Alexander tried to bring civilization to conquered lands,led battles from the front,was better looking and western.Genghis Khan and his lot were nothing more than rapists of lands and women and created nothing but misery,they were evil.
Genghis Khan vs Alexander the Great
- Thread starter torreno
- Start date
I just selected Genghis Khan because I like how he had the largest empire in history. That's really it. I know...sheepish.
EDIT: Ooops, sorry I broke an 18-18 tie...
No, the British Empire in 1922 had the largest empire,so change the vote.
Nope, Alexander died right after his conquests, his entire goal in life was to conquer, not anything else. And that is one of the main reasons he wasn't able to get India, his army was tired and he just wouldn't stop.
Genghis created the largest contagious empire in world history.
pop daddy
THE DUNGEON MASTER
Real Life BAMF?! Genghis Khan:
For two reasons:
1. He knew how to govern. Khan was well aware of the cultural differences between his nation and those he conquered, so he simply kept locals in charge. Brilliant!
2. He has more ways to spell his name: Chingis, Dschingis, Changhas?!
For two reasons:
1. He knew how to govern. Khan was well aware of the cultural differences between his nation and those he conquered, so he simply kept locals in charge. Brilliant!
2. He has more ways to spell his name: Chingis, Dschingis, Changhas?!
MagnusImperious
Chieftain
My vote goes to Alexander the Great. It conquered a massive empire. The largest in the world at the time, and he spread Greek culture everywhere he went so once his empire broke up the whole Eastern Mediterranean and Near East was like a pseudo-Greece.
Oh, this is kind of random, but there's a book about a war between Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan. The reason they're fighting is some weird scifi thing, but its not a bad book. In it Alexander won, GO ALEXANDER!!
Oh, this is kind of random, but there's a book about a war between Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan. The reason they're fighting is some weird scifi thing, but its not a bad book. In it Alexander won, GO ALEXANDER!!
crazyunits
Warlord
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2008
- Messages
- 116
hmmm......slow, strong but vulnerable to missile fire phalanxes vs. mobile & swift horse archers....i wonder exactly WHO would win this fight.....
Jazzmail
King
Big deal. Doing an overseas empire is harder and therefore a greater achievement. And it was bigger.
Also Queen Victoria totally pwns Genghis. Better starting techs, better traits, better UU and better UB and that's even with the uniques coming a bit late.
MagnusImperious
Chieftain
If you put Genghis Khan and Queen Victoria in a room alone together, which one would come out alive?
Althought to the credit of Persia, they had an idiot emperor and was slighly on the decline. Could have been different if this was done during, Cyrus, Darius the Great or Xerxes I and Artaxerxes (the original)
Well lets compare their empires: the British (under George V ) had an area of 36.6 million km², while the Mongols (under Kublai Khan) had an area of 33.2 million km². The British may have been bigger, but not by much. Anyways, if you really look at it, when England was still conquering its empire, most of the time all they had to do was claim the land for example, they went to Canada, founded a couple of cities, then claimed the Arctic part of Canada, a huge piece of land, that had no use (except fishing), all they had to do was snap their fingers and they had it. Plus when actually conquering a lot of their colonies they had a huge tech advantage against the native people, making a it a lot easier to conquer. While Genghis, was the entire time going up against people at his tech level, he had to use espionage and strategy to actually capture a city, not just point and shoot against someone who can't.
Then you also have to think about the techs, at the time when the British were the largest, they had telephones, cars, and airplanes. It was easier to communicate and move around 36.6 million km². While Genghis, controlling around 3.4 million km² less than the British, had to control his empire through horseback and mail. If Genghis wanted to hear what was happening in Beijing when he was in Iran, he had to wait a week for a person on horseback to travel across Asia to give him the good news. While George, if he wanted to here what was happening in Australia, all he had to to was get on the radio and in a second he knew. Who to you think had a tougher time controlling there (very close in size) empires? Thus who had the greater achievement?
Wow. Just wow.
Yeah, I think I stated that in a different post (probably my first). He basically conquered a dying empire.
Supr49er
2011 Thunderfall Cup
I'm pretty sure you mean contiguous empire.
Unless he brought the plague or smallpox with him.
I'm pretty sure you mean contiguous empire.
Unless he brought the plague or smallpox with him.
Oh, sorry, my Firefox spellcheck must be off
, though I think the countries he conquered were pretty sick of him after he came through 
Lets be clear about this!!! Which normally means i should stay out of a debate. 
Both Alexander and Khan had to bring their people together. The Greeks were always fighting among eachother for power. Same with the Mongols. Both Khan and Alexander quelled their opposition by the sword.
In fact when Khan and Alexander passed away both empires fast went down hill. For greece it was infighting and power. For mongols it was the tribes dispersing. Perhaps for a nation to be great you need a great leader.
http://www.coldsiberia.org/webdoc3.htm
http://history.boisestate.edu/WESTCIV/alexander/
These two sites are good for the history. How accurate is another matter.
I dont think anyone can dispute the ability of these two leader to bring nations together and lead huge armies at times against the odds.
I think you have to put aside the issue of how human you think each leader was and their people were.
I am torn between the two as both their paths were so similar in many ways. I would of voted cant decide but I was forced to say one was better than the other.
Both Alexander and Khan had to bring their people together. The Greeks were always fighting among eachother for power. Same with the Mongols. Both Khan and Alexander quelled their opposition by the sword.
In fact when Khan and Alexander passed away both empires fast went down hill. For greece it was infighting and power. For mongols it was the tribes dispersing. Perhaps for a nation to be great you need a great leader.
http://www.coldsiberia.org/webdoc3.htm
http://history.boisestate.edu/WESTCIV/alexander/
These two sites are good for the history. How accurate is another matter.
I dont think anyone can dispute the ability of these two leader to bring nations together and lead huge armies at times against the odds.
I think you have to put aside the issue of how human you think each leader was and their people were.
I am torn between the two as both their paths were so similar in many ways. I would of voted cant decide but I was forced to say one was better than the other.
Lets be clear about this!!! Which normally means i should stay out of a debate.
Both Alexander and Khan had to bring their people together. The Greeks were always fighting among eachother for power. Same with the Mongols. Both Khan and Alexander quelled their opposition by the sword.
In fact when Khan and Alexander passed away both empires fast went down hill. For greece it was infighting and power. For mongols it was the tribes dispersing.
Actually the Mongol Empire lasted a good 80 years after Genghis's death (in 1227), it ended once the generals in the western part of the empire refused to accept Kublai Khan as their leader (in the 1290's).
IAM
Emperor
I'd put money on Victoria talking Khan to death.
I honestly think it was their naval assault on Japan which started the downfall. Poor ships and a army fought off by a strong Japan. i think Khans brothers were always going to struggle in his foot steps.
That and running out of obvious targets. China is a huge area to conquer.
Yet as Civ 4 teaches us. its not always about land. Its about good cities too. When you think of big cities and empires i always think of carthage, Rome, london. Although china is one of the most populated countries in the world. Them and India.
afa2000
Time to die
Genghis. Greeks with Philip II were already a great civilization, all Alexander needed to do was expand. Genghis had almost no legacy , so he became a great warrior and leader.
Similar threads
