father assassinated, living as social outcasts with his mother and siblings on the harsh steppes of Central Asia. He was even held captive as a young boy by the Tatars. But he was able to overcome and escaped his captors, while growing up to be a great warlord. During his prime, he was able to defeat his Anda, Jamukha and unite all of the tribes of the steppes despite major differences in language and religion.

From there on, the Mongol nomads, a people less than a million and with no written language, conquered and dominated some of the world's most powerful civilizations including the Islamic empire, the Chinese empire, Kievan Rus, Kwarezm Empire, Hindustan, and Eastern Europe.

In comparison, Alexander the Great was a Greek homosexual who inherited his father's army and empire. He also fought in a time where building empires was relatively easy, compared to the middle ages when large, contiguous empires were thought to be on the decline, especially by a nomadic people stereotypically seen as backwards and uncivilized.

I think you answered your own question (Not to mention already had generated your own opinion.)

I personally don't think you can compare them on this level. Look at the differences in scope and age.

Alexander the Great conquered a staggering amount of land, and fought some rather massive armies. Outnumbered spectacularly quite often. Add to that, the fact that his armies were almost all foot. Hell, marching an hellenistic army across the Himalaya's (Kudo's to that even considering how many men died.)

Genghis Khan conquered a even larger swath of land, but considering a majority of his army was mounted, well. Who is to say.

They both were amazing generals in their own ways, but again I don't think it is even realistic to try and figure out who was the 'better'.

Now, not to nitpick. But what exactly does the fact that Alexander liked his men have to do with anything? Homosexuality/bisexuality was incredibly common and accepted back then.

Edit:

As for playing in game. Alexander owns. Phalanxes are hands down one of the best early units.

What do you mean i already answered my question? I know its just that i wanted to see other peoples opinions.


Well if youre a son of a good milatary and political king,if your army was tremendously well trained and organize,including having great vet generals by your side then it wouldnt realy matter have an almost all foot army and that they could easily counter mounted units with archers and spearman.

My mistake by putting the "better" word.....its shoulded been favorite

Its just an overall poll question

armathas said:

As for playing in game. Alexander owns. Phalanxes are hands down one of the best early units.

Click to expand...

Not by a long shot. Maybe in the old versions of civ, but not so for BtS.
An axeman with only +100% against chariots. Rubbish.
Chariot attacks are no threat to a stack not 100% comprised of axemen and chariots cannot defend well against axemen anyway.

Compare to a real UU like the vulture +1 or the preatorian +2. Those units make a difference.
I don't think much of the keshiks either, I'd rather have an immortal, but atleast kehiks do have a useful bonus and the Ger UB makes them a little better, so unlike phalanxes.

Traits and starting techs for Genghis and Alexander are both weak sauce, so the Khan wins by a small margin.

I like how you point out only positives about Genghis, glorifying him to the extreme, while listing nothing but negatives for Alexander and even going so far as to use the term "homosexual" as an insult to him as a leader. That was real class.

I think the question depends on where you place your priorities. Then Genghis took and held a larger area than Alexander. But, after 2-4 generations, Genghis's influence was gone; Alexander's generals ruled larged portions of the world for hundreds of years.

Real life only, I might give Genghis a slight edge in military ability. But as I get older, and maybe a bit wiser, I am sickend by the civilian deaths Genghis caused. His army did not take over civilizations, they destroyed civilization. I like my peace and indoor plumbing; I have to vote for Alex.

AfterShafter said:

I like how you point out only positives about Genghis, glorifying him to the extreme, while listing nothing but negatives for Alexander and even going so far as to use the term "homosexual" as an insult to him as a leader. That was real class.

Click to expand...

Well lets be fair like AfterShafter prefers it.

Negatives about Ghengish Khan

He once killed his little brother from an argue over catched fish when he was a teenager. He really had a harsh childhood life since his father's death when Genghis was 9 yrs old. This made him a tough man. The reason people consider him brutal is the slaughters he made during military campaign. After defeating Tatar, a rival clan, he ordered execution of all Tatarians taller than wheel of an ox cart.
Conquering countries doesnt mean he hated them. He just wanted to unite them under one rule.

If you happen to find other negative things about Ghengish please post it.

positive things about Alexander

Alexander consolidated the greeks into one empire (although being a macedonian he was not really seen as greek), This stopped all intestine wars among the hellenic cities and somehow put order in the empire, transform greece into a tremendous war machine that allowed him to conquer their eternal enemies the Persians and most of countries under their domain, reach as far as India before his death. As he was absorbed by persian customs, and vices, most historians say he forgot his homeland, so the economy of the country was not really influenced by him because he governed mostly delegating power, more influence he had over persia and Egypt for at his death, his generals divided the empire and started dynasties of greek blood, the Ptolemies in Egypt and Seleucid's in what is now Iran.

