What Makes a Good Conqueror?

[DAv2003]

Pretty much self explanatory but what does make a good conqueror? I've thought about it, and I've seperated it into three catergories:

The ability to conquer.
The ability to govern.
The ability to consilidate power.

Now if we take the examples of Napoleon, Caesar and Ghengis Kahn we can see which one was the greater conqueror out of the three.

Napoleon:
The ability to conquer - Held much of central and western Europe under his power at one point so yes.
The ability to govern - The Code Napoleon anyone?
The ability to consilidate - Napoleon's failing here. He thought he had allies but they were in reality, defeated opponents.

Caesar:
The ability to conquer - Got a firm grip on France and parts of Asia so yes.
The ability to govern - Was a consul and an astute politican so he qualifies for this.
The ability to consilidate - Same as Napoleon, thought he had it sorted but was stabbed in the back (quite literally in this case)

Ghengis Kahn:
The ability to conquer - Probably don't need to into this one
The ability to govern - Did rather well. Actually founded a major trading station (not sure if it was a city or not though)
The ability to consilidate - Did pretty well. His death had to be kept a secret for a while but his legacy and Empire did survive for a few generations.

From these three catergories then, we can see the Ghengis Kahn was the greatest out of the three. Keeping in mind I might be totally wrong about this, any thoughts and comments are welcomed.

 

[Princeps]

1. First you need good battlefield tactics and large army...

2. Then you need to have diplomatic skill to divide the enemy to fight against each other, and some of them might even serve you.

3. Then you conquer, with your good armies while the enemy is too disunited.

4. Then you build alot of infrastructure to keep the population happy with their new ruler.

5. if they stage a rebbelion, punish them, severly.

Thank you for your time with: do-it-your-self, conquest of Gaul!

 

[SeleucusNicator]

Some Conquerors see themselves above governing...see Alexander the Great, for instance.

 

[sabo]

Loyal Troops and a populace (even if it's not yours) willing to fight for you, Hannibal comes to mind.

 

[Toteone]

(first I answered too many units to continue the game, but then I remembered it's all about history so...

philosophically I'd say someone who makes the world a better place.

Which is not a very good answer, maybe.

 

[Japanrocks12]

Pretty much self explanatory but what does make a good conqueror? I've thought about it, and I've seperated it into three catergories:

The ability to conquer.
The ability to govern.
The ability to consilidate power.

Now if we take the examples of Napoleon, Caesar and Ghengis Kahn we can see which one was the greater conqueror out of the three.

Napoleon:
The ability to conquer - Held much of central and western Europe under his power at one point so yes.
The ability to govern - The Code Napoleon anyone?
The ability to consilidate - Napoleon's failing here. He thought he had allies but they were in reality, defeated opponents.

Caesar:
The ability to conquer - Got a firm grip on France and parts of Asia so yes.
The ability to govern - Was a consul and an astute politican so he qualifies for this.
The ability to consilidate - Same as Napoleon, thought he had it sorted but was stabbed in the back (quite literally in this case)

Ghengis Kahn:
The ability to conquer - Probably don't need to into this one
The ability to govern - Did rather well. Actually founded a major trading station (not sure if it was a city or not though)
The ability to consilidate - Did pretty well. His death had to be kept a secret for a while but his legacy and Empire did survive for a few generations.

From these three catergories then, we can see the Ghengis Kahn was the greatest out of the three. Keeping in mind I might be totally wrong about this, any thoughts and comments are welcomed.

Alexander the Great was a good conquerer, but a mediocre governor/administrator

Also, he needs to be liked by laity.

 

[Adler17]

A good conqueror? Well, perhaps read the Antimacchiavell by Frederic the Great, then you´ll find a good answer. However a good conqueror must introduce the newly conquered areas into his own empire and treat them like a normal province of him as well as not changing that much, only what has to be done. I mean he (or she) has to respect the people living there like his own people. Also resistance before a certain date he has to accept and does not punish it when he gets total control of the area.

Adler

 

[Dreadnought]

1. First you need good battlefield tactics and large army...

2. Then you need to have diplomatic skill to divide the enemy to fight against each other, and some of them might even serve you.

3. Then you conquer, with your good armies while the enemy is too disunited.

4. Then you build alot of infrastructure to keep the population happy with their new ruler.

5. if they stage a rebbelion, punish them, severly.

