|
On March 01 2011 15:11 Newbistic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 14:57 Streltsy wrote: Why would anyone vote Genghis Khan? The Mongol Horde was practically the definition of "unsophisticated barbarians", who did practically nothing good for civilization.
I like the conquerors who actually did/tried to do something good with/through their conquests. For that reason my vote goes to Alexander the Great and Napoleon Bonaparte. My world history is a bit rusty, but can you please point out the "something good" that Alex and Napoleon did with their conquests?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_code
spread to half of europe is something good, I think 
|
![[image loading]](http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/6066/66364471.jpg)
Belisarius, he went from being a very low key officer to commander of the Roman armies in the east after completely outsmarting the Persians in an outnumbered battle. Afterward he was one of the most important people in the recapture of Italy, North Africa and part of Spain. He also saved Constantinople from being captured by coming out of retirement and leading the defense. Sadly he had trouble with having his status revoked for no fault of his own and then later returned a couple times, he ended up dying with very little
|
On March 01 2011 15:11 Newbistic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 14:57 Streltsy wrote: Why would anyone vote Genghis Khan? The Mongol Horde was practically the definition of "unsophisticated barbarians", who did practically nothing good for civilization.
I like the conquerors who actually did/tried to do something good with/through their conquests. For that reason my vote goes to Alexander the Great and Napoleon Bonaparte. My world history is a bit rusty, but can you please point out the "something good" that Alex and Napoleon did with their conquests? IMO the " something good" is incredibly subjective especially when it comes to conquerors. I'm not sure spreading Hellenic culture or whatever Napoleon did (probably something to do with the Enlightenment" is good OR bad, it just kind of happened. The most important accomplishments of all three men is just that their military brilliance was enough to significantly alter the course of world history. We really don't know if they did it for better or worse (as in what would have happened otherwise). Alexander allowed conquered regions to keep worshipping whoever they were worshipping. In history that's quite a grand feat, as most would attempt to force them into their own religion. You could argue that he did it to prevent rebellion, but shit man, a conqueror with religious tolerance that long ago?
Now if the people were better off under Alexander than Darius III, well, no fucking clue. I'd like to think they were though + Show Spoiler +because he seems even more baller that way
|
Yeah, Napoleonic Code is a pretty big deal. He really rallied France in a time when on the edge of being completely and utterly fucked, against basically then entire European world.
He reconciled with catholics to avoid a civil war in the newly deistic French republic, created a central bank, laid down the foundation for the adoption of the metric system, emancipated the Jews in France from ghettos, and did a lot of other things for the infrastructure of France.
Plus, I just like the idea of a kid from a tiny, rather insignificant, island showing up and kicking the monarchical ass all over Europe and liberating countries (that's not a euphemism either! Most countries he liberated actually loved him).
-
As for Alexander the Great, Hellenistic culture was pretty bomb. And also wasn't as Greek as you may think it is. In many ways, the Hellenic Kingdoms were very multicultural. So long as you knew Macedonian culture and language, you would not be barred from advancing to positions of power (regardless of your non-Macedonian origins). Might not seem like much now, but it was pretty big for those days. It was thus a sort of union of East and West. He also founded Alexandria, which was the city-of-cities until Rome kicked off. It was one of the first planned cities of the ancient world, and one of the greatest. It also wasn't the only one, I don't remember the exact number but he established many new cities across Asia.
|
On March 01 2011 14:57 Streltsy wrote: Why would anyone vote Genghis Khan? The Mongol Horde was practically the definition of "unsophisticated barbarians", who did practically nothing good for civilization.
I like the conquerors who actually did/tried to do something good with/through their conquests. For that reason my vote goes to Alexander the Great and Napoleon Bonaparte. What about the technology transfer? The Mongolian Empire might have been the catalyst to kickstart a new age by connecting the various centers of civilization in the world. For example gunpowder originated in China, while the large cannon probably originated in europe, and both technologies were exchanged "swiftly".
|
Alexander, though my favorite era for it is the Napoleonic Age. close 3rd to Hitler for ww2, because his insanity is just so damned interesting.
|
On March 01 2011 11:56 Terranist wrote:![[image loading]](http://www.kavehfarrokh.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/colin-farrell-as-alexander.jpg) he conquered half the world by the time he was 30. that's pretty badass.
your thinking of alexander the great. you are showing us a picture of collin farrel with his hair dyed blond.
|
On March 01 2011 17:15 Maenander wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 14:57 Streltsy wrote: Why would anyone vote Genghis Khan? The Mongol Horde was practically the definition of "unsophisticated barbarians", who did practically nothing good for civilization.
