Greatest Conquerer

[Desmond Hawkins]

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.

 

[Dark Ascendant]

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.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

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'.

 

[West German]

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.

 

[Sayounara]

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

 

[Dark Ascendant]

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?

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

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.

 

[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.

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

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.

 

[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.

 

[nihilistic]

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?

 

[Knight-Dragon]

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...

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 ).

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

 

[Knight-Dragon]

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...

 

[orangebear]

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

 

[Dark Ascendant]

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.

 

[phoenix_night]

Conquerors are not great.

 

[TrailblazingScot]

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.

 

[TrailblazingScot]

Originally posted by phoenix_night
Conquerors are not great.

Nice assertion.

 

[Pangur Bán]

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.

 

[Xen]

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.

 

[TrailblazingScot]

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.