|
So guys I wanted to start a thread on people's favorite conquerors
I'm sure everyone knows at least one conqueror that they have read or heard about in games or other sources in a part of their lives that they found amazing such as conquering huge areas of land around the world by outsmarting the enemy ...etc
My Personal Favorite is Genghis Khan
![[image loading]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_-DXrojDWUFk/Rs61p8s9NdI/AAAAAAAAAAU/xluBW2Lri5Y/s400/Genghis_Khan1.jpg)
Reason:
Genghis Khan was the founder, Khan (ruler) and Khagan (emperor) of the Mongol Empire, which became the largest contiguous empire in history after his death...
So guys who's your favorite Conqueror?? state your reason why it can be from games,books etc..
|
|
|
![[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.
|
Terranist is right, he is the best
|
Napoleon Bonaparte.
Hands down
|
I agree with Genghis Khan. Simply put, he is a boss.
|
Bawler thread...
Do the Borg count?
|
On March 01 2011 12:13 Retgery wrote:
Bawler thread...
Do the Borg count?
any 
|
Arthas... that guy fucked some shit up in wow
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
|
|
|
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
|
Please look into the definition of general and conqueror
A general can be a high ranking commander in a army to lead a specific army to either defend their country etc
But a conqueror is someone who is victorious by force of arms
So I'm sure even you'll notice the difference
|
On March 01 2011 12:35 H2O Xplicit wrote:wow you must be pathetic... this thread is more on a more narrow topic of CONQUERORS not GENERALS! Generals can be involved in defending their own country and not taking on offensives on other countries to take the over.. I swear curs like you should not even post anything
Let's try to be civil shall we? He didn't insult your honor or anything ya know.
|
Jeez StarStruck, how does it feel to be called a cur?
Pretty hardcore insult.
But yeah i think most of what people would post here would go in the generals thread no?
@Terranist that movie was terrible 
edit: aw he edited it out, no fun
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Pretty sure mine is a legit example of a conqueror (or, well, at least he tried).
|
Napoleon without a doubt. Genius who changed modern history.
|
On March 01 2011 12:07 ilj.psa wrote:
Napoleon Bonaparte.
Hands down
Pretty much. Conquering SIBERIA doesn't begin to compare to conquering MOST OF WESTERN EUROPE, with an army that took on basically all the great world powers at once.
|
Poll: Greatest ConquerorAlexander the Great (47) 38% Genghis Khan (45) 36% Napoleon (24) 19% Cyrus the Great (5) 4% Emperor Qin (4) 3% 125 total votes Your vote: Greatest Conqueror (Vote): Napoleon
(Vote): Genghis Khan
(Vote): Emperor Qin
(Vote): Alexander the Great
(Vote): Cyrus the Great
|
Maximilian I. von Habsburg
![[image loading]](http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/1774/489pxalbrechtdrer084b.jpg)
Bella gerant aliī, tū fēlix Austria nūbe
Nam quae Mars aliīs, dat tibi regna Venus
Let others wage war, but thou, O happy Austria, marry; for those kingdoms which Mars gives to others, Venus gives to thee.
He laid the corner stone for austria as "The empire on which the sun never sets" under Emperor Karl V.
|
Spartacus! Escaped slavery, almost made complete fools of his captors. He should not have gone south -_-'.
|
William the Conqueror. He conquered England back in 1066. Last time that island got successfully invaded by foreigners. Also he was a viking (albeit a french one). What's not to like.
|
Cnut the Great
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cnut_the_Great
Cnut the Great was a danish viking king who conqoured most brittain/norway and parts of sweden in the 11 century. Its not much compared to the likes of Alexander but you have to take what you can get when your from denmark.
|
Kerrigan for sure. She owned so many worlds and infiltrated all her enemies with spies at high ranking. Don't you remember Raszagul or Duran? Kerrigan also was part human and part alien. She was the most powerful being in the universe. Hell, as she says "I'm The Queen Bitch Of The Universe". Kerrigan even beat 3 fleets by herself at the same time and place!!! Kerrigan is the best and my favorite, no questions needed of course.
|
Greatest general - Subutai
Greatest conqueror - Genghis Khan
|
Good God, wtf is with all these slightly reworded threads as of late? xD
Anyway, I'm gonna go with McDonalds, or possibly Wal-Mart or Coca-Cola. They conquer beyond borders. 
|
|
|
On March 01 2011 13:25 b0lt wrote:![[image loading]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/images/0/0c/FOrGGBio.jpg)
O_O
I think this thread just got CON-LOL-QUERED.
|
Alexander.