By the way why is telling Alexander a homosexual an insult?Its just a fact nothing else.An insult would be calling him a . .. .. .. .. .. .,gaylord,liked it on the ass etc.So how is that a negative comment?Just a statement,its not up to me how people see that word.

The fact that Genghis' empire fell away drastically, just says more about his abilities. With Alexander, I just get the feeling he was right place, right time.

Genghis Khan conqured a disunited China and Islamic world. And not all of etheir.



Alexander conqured a united Persia. And all of it too.

torreno said:

By the way why is telling Alexander a homosexual an insult?Its just a fact nothing else.An insult would be calling him a . .. .. .. .. .. .,gaylord,liked it on the ass etc.So how is that a negative comment?Just a statement,its not up to me how people see that word.

Click to expand...

It's not. But, let's put it this way... If I say "You're a liar, a cheat, a prick, and a Republican" it's pretty obvious I'm using Republican in a negative light. You listed a host of things that are "bad" about Alexander and included homosexual right along with them. If you didn't mean it as an insult, you worded that *very* poorly.

I'll give a historical response later... For right now, dinner is on the way, and I have no time.

AfterShafter said:

It's not. But, let's put it this way... If I say "You're a liar, a cheat, a prick, and a Republican" it's pretty obvious I'm using Republican in a negative light. You listed a host of things that are "bad" about Alexander and included homosexual right along with them. If you didn't mean it as an insult, you worded that *very* poorly.

I'll give a historical response later... For right now, dinner is on the way, and I have no time.

Click to expand...

Ok well heres the paragraph by the way


In comparison, Alexander the Great was a Greek homosexual who inherited his father's army and empire. He also fought in a time where building empires was relatively easy, compared to the middle ages when large, contiguous empires were thought to be on the decline, especially by a nomadic people stereotypically seen as backwards and uncivilized.

Is this really insulting?Is it insulting that he inherited hes fathers army and empire?Its it insulting saying he fought in a time were building empire was easy?Like azzaman333 said....Am just saying he was in the right place at the right time

torreno said:

Ok well heres the paragraph by the way


In comparison, Alexander the Great was a Greek homosexual who inherited his father's army and empire. He also fought in a time where building empires was relatively easy, compared to the middle ages when large, contiguous empires were thought to be on the decline, especially by a nomadic people stereotypically seen as backwards and uncivilized.

Is this really insulting?Is it insulting that he inherited hes fathers army and empire?Its it insulting saying he fought in a time were building empire was easy?Like azzaman333 said....Am just saying he was in the right place at the right time

Click to expand...

You clearly did that paragraph as a contrast to Genghis's positive stature.

Inherited his father's army and empire - as in it was given to him, contrasted to Genghis, who you present as a self-made man carving his way out in the harsh steppes (IE - Alex had it easy, Genghis had it tough and still made it). Then you go on to say that empire building was easy in Alex's time, whereas it was tough for Genghis - again, a contrast of "This quality of Genghis was good, Alex's was bad in comparison."

Yes, your paragraph is slightly ambiguous, but... So is my hypothetical comment about the fellow who is Republican - I say you're a liar, a cheat, a thief, and a Republican, I'm not directly stating that Republican is a bad quality, but it pretty clearly comes off that that's what I mean. After the fact I could come back and say "Well, I never said it, I didn't mean it, you're reading it into my statement - not my fault" but... See what I'm getting at? Whatever you meant, your statement didn't seem innocent. Heck, I'm not even the only person who pointed this out in this thread - armathas pointed out that it was a very odd thing to add to that list.

Anyways, my position on Alex VS Genghis is more or less already stated - Genghis was a destroyer of civilization, or at least not one who advanced civilization in any great manner... Alex was a disseminater of culture, and some of the city states he left behind lasted for a very long time to continue that cultural dissemination. There is something to be said for a leader who not only conquers land, but builds something that lasts with it - Alexander did this to a much greater degree than Genghis. Not to say Genghis wasn't influential - but he was influential much in the way a wrecking ball going through a building is.

I'm reluctant to say either was a greater leader. Genghis was a brilliant military tactician, but he was dropped into a people who all but stumbled on to a huge technological military advantage at the time - the stirrup on the horse. His riders won amazing victories, and while his military ability is definitely to credit for this, would he have done nearly as well without this technological advancement that none of his enemies had use of? His conquests were to some degree the equivalent of a Civ game where you have horse archery and the enemy can't build spearmen. For all that Alex had it easy in his own way, this fact alone gave Genghis a tremendous tactical advantage, and made a war-happy leader like him in the right place at the right time.