Thank you for your time with: do-it-your-self, conquest of Gaul!

1- Federick's army during the Thiry Year's War was pretty much always small, but he won in the end (by small I mean compared to who he fought).

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

Winning!!!!

 

[Adler17]

Dreadnought, you mean the 7 years war. Indeed the Prussian army was small. So was the army of Alexander. A large army is not always neccessary. It must be effective. The Prussians for instance were lead by a man who gave inspiration to them, a man, who had excellent marshalls and soldiers, and a man demanding everything from his fellowers but who was always ready to give the same for his country. But one thing we forget here: Luck. Without luck, Frderick or Alexander would never have carried the Great but were known as some ruthless despots greatly overestimating their strength. But so? Alexander conquered nearly the whole known world. Frederick only a province but a pearl of the Austrian empire. But both fought against armies multiple times bigger then theirs with only little or no help from allies and they still won due to ingenium, bravery and luck. The Prussian example makes it more clear what I mean: Frederick used strategic and tactical advantages whenever possible. He made errors but he was ever able to turn the tide due to sometimes dangerous and on the first view stupidic actions: For instance he attacked the Austrians in Silesia in winter with only half of the strenghth the enemy had. Nevertheless when he recognized that he made a very risky maneuver to attack from the side. So Leuthen was won. Also the Prussian troops fired 4 times in a minute. More than 2 or 3 was said was impossible. That was the highest rate a standard unit made in the foreign forces. French military hospitants report even a rate of fire of 7 shots, but that was not common.
So a successful conquerer must be unpredictable, intelligent, charismatic, brave and lucky- and he must be aware of his own abilities. He must have forces of the same caliber, and they have to be superior to the enemy, although not only the number is important. After winning you have to introduce the won territories in your own empire and try to win the local population´s respect.
So who fits this?
Napoleon: On the military field yes, but he was not able to build a lasting empire as he only went for war and so overestimating his abilities.
Gengis Khan: Yes, but his empire was also built on fear and terror at the beginning. Nevertheless he was able to build up the world´s first real superpower, although his heirs were not able to hold it for long.
Alexander: Yes to the military part and also to the administrative. However he was not able to hold the empire together for his son (Roxane was pregnant when he died). A man governing the empire for his son might have lead to an alteration of history.
Caesar: Yes on the military part. Also he was outstanding in the administation he was not able to transform Rome into a monarchy. Only his nephew was able to do so.
Frederick: Yes to all: Outstanding soldier and outstanding administrator. Not only that he conquered Silesia and won the 7 years war against Austria, Sweden, Russia, Saxony and France, he introduced the potato, made whole provinces flourishing, laid bases for the first modern codex, the Allgemeines Landrecht für die preußischen Staaten (ALR), strengenthed the law state as well as knowing the end of his abilities. Instead of becoming a glorious but disastrous king like Charles XII. of Sweden, he stopped when he saw it was good so. This Napoleon did never have. He only fought one offensive war, which he said it was his biggest error but as a young man he wanted fame and glory, what he got. And of all his luck might be the biggest.

Adler

 

[DAv2003]

Wasn't Frederick eventually smashed by opposing armies though?

 

[alex994]

Wasn't Frederick eventually smashed by opposing armies though?

Indeed, but then the Czarina of Russia died and the next Czar was an avid fan of Frederick who offered Frederick VERY GOOD terms much similar to a white peace, some money, and even offered him some troops to fight against his enemies...

 

[Japanrocks12]

My favorite conquerors are Hannibal and Sargon of Akkad.

 

[ComradeDavo]

Winning!!!!

Yeh that was my first thought when I saw the thread title!

 

[Dreadnought]

