the greatest conquest

[GuitarHero]

I'll rank them:
Genghis Khan
Hitler
Alexander III
Napoleon
Ceasar

 

[Ace of Gold]

according to the post its genghis, alexander, ceasor, napolean and hitler but i would definitly put napolean as number one because of his strategies. (i know i already said it first post)

 

[GuitarHero]

according to the post its genghis, alexander, ceasor, napolean and hitler but i would definitly put napolean as number one because of his strategies. (i know i already said it first post)

Napoleon was pretty good, but he lost all that he gained too quickly.



I was ranking them in my opinion.

 

[Ace of Gold]

yea i know i was not responding to your post just checking up on the polls.
everyone has their opinions

 

[GuitarHero]

yea i know i was not responding to your post just checking up on the polls.
everyone has their opinions

Glad that you clarified.

 

[Emperor2]

I'd have to say that when the Federatorial managed to Conquer Europe in 6 days, that was impressive. Not to mention the countries in Asia, the Middle East, and the coast of North Africa (of course, that wasn't really hard, that just required some people to stick up a flag and some ships to block off the naval cities.)

 

[Tee Kay]

The Islamic Conquests was quite impressive, as was the Mongol Conquests. Alexander the Great was a good general but his empire fell after his death, while the Mongol and Islamic Empires lasted for about a hundred years each before breaking up. Caesar was overrated - the only real piece of territory he added to Rome was Gaul, and even then he had some difficulties, both on the political front and on the battlefield. Napoleon and Hitler were great conquerers but failed to win a conclusive victory and ended up imprisoned (Napoleon) and committing suicide (Hitler).

 

[Dachs]

The Islamic Conquests was quite impressive, as was the Mongol Conquests. Alexander the Great was a good general but his empire fell after his death, while the Mongol and Islamic Empires lasted for about a hundred years each before breaking up.

Fair enough, but in the theoretical side of warfare Alexander is by far more useful than the Muslims. The conquests of the early Caliphs merely proved that it is easy to take over large tracts of land from empires that are already exhausted by war. Besides, Alexander's Empire really didn't disintegrate immediately after his death; it took twenty-two years of fun, destructive war before that happened. Due to Alexander, Hellenic (or rather, Hellenistic) culture was spread all the way to India and dominated most of the Near East and Middle East all the way up to the Muslim invasion.

Caesar was overrated - the only real piece of territory he added to Rome was Gaul, and even then he had some difficulties, both on the political front and on the battlefield. Napoleon and Hitler were great conquerers but failed to win a conclusive victory and ended up imprisoned (Napoleon) and committing suicide (Hitler).

Caesar managed to beat up the best trained armies in the world under some of the best commanders of the time, conquered a truly vast tract of land in Gaul, and developed Marian and Polybian Roman legions to their utmost. Winning the civil war at the disadvantage at which he started is an achievement unparalleled in history. And I'm not sure what "difficulties" you mean on the political front; if you're referring to the assassination about which he knew and allowed to go forward, then I don't see how that qualifies him as "overrated".

Napoleon contributed a good deal to tactical and operational art early in his campaigns (after 1806 or so he had a disturbing tendency to just mass artillery to blow open a big hole in the enemy) and transformed the map of Europe, while Hitler and his staff gave us the supreme application of indirect attacking. The transience of their empires doesn't detract from their accomplishments (although yes, Hitler did get much of what he did in spite of himself as opposed to due to his genius; he was no military man after all), and that transience, with regards to Napoleon, is somewhat misleading. After all, Napoleonic institutions forever altered European law and the European economy and even had effects in America (Louisiana...ever seen A Streetcar Named Desire? ).

 

[Traitorfish]

Of the options, I'd say Ghengis Khan. While his empire only lasted a few generations past his death, Alexander's fell apart just after his death, while Napoleon and Hitler's didn't even last as long as they did.
As for Caesar, I think he's often over-estimated as a conqueror. His real achievement was his seizure of power within Rome and his laying the foundations for Imperial Rome.