The Mongols under Genghis were a wrecking ball of tremendous effect, wiping out all in their path. Alexander, on the other hand lead a conquering and occupying army. Each hugely influential, each requiring a certain type of brilliance, each leader in the right place at the right time in their own way - I give my nod to Alexander, as he's part of the reason we're still running Greek philosophy classes in my department... Which I guess makes me a little biased.

AfterShafter said:

Anyways, my position on Alex VS Genghis is more or less already stated - Genghis was a destroyer of civilization, or at least not one who advanced civilization in any great manner... Alex was a disseminater of culture, and some of the city states he left behind lasted for a very long time to continue that cultural dissemination. There is something to be said for a leader who not only conquers land, but builds something that lasts with it - Alexander did this to a much greater degree than Genghis. Not to say Genghis wasn't influential - but he was influential much in the way a wrecking ball going through a building is.

I'm reluctant to say either was a greater leader. Genghis was a brilliant military tactician, but he was dropped into a people who all but stumbled on to a huge technological military advantage at the time - the stirrup on the horse. His riders won amazing victories, and while his military ability is definitely to credit for this, would he have done nearly as well without this technological advancement that none of his enemies had use of? His conquests were to some degree the equivalent of a Civ game where you have horse archery and the enemy can't build spearmen. For all that Alex had it easy in his own way, this fact alone gave Genghis a tremendous tactical advantage, and made a war-happy leader like him in the right place at the right time.

The Mongols under Genghis were a wrecking ball of tremendous effect, wiping out all in their path. Alexander, on the other hand lead a conquering and occupying army. Each hugely influential, each requiring a certain type of brilliance, each leader in the right place at the right time in their own way - I give my nod to Alexander, as he's part of the reason we're still running Greek philosophy classes in my department... Which I guess makes me a little biased.

Click to expand...

On the other hand, Alexander did inherit a massive well trained army. Was born into a rich family and was taught by some of the most brilliant minds at the time. Genghis was born into a small nomadic village, when he was 9 his father died. And his village was constantly under attack from rivals, basically Genghis had to teach himself, and it is pretty amazing in that he was able to unite the Mongols.

When Alexander went to conquer his empire, he basically ran over another dying empire, taking all of its land. But even after he took his years conquering the empire, he continued into the flourishing India and was pretty much stopped with the low moral of his soldiers, the foreign land, and the well trained Indians. While Genghis was able to conquer civilization after civilization without losing any hope from his soldiers, and his campaigns lasted until he died, around 50 years.

Alexander's empire lasted a mere 30 years before it was split up by his warring generals (all creating their empires) Genghis' lasted another hundred years (until split up by his generals).

The influence of Alexander's empire compared to the Mongol empire is main theme for a lot of the debate I have seen here. The resulting influence of Alexander's empire was pretty huge, spreading Greek culture and ideas of many lands. But you cannot pass over Genghis's Empire's influence over the lands he conquered. One of the biggest influences I'd have to say it that the united empire finally connected Europe to East Asia, and under his empire travelers and merchants were able to move between the two in relative safety, compared to before where they had to pass through countless countries, and their safety was in question. This in turn led to the free flow of ideas coming from East Asia to Europe, with the Europeans learning a lot from the Chinese discoveries. And the largest idea to make it to Europe was the Chinese invention of gunpowder (around 400 years before Genghis was ever born).

I have always been fascinated by Genghis Khan and his conquests, here I am not saying Alexander was a bad general and leader, but just putting up an opposing view in Genghis's favor.

Joecoolyo said:

I have always been fascinated by Genghis Khan and his conquests, here I am not saying Alexander was a bad general and leader, but just putting up an opposing view in Genghis's favor.

Click to expand...

Oh, I don`t disagree with what you`re saying. Genghis was, at the very, very least, an incredibly impressive leader. My reason for posting what I did in Alexander`s defense was that this thread had started making Alexander look like little more than some lucky idiot who fell into success and fame. If you`ll read from the start, you`ll see that Genghis really isn`t the one who needs positive press here

Khan was a better leader/warrior. He started with less and conquered more. Alexander had a better head start. But I think Alexander had a more pronounced long term impact on the world.

I was just saying that Khan had it more hard than Alexander and that Alexander had it more easy.......thats all I dont know why you have to whine about it.

