|
On March 02 2011 05:49 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2011 05:27 ELA wrote:
I wouldn't pick this guy personally, but I wonder why anyone hasn't mentioned Hitler? And no hitler will not get you banned... although to anyone saying hitler I'm assuming you mean "militarily and politically it's amazing what he managed to pull off" rather than "I'm a huge fan of his" since the latter certainly could get you banned.
Thank you clarifying, that - Im defenitely not in awe with what Hitler did political at all, so no need to ban me.
Also, I must have not seen the posts mentioning him.
|
On March 02 2011 06:23 folke123 wrote:
Well, If some of you say hitler, I would rather say Stalin. I mean, basicly everything the germans took going east ended up getting absorbed into the USSR eventully. And they actully kept it for around 50 years compared to hitlers 1-5
ah, but stalin wasn't at war with the entire world at the time, he was only at war with the one who was at war with the entire world (being one of the 7 in a 7v1 isn't spectacular at all, what is spectacular is almost winning a 1v7 as the 1)
just like in the generals thread though, there's far too many great conquerors to narrow it down to the best "1" due to the different nature of time periods and the different circumstances each one was faced with. the ends isn't the only thing that matters when the playing field isn't equal.
but almost every suggestion in this thread would make a good candidate and I love reading through these threads
|
Welllllllllllllll, the Mongolians did have great battle strategies, and did beat/conquer many strong European and Persian armies, but most of the Asian landscape that they "conquered" was small villages, nomads, farms, etc. not really large empires like Alexander and Napoleon fought against routinely, the same sort of goes for considering extents of the French Empire vs. the British Empire, the British controlled much more land, but a lot of that was weak colonies, India, China, some African Countries, Canada (which was mostly settlers and Natives, not an established country, whereas the French conquered most/a lot of Europe which was undeniably the most powerful concentration of countries as the time, Prussia, Britain, Hungary etc. etc. which ultimately was a lot less land mass, but obviously much more a feat than the British "conquering" Nigeria.
Also Hitler was a horrible leader, militarily and politically. He best "feat" was getting people fired up for war, but killing off/imprisoning a large % of your population is a good idea? And he wasn't smart or good at all as a military leader. Kind of just a figurehead, that tries to get involved in things that he knows nothing of/does badly too much
|
On March 02 2011 05:39 se7en247 wrote:
I'd have to say Cyrus The Great. The founder of Persia and conqueror of Babylonia.
It is also important to know that religious tolerance was a Persian standard practice introduced by Cyrus the Great, Alexander and later on the Romans just copied it.
|
![[image loading]](http://images4.fanpop.com/image/photos/18100000/Ash-Ketchum-anime-18141902-640-480.jpg)
In my opinion this is inarguable.
|
United States24767 Posts
On March 02 2011 08:06 Kazzabiss wrote:
Also Hitler was a horrible leader, militarily and politically. He best "feat" was getting people fired up for war, but killing off/imprisoning a large % of your population is a good idea? And he wasn't smart or good at all as a military leader. Kind of just a figurehead, that tries to get involved in things that he knows nothing of/does badly too much
I think you are underestimating how close his leadership brought Germany and their allies to victory in WW2. In some respects he was brilliant and in others he was insane. If he could use his brilliance without being hindered by his insanity I think the world map would look very different today.
|
Russian Federation3631 Posts
Epaminondas, who destroyed the Spartan way of life and liberated the Pelopennesus (at least for a short while). I think Leuctra was the first example of the Spartan army and (coerced) allies being defeated on the field in history.
He was also William Tecumseh Sherman's inspiration (victory through 'indirect means'), so that counts for something.
|
Is this even a question? Alexander the Great by far, I'm his #1 fanboy.
+ Show Spoiler +Conquered the entire known world (at the time) in around 8 years. Boss.
|
On March 02 2011 08:37 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2011 08:06 Kazzabiss wrote:
Also Hitler was a horrible leader, militarily and politically. He best "feat" was getting people fired up for war, but killing off/imprisoning a large % of your population is a good idea? And he wasn't smart or good at all as a military leader. Kind of just a figurehead, that tries to get involved in things that he knows nothing of/does badly too much I think you are underestimating how close his leadership brought Germany and their allies to victory in WW2. In some respects he was brilliant and in others he was insane. If he could use his brilliance without being hindered by his insanity I think the world map would look very different today.