No question. That guy led an entire army group in a huge battle, leading a cavalry charge at the age of 16.
Sixteen.
Most of the truly cool things he did receive little attention in history classes or popular culture. His reputation for fighting on the front lines really sets him apart; and also left him with numerous, grievous wounds, with some ancient sources citing an arrow puncturing a lung via his neck/collarbone, as well as a spear through the thigh.
I'd argue that the Empire he carved out is more impressive than Genghis Khan based on the quality of opposition, the unified enemies, and the generally overwhelming enemy numbers.
|
Well before I even clicked on this thread, from the title alone Genghis Khan popped into my head, so yes I will have to echo the OP and go with him.
|
Gengis Khan
Who else was badass enough to spread the bubonic plague? by catapulting his men's diseases corpses into the enemy.
|
Nothing on Charles the Great? The guy pretty much molded continental Europe into what it was throughout the middle ages, and into what it is today.
|
my penis
User was banned for this post.
|
On March 01 2011 12:55 etheovermind wrote:Poll: Greatest ConquerorAlexander the Great (47) 38% Genghis Khan (45) 36% Napoleon (24) 19% Cyrus the Great (5) 4% Emperor Qin (4) 3% 125 total votes Your vote: Greatest Conqueror (Vote): Napoleon
(Vote): Genghis Khan
(Vote): Emperor Qin
(Vote): Alexander the Great
(Vote): Cyrus the Great
good thing you included them all
|
Napoleon Bonaparte. Not only a great conqueror, but military strategist, diplomat, and politician. The fact that he was exiled to a small island, brought back into France, and made an army sent out to capture him join him in arms against the leader of France, as well as to finally take control of the French army to resume his campaign against Europe, is enough to show you that he is more than your 'average' conqueror.
|
my penis
I think you will be warned, if not temporarily banned...
User was warned for this post
|
8% of Asian people are descendants of Genghis Khan, he literally raped.
|
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.
|
Hernan Cortes, of course.
Cortes led an expedition of around 500 men to explore the unknown land that laid west of Hispaniola. Due to some strife between him and an aid to the governor of Hispaniola, his charter was revoked and was ordered to turn back and abandon the exploration. He refused. Instead he went onward.
The governor's men went after him, and with inferior numbers Cortes managed to fight off those who had been brought to capture him and convinced those who survived to join him. By doing so, he was in open mutiny of the governor's orders and acted unilaterally on behalf of Charles V, speaking in the name of the Emperor. Cortes didn't want his troops turning on him after such a bold move, so he burned down the boats they had come in, to make it very clear that there was only one way out and that was forward, deeper into the Yucatan peninsula.
Besides the obvious technological advantage the Spaniards had, Montezuma was plagued by a prophecy foretold long before by his ancestors: the return of the land's rightful owner. According to legend, a civilization before that of the Aztecs had once ruled over the Yucatan under the command of Quetzalcoatl. He had been usurped from his throne and vanished into the sea claiming that he would once return and reclaim what was rightfully his! When Cortes landed in Mexico, it happened to be the exact same year the prophecy had predicted his return. This may seem a bit too coincidental, but the Aztec calendar happens to be cyclical and the cycle just happened to be the same. Montezuma was terrified. The Spaniards were after all to the Aztecs like demi-gods with their sticks that fired smoke and traveled in huge mountains that floated on top of the sea. Montezuma stood no chance. Terrified by this prophecy and overwhelmed by European technology, this ancient civilization which had ruled for hundreds of years fell to its knees before just a small group of explorers.
Cortes has been demonized or idealized - no one really knows anything about him. But he was without a doubt one of the best Conquistadores ever to have walked this earth as he managed to do so much with so little. I hope some people read more about him as the whole story is infinitely more interesting than would I've led onto here.
|
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).
|
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: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.
|
|
|
Gengis Khan is my #1 too.
Get father poisoned by rivaling tribe, hunted down a long time for the most of the beginning of his life. Being captured by Chinese.