Why do you take the word homosexual as an insult or an negative comment?Heck it could even be a positive comment.Why?Some ancient armies were made up of pairs of lovers with the belief that a soldier would be that much more fierce in battle if he knew he was fighting not only to keep himself alive but also his mate.

So i dont know why you are taking it as negative if is just a word.

Compare to your example
I say you're a liar, a cheat, a thief, and a Republican,
ToIn comparison, Alexander the Great was a Greek homosexual who inherited his father's army and empire. He also fought in a time where building empires was relatively easy, compared to the middle ages when large, contiguous empires were thought to be on the decline, especially by a nomadic people stereotypically seen as backwards and uncivilized.

Thats not even the exact same thing......i was just saying why i went for Khan's side nothing else.

Ok well lets put it this way so we can all be happy......
__________________________________________________________________________

Ghenghis Khan vs Alexander

They were both great leaders but which one to you like the most overall?



Now we can all agree this is a fair poll right?

It's like debating if Tiger Woods is better than Michael Jordan. Both are at the very top of their game, but their games are different. They fought different opponents, lived in different times, and in totally different cultures.

If you studied Alexander's campaign as much as you have Ghengis's you'd have a difficult time saying one was a better leader. Remember that it's one thing to inheret a veteran army, quite another to lead it. To lead a veteran army you better have their respect or you'll find yourself on the end of a spear.

Jazzmail said:

Not by a long shot. Maybe in the old versions of civ, but not so for BtS.
An axeman with only +100% against chariots. Rubbish.
Chariot attacks are no threat to a stack not 100% comprised of axemen and chariots cannot defend well against axemen anyway.

Compare to a real UU like the vulture +1 or the preatorian +2. Those units make a difference.
I don't think much of the keshiks either, I'd rather have an immortal, but atleast kehiks do have a useful bonus and the Ger UB makes them a little better, so unlike phalanxes.

Traits and starting techs for Genghis and Alexander are both weak sauce, so the Khan wins by a small margin.

Click to expand...

You are correct in that. I play almost Exclusively Rise of Mankind. They have a +50% vs. Melee as well. I should have clarified that. (Or even thought of it myself.) My bad.

Okay i personally side with Alexander, though i often marvel at just how large Genghis empire was.
Genghis took over China, which was in shambles and was vulnerable to barbarian attacks since its very beginning. The vast majority of his empire was pretty useless, sorry if i offend anyone, but he conquered central asia and russia which were mostly unpopulated except for near moscow were there were many people. His destruction of the Arab empire is a bit impressive, but they too were in shambles. He didnt spread his culture as much as Alexander but the Turks are a good examples of how mongolian culture (though mixed with simply nomadic and islamic elements) endured.
I must give Genghis Khan a lot of credit for his military tactics. His brutality is simply unparalleled and genius! There is no other way to control a vast inland empire than through securing trade routes at every expense. He went for all the trade route cities, as i recall he didnt burn any cities but he did completely kill the citizens of many. He had a goal, and he was going to achieve it.
But this also brings up another point, he mostly just faced small citystates and empires that were already on a decline. I'm not sure if Genghis did this, but one of the only big armies the mongols fought, mamluks from egypt, easily destroyed them in the desert.

Now for Alexander. He brought an already great civilization that was on the decline, brought it back up to past glories and then tackled their long time rival, the Persians. This is why i admire Alexander. He fought countless armies from the Persians. HUGE armies too. He had a relatively smaller force at his side but he managed to win wars with very few casualties. He too also created an asian empire (technically more Middle Eastern) but he did it very quickly with footmen unlike Genghis horses.
Also culturally, his culture remained for a very long time. Egypt retained a lot of Greek culture and was very much like a Greek state for quite some time. Alexander also built many monuments and buildings in the style of the Greeks in far off places like Afghanistan. He also constructed one of the greatest Mediterranean cities, Alexandria. He too also faced defeat at one point (versus the Indians and their elephants). But Alexander controlled a big empire in a very short amount of time. Not to mention the fact that Greek culture was very strong in the conquered regions all the way up into the time of the Islamic empires.

Alexander was greek too, which sways my opinion alot because i have alot respect for all the achievements made in that region of the world.

Yes, both these guys were military, tactical, and over-all geniuses. Genghis's highest achievement (in my opinion) was carving a massive empire out of countless civilizations and setting up his army so he sons and grandsons could continue the conquests. Alexander's was taking down a foe much larger than him, and being able to take his culture and grind it into the region to the point where it remained there for centuries.

Now, Hannibal vs. Cyrus, Kublai vs. Charlemagne, Saladin vs. Shaka. We can do this forever!