No, Hitler hindered his own Generals, as in, the German Generals at the time were brilliant, but anytime Hitler butted in, it ended if failure (Battle of Britain, Stalingrad) Just like Italy hindered Germany more than helped as an ally, in terms of military conquest, Hitler hurt Germany's conquest by interfering with his brilliant Generals.
|
United States24767 Posts
On March 02 2011 08:50 Kazzabiss wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2011 08:37 micronesia wrote:On March 02 2011 08:06 Kazzabiss wrote:
Also Hitler was a horrible leader, militarily and politically. He best "feat" was getting people fired up for war, but killing off/imprisoning a large % of your population is a good idea? And he wasn't smart or good at all as a military leader. Kind of just a figurehead, that tries to get involved in things that he knows nothing of/does badly too much I think you are underestimating how close his leadership brought Germany and their allies to victory in WW2. In some respects he was brilliant and in others he was insane. If he could use his brilliance without being hindered by his insanity I think the world map would look very different today. No, Hitler hindered his own Generals, as in, the German Generals at the time were brilliant,
Yeah that's an example of his insanity getting in the way of his 'progress'
but anytime Hitler butted in, it ended if failure (Battle of Britain, Stalingrad) Well how do you define 'butted in'? He did a tremendous amount of things that contributed to success towards his goals... but if you narrowly define 'butted in' as anything he did militarily which seemed to be counter-productive then yes he'll seem like he was pretty weaksauce.
Just like Italy hindered Germany more than helped as an ally, in terms of military conquest, Hitler hurt Germany's conquest by interfering with his brilliant Generals.
I think in a very narrow focus you are correct but in a global one my point stands.
|
Barack Obama,
Who needs a military when you can incite countries to implode from within!
|
On March 02 2011 08:37 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2011 08:06 Kazzabiss wrote:
Also Hitler was a horrible leader, militarily and politically. He best "feat" was getting people fired up for war, but killing off/imprisoning a large % of your population is a good idea? And he wasn't smart or good at all as a military leader. Kind of just a figurehead, that tries to get involved in things that he knows nothing of/does badly too much I think you are underestimating how close his leadership brought Germany and their allies to victory in WW2. In some respects he was brilliant and in others he was insane. If he could use his brilliance without being hindered by his insanity I think the world map would look very different today.
The more accurate statement is that his military leadership doomed Germany's victory in '41.
It was really two big things. Ironically, Hitler wasn't ruthless enough in '40 after the British disaster at Dunkirk. He allowed close to 600,000 men to evacuate to the British Isles because he thought that defeat was plain to see for any leader. Goering begged Hitler to allow him to unleash the Luftwaffe on the retreating French and British soldiers. In '41, Hitler committed two major errors. One was shifting focus from attacking the RAF to bombing civilian targets. The RAF was near it's breaking point; they couldn't keep replacing planes, airfields and pilots at the rate they were losing them. By taking focus off the RAF, Hitler allowed the RAF to regroup and resupply. The second major error was altering the OKC's plan to invade Russia. The OKC wanted to blitz Moscow, split the country into two halves and then conquer each sector separately. Hitler changed the OKC's plan to occupy the oilfields in the south and Stalingrad to the north as well as keeping the blitz to Moscow. This diluted the assault to the east and ensured that the Germans fell short of Moscow before the winter hit.
Hitler's political leadership was unparalleled. He was a masterful orator, a genius statesman and a brilliant leader. However, he let his WWI (he was a message runner and was awarded the Iron Cross for his bravery) success in the German army go to his head, believing himself to be a master strategist. He wasn't insane, he was simply too arrogant to see where his limitations were.
|
United States24767 Posts
On March 02 2011 08:57 0mar wrote:
He wasn't insane, he was simply too arrogant to see where his limitations were.
You sir have a much different definition of insane than I do lol. I think I get what you mean though XD
|
On March 02 2011 08:45 Premier wrote:Is this even a question? Alexander the Great by far, I'm his #1 fanboy. + Show Spoiler +Conquered the entire known world (at the time) in around 8 years. Boss.
Conquered the whole known world at he knew of at the time, not that impressive just because he doesn't know what's out there doesn't mean it's not there. and his father Philip also did lots of the work like taking care of Athens etc
|
Attila the Hun, he kicked a metric fuckton of ass
|
On March 02 2011 08:06 Kazzabiss wrote:
Welllllllllllllll, the Mongolians did have great battle strategies, and did beat/conquer many strong European and Persian armies, but most of the Asian landscape that they "conquered" was small villages, nomads, farms, etc. not really large empires like Alexander and Napoleon fought against routinely, the same sort of goes for considering extents of the French Empire vs. the British Empire, the British controlled much more land, but a lot of that was weak colonies, India, China, some African Countries, Canada (which was mostly settlers and Natives, not an established country, whereas the French conquered most/a lot of Europe which was undeniably the most powerful concentration of countries as the time, Prussia, Britain, Hungary etc. etc. which ultimately was a lot less land mass, but obviously much more a feat than the British "conquering" Nigeria.
[/b]
You couldn't be more wrong. Temujin conquered Jin and Northern Song, the greatest empires in the world at that time and certainly far more advanced than medieval Europe. Then the Khwarezm Empire pissed him off so he actually just completely destroyed them. I don't know what you're getting your info from.
|
Pizarro! Outnumbered 400:1 is no prob, and killing at least two attackers in your 60s is pretty badass.
|
I think Carolus Magnus is missing in this discussion. His rule pretty much laid the foundations for France and the Holy Roman Empire, and his conquests shaped the future of europe.
|
![[image loading]](http://www.rehupa.com/images/lancers_conan_conqueror_front.jpg)
No contest, really.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