Dreadnought, you mean the 7 years war. Indeed the Prussian army was small. So was the army of Alexander. A large army is not always neccessary. It must be effective. The Prussians for instance were lead by a man who gave inspiration to them, a man, who had excellent marshalls and soldiers, and a man demanding everything from his fellowers but who was always ready to give the same for his country. But one thing we forget here: Luck. Without luck, Frderick or Alexander would never have carried the Great but were known as some ruthless despots greatly overestimating their strength. But so? Alexander conquered nearly the whole known world. Frederick only a province but a pearl of the Austrian empire. But both fought against armies multiple times bigger then theirs with only little or no help from allies and they still won due to ingenium, bravery and luck. The Prussian example makes it more clear what I mean: Frederick used strategic and tactical advantages whenever possible. He made errors but he was ever able to turn the tide due to sometimes dangerous and on the first view stupidic actions: For instance he attacked the Austrians in Silesia in winter with only half of the strenghth the enemy had. Nevertheless when he recognized that he made a very risky maneuver to attack from the side. So Leuthen was won. Also the Prussian troops fired 4 times in a minute. More than 2 or 3 was said was impossible. That was the highest rate a standard unit made in the foreign forces. French military hospitants report even a rate of fire of 7 shots, but that was not common.
So a successful conquerer must be unpredictable, intelligent, charismatic, brave and lucky- and he must be aware of his own abilities. He must have forces of the same caliber, and they have to be superior to the enemy, although not only the number is important. After winning you have to introduce the won territories in your own empire and try to win the local population´s respect.
So who fits this?
Napoleon: On the military field yes, but he was not able to build a lasting empire as he only went for war and so overestimating his abilities.
Gengis Khan: Yes, but his empire was also built on fear and terror at the beginning. Nevertheless he was able to build up the world´s first real superpower, although his heirs were not able to hold it for long.
Alexander: Yes to the military part and also to the administrative. However he was not able to hold the empire together for his son (Roxane was pregnant when he died). A man governing the empire for his son might have lead to an alteration of history.
Caesar: Yes on the military part. Also he was outstanding in the administation he was not able to transform Rome into a monarchy. Only his nephew was able to do so.
Frederick: Yes to all: Outstanding soldier and outstanding administrator. Not only that he conquered Silesia and won the 7 years war against Austria, Sweden, Russia, Saxony and France, he introduced the potato, made whole provinces flourishing, laid bases for the first modern codex, the Allgemeines Landrecht für die preußischen Staaten (ALR), strengenthed the law state as well as knowing the end of his abilities. Instead of becoming a glorious but disastrous king like Charles XII. of Sweden, he stopped when he saw it was good so. This Napoleon did never have. He only fought one offensive war, which he said it was his biggest error but as a young man he wanted fame and glory, what he got. And of all his luck might be the biggest.

Adler

Whoops, wrong war

well, anyway, I do agree about Federick: he had to fight over Silesia three times, but one in the end. Also a great administrator.

OT: Was Charles XII the king of Sweden who fought his way to the Black Sea and took refuge in Turkey, only to be defeated in Finland?

 

[frekk]

I'd have to nominate King George III. He lost the American colonies, but he won the Seven Year War - which made Britain the foremost colonial superpower in the world, and set it out on its path of nearly two centuries of total global dominance, the world's largest empire to date.

 

[Nyvin]

Napoleon did last a lot longer then Hitler or Alexander. He did administrate his conquered areas quite well actually. The continental system did hurt enemy's economies quite significantly, and it did give a quick boost to the economy's of the Napoleonic empire also. I'd say he was one of the better administrators out there actually, even better then Ghenkis Kahn really, the way he did it was to basically kill anyone who didn't submit to his ways. Quite a brutal way to be effective.

I'd have to nominate King George III. He lost the American colonies, but he won the Seven Year War - which made Britain the foremost colonial superpower in the world, and set it out on its path of nearly two centuries of total global dominance, the world's largest empire to date.

The person you'd want is William Pitt...not king George III, most of the time that the war and all was going on he was suffering from insanity phases, and is noted for being quite ineffective, which is why his overall plans for making britain an absolute monarchy once again ultimately failed.

William Pitt is the one who supported and implemented the plans for the strategies of naval superiority for the seven years war, and also a lot of other very significant things.

 

[frekk]

The person you'd want is William Pitt

Except Pitt even more unpopular than the king - it's really Pitt's bills like the Sedition Act etc that caused so much civil discontent. If not for George's popularity (which suffered quite a bit because of Pitt), its likely there would have been a national morale crisis - and unlikely that Britain could have funded the war without risking a national breakdown.

...not king George III, most of the time that the war and all was going on he was suffering from insanity phases

Huh? George was fine during the war. There's no record of him being dysfunctional at all during this time - it appears to have gone in remission until around 1800, after an assassination attempt.

 

[Princeps]

By 'large army', I meant relatively large army.

 

[Adler17]

Folks, remember that the 7 years war was not won in America but in Silesia. Only because there was Frederick the French were not able to send more troops to America or India.

Adler