 

[PimpyMicPimp]

I'm going to have to go with Gengis for reasons already mentioned.

 

[dannyshenanigan]

It's got to be Temujin, how many times have you seen a technologically inferior, non-sedintary people destroy sophisticated technologically advanced empires with vastly more numerous populations? The Mongol army in my opinion was the greatest military force of all time (considering its era). Alexander's Greece was just as advanced if not more so than Persia.

 

[shortguy]

how many times have you seen a technologically inferior, non-sedintary people destroy sophisticated technologically advanced empires with vastly more numerous populations?

The Arabs? The Persians? I don't think the Mongols were the only ones to manage the feat, though they certainly did it up right.

 

[silver 2039]

I would say the Mongols as well. I mean it is the largest land empire in the world. And various successors such as the Golden Horde lasted a long time. And then there's the Timurid Empire, and the Mughals are considered an off shoot of the Timurids and such. The Arabs were also impressive.

 

[Traitorfish]

I would say the Mongols as well. I mean it is the largest land empire in the world. And various successors such as the Golden Horde lasted a long time. And then there's the Timurid Empire, and the Mughals are considered an off shoot of the Timurids and such. The Arabs were also impressive.

Nomadic conquests of civilised states has happened many of times, from the Indo-Aryan conquest of the Harappan (Indus Valley) civilisation to the Manchu conquest of China. The number becomes even greater when you include conquests by migriting, temporarily nomadic peoples, such as the Hyskos conquest of Egypt or the Dorian conquest of Greece.

 

[Stuck in Pi]

Nomadic conquests of civilised states has happened many of times, from the Indo-Aryan conquest of the Harappan (Indus Valley) civilisation to the Manchu conquest of China. The number becomes even greater when you include conquests by migriting, temporarily nomadic peoples, such as the Hyskos conquest of Egypt or the Dorian conquest of Greece.

Or the Huns' near conquest of Rome...

 

[Dachs]

Or the Huns' near conquest of Rome...

Where'd you get that little tidbit? They came just about as close as Arminius did. Attila conquering Rome is if anything less believable than the Mongols conquering Europe - at least the Mongols won battles.

 

[mcpon]

I'd probably say the Mongols, but I would also throw in the Arab conquests just because most of the conquered lands stayed.

 

[Archbob]

Hitler and Napolean don't count -- they lost.

Its between Alexander and Khan and Khan has an edge.

 

[bestbrian]

Greatest conqueror? Toss up between Walt Disney and Coca Cola?

Seriously, I reiterate my position from last month that Alexander is far and away the greatest conqueror of all time. There were Greek cities in Afghanistan and India for a 1000 years after he died (giving rise to the myths of "Prestor John"); find me a Mongol outside of Mongolia.

And a shout out to the kid who got laid on New Year's Eve: Congratulations (even though it's New Year's - not exactly the toughest night of the year), just don't go around referring to women as "conquests" or you might spark a "guerilla uprising" and find yourself "expelled from her territiory". Capece?

 

[Traitorfish]

Seriously, I reiterate my position from last month that Alexander is far and away the greatest conqueror of all time. There were Greek cities in Afghanistan and India for a 1000 years after he died (giving rise to the myths of "Prestor John"); find me a Mongol outside of Mongolia.

Good point- even Alexanders short-lived empire had far-reaching cultural effects, albeit through the various successor states that emerged, while the Mongol Empire did nothing but fragment and assimilate. If you're measuring "greatness" in terms of individual legacy, few people match up to Alexander.

Although, just as a technical point, the very fact that "Mongolia" is a country shows the Great Khan's influence- prior to him, the Mongols were just one of many tribes in the region, but today they are the dominant ethnicity. Not as impressive as the spread of Hellenism, I'll grant you, but worth remembering.