Greatest Conquerer

Who (other than yourself on Civilization) came closest to conquering the world?

  • Napolean Bonaparte

    Votes: 9 8.9%
  • Julius Caesar

    Votes: 7 6.9%
  • Adolf Hitler

    Votes: 10 9.9%
  • Genghis Khan

    Votes: 51 50.5%
  • Other...

    Votes: 24 23.8%

  • Total voters
    101
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.
 
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 years
That'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:
 
Back
Top Bottom