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?
Greatest Conquerer
- Thread starter puglover
- Start date
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?
Archer 007
Rebirth
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.
Dark Ascendant
Darkness Ascending...
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.
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
Christmann
Chieftain
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2001
- Messages
- 37
A long line of US presidents. Of course, its still an ongoing thing...
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
Napoleian, Gengis Khan, The Duke of Normandy Whilliam the Conquerer, and Ceser.
Kennelly
Starfleet Admiral
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.
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.
Archer 007
Rebirth
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
How is this propaganda?
Sultan Bhargash
Trickster Reincarnated
Puglover I'm surprised you haven't mentioned the man who conquered the most people without ever spilling blood...
Panda
Metal head
Alexander, especially when taking in consideration the technology of his time. 
Mongoloid Cow
Great Khan
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.
Aphex_Twin
Evergreen
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2002
- Messages
- 7,474
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 ...
Mongoloid Cow
Great Khan
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.
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.
Dark Ascendant
Darkness Ascending...
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.
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.
Kenric af Grashen
King
Hmmm i'm gonna betray all my usual rabblings about Egypt and go with Alexander the Great (who else)
Dark Ascendant
Darkness Ascending...
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.
Similar threads