I like the conquerors who actually did/tried to do something good with/through their conquests. For that reason my vote goes to Alexander the Great and Napoleon Bonaparte. What about the technology transfer? The Mongolian Empire might have been the catalyst to kickstart a new age by connecting the various centers of civilization in the world. For example gunpowder originated in China, while the large cannon probably originated in europe, and both technologies were exchanged "swiftly".
They inadvertently helped the silk road out yeah.
What new age are you talking about? As far as I know they brought two significant things to the west - the black plague and stirrups. I guess you could say the black plague helped Europe break down feudalism some, either way, not exactly a big achievement.
Gunpowder, while important, also wasn't really a driving force for any age in Europe.
I'd be shocked if any positive effect they had through helping facilitate the exchange of technology between "centers of civilization" wasn't outweighed by the very destruction of many of those centers.
|
On March 01 2011 14:57 Streltsy wrote: Why would anyone vote Genghis Khan? The Mongol Horde was practically the definition of "unsophisticated barbarians", who did practically nothing good for civilization.
I like the conquerors who actually did/tried to do something good with/through their conquests. For that reason my vote goes to Alexander the Great and Napoleon Bonaparte.
See: Pax Mongolica.
The conquests of Genghis Khan and his successors effectively connected the Eastern world with the Western world, ruling a territory from Southeast Asia to Eastern Europe. The Silk Road, connecting trade centers across Asia and Europe, came under the sole rule of the Mongol Empire. It was commonly said that "a maiden bearing a nugget of gold on her head could wander safely throughout the realm."
Also, it was Mongol policy to largely allow the economies of conquered territory to flourish under guaranteed protection. They charged tribute and no further - almost like fiscal conservatism. People found them good rulers. It was as an enemy that they were feared.
The Mongols also guaranteed religious freedom so you can't credit that to Alexander and not to Genghis.
I think that Khan did as much good through his conquest as any conqueror really can do, given the bloody nature of the business.
|
What, no love for the Prophet and Messiah Kane, leader of Nod and conquerer of GDI?
![[image loading]](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ePSaZ0hFm5Q/Swi79eu-TXI/AAAAAAAAAJw/U-DkLUkZ-7s/s1600/Joe_Kucan_sm.jpg)
Unlike the rest of these conquerers, he just doesn't die no matter what, and he has screwed the world over several times through.
|
On March 01 2011 15:11 Newbistic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 14:57 Streltsy wrote: Why would anyone vote Genghis Khan? The Mongol Horde was practically the definition of "unsophisticated barbarians", who did practically nothing good for civilization.
I like the conquerors who actually did/tried to do something good with/through their conquests. For that reason my vote goes to Alexander the Great and Napoleon Bonaparte. My world history is a bit rusty, but can you please point out the "something good" that Alex and Napoleon did with their conquests?
Alexander the Great preserved most of the great knowledge and libraries from the places he conquered, rather than hastily burning those places to the ground. He then assimilated that knowledge and helped increase the overall intelligence of his scholars.
I'm a fan of that.
|
On March 01 2011 18:27 Streltsy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 17:15 Maenander wrote:On March 01 2011 14:57 Streltsy wrote: Why would anyone vote Genghis Khan? The Mongol Horde was practically the definition of "unsophisticated barbarians", who did practically nothing good for civilization.
I like the conquerors who actually did/tried to do something good with/through their conquests. For that reason my vote goes to Alexander the Great and Napoleon Bonaparte. What about the technology transfer? The Mongolian Empire might have been the catalyst to kickstart a new age by connecting the various centers of civilization in the world. For example gunpowder originated in China, while the large cannon probably originated in europe, and both technologies were exchanged "swiftly". They inadvertently helped the silk road out yeah. What new age are you talking about? As far as I know they brought two significant things to the west - the black plague and stirrups. I guess you could say the black plague helped Europe break down feudalism some, either way, not exactly a big achievement. Gunpowder, while important, also wasn't really a driving force for any age in Europe. I'd be shocked if any positive effect they had through helping facilitate the exchange of technology between "centers of civilization" wasn't outweighed by the very destruction of many of those centers.
I like the Chinese isolationist mentality. That took China from a world superpower and most advanced civilization to a backwater that was conquered by introducing a drug. If you don't have exchange between civilizations then civilization will stagnate in and of itself which in the end will lower the welfare of people.
In terms of conquerors.
Conquistadors, despite destroying some of the coolest civilizations in the world, were pretty important and interesting.