Then taking it all back and conquering more than he knew actually existed. You could make a courage wolf meme on that because its just THAT badass. Not only that, the legends about him are pretty amazing.
|
Has anyone seen the film "Mongol"? Pretty awesome movie about Genghis Khan's life as he rose to power. Plus it's gonna be a trilogy, I'm glad to see historical movies like this get made rather than nothing but the same old hollywood crap
|
My vote goes with Alexander the Great. Conquered many parts of the world at a young age. Too bad he died young due to a dumb disease :p. dumb mosquitos or w/e lol.
|
I wouldn't pick this guy personally, but I wonder why anyone hasn't mentioned Hitler?
I mean, he was an evil evil man, but the fact that he pulled off what he did and that he managed to do it in the 20th century, is pretty impressive.. Be it despicable.
Either way, Im pretty sure neither Alexander or Ghengis Khan were saints either, to say the least
|
trivia;
genghis khan fucked so many princesses and women when he rampaged his way through asia and eastern europe
that approximatly every 1 in 200 people in Asia are related to him ^^
pretty badass on its own tbh
|
|
|
I'd have to say Cyrus The Great. The founder of Persia and conqueror of Babylonia.
|
Ghengis was the greatest, but Saladin is my favorite.
On March 02 2011 05:27 ELA wrote:
I wouldn't pick this guy personally, but I wonder why anyone hasn't mentioned Hitler?
I mean, he was an evil evil man, but the fact that he pulled off what he did and that he managed to do it in the 20th century, is pretty impressive.. Be it despicable.
Either way, Im pretty sure neither Alexander or Ghengis Khan were saints either, to say the least
I was seriously considering him. Modern conquerors are so rare that he gets an added amount of interest to him.
|
United States24767 Posts
On March 02 2011 05:27 ELA wrote:
I wouldn't pick this guy personally, but I wonder why anyone hasn't mentioned Hitler?
On March 01 2011 17:18 gryffindor wrote:
Hitler
On March 02 2011 01:45 DorF wrote:
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.
|
|
|
Oda Nobunaga, dudes an badass. defeating armies 10 times the size of his. Damn you Mitsuhide, Honnoji was a mistake!
|
It's quite nice to see that the number of people who said "Fatih Sultan Mehmet", the conqueror of Istanbul, is equal to the girls that Day[9] had.
I won't tell you much. Look at my 2nd reference to learn more about him, if you already don't know of course.
References:
1- Day[9] Daily Funday Monday: Contaminate THIS.
2- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehmed_II
|
Tokugawa Ieyasu is also considerable.
He didn't conquer a lot of land, but the manner in which he did it has a few interesting stories.
|
I personally could care less for Napoleon because he obtained land, but he did not hold onto it.
I had doubts about Alexander the Great but it is probably fair to say he would hold onto power just like Cyrus did but he died too early for us to give a accurate judgment.
Genghis actually did not have to control as much land as we think. Just because you rule all of the Sahara or Siberia does not mean you are great. Genghis ruled a lot of land, but
a lot of it was empty because he killed so many people.
However, I have to say that Genghis is my favorite. Even though he killed a lot of people, his ideas were so good and enlightened. Rather than placing rule of a captured city into the hands of a noble, he would get rid of the nobility since they had a habit of rebelling, and replace them with a man who seems capable even if he was a simple person.
Though he did not have freedom of speech, he had freedom of religion. One unnecessary solved.
And as a general, he was wonderful. Here, I am talking about strategy. Rather than hauling very large catapults to the enemy city, he would simply build them while besieging. If his prisoners had no use, he would dump them in the mote to make assaulting easier. When he was outnumbered, he had his men build 6 campfires to scare the enemy.
And his men were efficient. He was able to set up camp in 15 minutes and travel 90 miles a day plus they were never low on food since they always had spare horses.
|
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
|
|
|
I'm really surprised no one's said Mohammad yet.
|
Gwanggaeto the Great for me. never lost a battle and the korean(goguryeo/baekjae/silla) empire was at the peak during his reign.
![[image loading]](http://coolsmurf.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/4ac9780a0a76709ebb4ac847a0b7754d.jpg?w=500)
|
On March 02 2011 04:08 luckybeni2 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Steppe warriors are called barbarians or something close to it by nearly every sedentary civilization that encountered them for millenia.
|
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![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/1hpCH)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/Cortes.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/57/Conquest_mexico_1519_21.png)