However, the three main conquerors, for doing so much in one lifetime, have to be; Napoleon, Alexander, and Samsung Khan.
|
On March 01 2011 12:31 gogogadgetflow wrote:Saladin, because that campaign was my favorite from aoe. + Show Spoiler +Salah ad-Din Al-Ayyubi, better known to his foes and to history simply as Saladin, is one of the great human figures in the cultural and military history of the Middle East. Saladin, a Kurdish Muslim born in Takrit in present day Iraq was both a spiritual and military leader. At the height of his power he ruled over Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Hejaz, and Yemen. Through political savvy and through devotion to his faith and country, he gained the unmatched respect of both his followers and adversaries, while at the same time capturing the most highly contested prize of the Middle Ages: The Holy Land.
Saladin is best known for finally expelling European Crusaders from Palestine, which had been besieged during several crusades and been under French control during the middle of the 12th century. He was devoted to recapturing the Holy Land. Like his European contemporaries, Saladin used religion as a justification for war, and inspired his followers, observers of Sunni Islam, to do the same. However, his motivation to drive the Europeans back was not motivated by ethnic hatred. In fact, he allowed any defeated Christian army to return home freely, and granted total amnesty to remaining Christian worshipers. This was in spite of the devastation done on Jerusalem by the Crusaders during their original takeover.
Saladin’s humanity did not go unnoticed. He was renowned for his personal character by seemingly any that met him. He had about him the chivalrous qualities of a knight. Chivalry was a venerable term and understood to embody all the knightly qualities of “humility, compassion, courtesy, devotion, mercy, purity, peace and endurance.” René Grousset, a Frenchman, wrote “It is equally true that his generosity, his piety, devoid of fanaticism, that flower of liberality and courtesy which had been the model of our old chroniclers, won him no less popularity in Frankish Syria than in the lands of Islam.”
He was definitely a conqueror not a general You should read Lionhearts: Richard 1, Saladin, and the Era of the Third Crusade by Geoffrey Regan.
|
genghis would never be a favourite, he was a douchebag barbarian. At least Alexander had a vision of bringing the light of Greece to the rest of the world.
|
|
|
Dunno who lead them, but the anglo-saxons who rampaged, raped and pillaged their way across England and most of Europe have my respect. Takes some serious cajones to get in a longboat and tackle the North Sea.
|
Would saying hitler get me banned ?
On a more serious note I think I would go for Julius Ceasar (Don't know if he actually conquered something though) simply beacuse he said "Vene vidi vici" I mean seariously , that is pretty badass 
Edit:spellcheck
|
I would have to say Hannibal Barca. He led an army from Spain through southern France and across the Alps. He had to fight Iberian and Gallic barbarians the whole way and lost a large percentage of his army crossing the Alps (I believe it to be somewhere between one third and one half of the army), along with a lot of his war elephants.
When he had crossed into Italy he fought and won three great battles against a larger number of Romans over the course of two years, the most famous of which was the Battle of Cannae, when Hannibal's army of 50,000 men almost completely destroyed a Roman army of 80,000, the Roman government was crippled after this as 80 senators died in the battle. After bringing Rome literally to its knees, but not being strong enough to conquer the city, he held out for another 14 years without reinforcements.
Had he had support from the Carthaginian government rather than just his family in Spain he could almost certainly have conquered Rome and completely reshaped western history.
After losing the war and being exiled he offered his services to anyone fighting Rome or its allies. While in the service of the kingdom of Bithynia in war against the kingdom of Pergamon, a Roman ally, Hannibal won a naval battle by firing pots filled with poisonous snakes onto the enemy ships. Something which I find to be a badass tactic.
Hannibal Barca is pretty much just a badass. Plus his last name means lightning bolt. Also I just found out that there's a movie being made about him which is fucking awesome (I'm excited).
|
Genghis Khan, he travels through time and conquers stuff
|
On March 02 2011 01:16 sc4k wrote: genghis would never be a favourite, he was a douchebag barbarian. At least Alexander had a vision of bringing the light of Greece to the rest of the world. The "barbarian" label mostly came from what people in Europe were taught for many centuries. But a lot of it was propaganda and fear because they seemed to be superhuman destroying every armie they faced with ease. A barbarian can not create the biggest empire in history. It would simply be impossible to keep it together. They were one of the most free countries of their time with religious freedom and the possibility for scholars and merchants to move freely half around the world (were in most other countries in their period people were forced to stay were thelived) which led to a huge increase of knowledge and goods all around the world. Their capital was one of the biggest cities up untill that time and you had all major religions worshipping in the same part of the city. And that was during the time of the crusades which makes it an even bigger achievement.
|
|
|
|
|
|