Political Crossfire Forums

[Misanthropy]

You say Christian and Muslim extremists efforts are similar but that is not true. The "Christian" soldiers were not all Christian as many would like to believe so it is not a religious war. Just because the majority of Europe was Catholic does not mean that everyone was of the same religion. As for the similarity, there is almost none. I never heard of a terrorist knight fighting the "evil Muslims", but I do hear of terrorist extremists blowing themselves up to destroy the "evil infidel. Europeans were also fighting to get their lands back. And besides that, I'm quite sure more soldiers died fighting the muslims out of Europe that Muslims have died blowing themselves up in the midst of civilians.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Andrew Jackson, no. 7

[cap'n queasy]

Y'shua HaMoshaich.

[antonio62]

Alexander was the greatest. The size of what he conquered, how he did it and how he built afterwards surpass anything which went before or after him.

[Bobicito]

I think I finnaly agree with you Antonio. :lol:

[De0xide]

This is gonna toss you guys, but im gonna say none of the ones listed. I am going to say... Adolf Hitler. He had taken so much, he knew everything about his military and he was never trained to know such things. He was not a good man, dont doubt that, but he definitely was smart. Yea, i havent studied the ancient conquerers or ancient times, i am 15, but i think that Hitler is up there somewhere

[superskippy]

Hitler had no tactical or stratigic talent, his generals did they planned the campaigns and the operations, and in fact his own downfall is largely rested on the fact that he attempted to be a Generals when he wasnt.

We're not talking about empires, we're talking about single conquerors people who single handidly made great conqeusts and forged empires.

[De0xide]

Actually, he did most himself, his generals thought he was stupid. I still think that he was very smart for having a mental defect and having no strategy. His problem was he stretched himself out, but id rather speak of this is a hitler topic

[superskippy]

Actually no he really didnt, the Blitz campaign was layed out by Guderian and supported and proposed by numerous other Generals. In fact the reason Allied troops survived the campaign was because Hitler became nervous and made his troops halt as the Allies rallied in Dunkerque.

He was a failed tactician and stratigest, his plans were based on his fanatical beleif that his Generals would only fail because of their incompetance, and his beleif that the raw use of German force would win the war for him.

He had little to no tactical or stratigic skill, and hindered his Generals to the point where it is easy to debate that he in fact loss the war for Germany.

He was a fool of a tactician, an evil dictator, and a man I wish the Allies had captured, best yet the Soviets. Now they knew how to torture a man, hand him over to the NKVD and let them do the rest.

[De0xide]

Ok, changing my answer. i mis read :P and im dumb

Napolean. Him because he conquered alot, but he didnt lose it. To me thats what a good conquerer does.

[Simon De Montfort]

De0xide wrote: Ok, changing my answer. i mis read :P and im dumb

Napolean. Him because he conquered alot, but he didnt lose it. To me thats what a good conquerer does.

He lost in Russia, at Leipzig and at Waterloo he died a Bristh prisoner on St. Helena.

Alexander took a back water kingdom and conquered Greece (acutally reconquered). Then he defeated the world's only super power Persia. At Gaugamela he defeated an army of 250,000 with only 50,000. He marched all the way to India and only turned back because his men tired of war.

I don't even know why this is even up for debate. Alexander surpasses the rest by far. It's not even close.

[thundertaker]

Julius Caesar came close. He only conquered the Entire Roman World. Although he wasn't completely undefeated......

[Bobicito]

No doubt.

[bob.appleyard]

thundertaker wrote: Julius Caesar came close. He only conquered the Entire Roman World. Although he wasn't completely undefeated......

He really didn't...

[Rockgod214]

I chose Ghegis Khan because he was for one the inventer of psychological warfare, two he and the mongols held the largest empire the world has ever seen. He had his troops perfectly displined and would litteraly follow him through fire. Ghengis Khan also was able to use what looked like disorganized attacks (even though they weren't) and were able to use the terror that created in his conquests. He also was one of the few leaders besides Attila that made the most of his cavalry. He also helped figure out that soldiers didn't need as much padding on the shoulders as they do on the chest. This is by using the ideas of geometry and physics. He used these things by knowing that when an arrow hit the chest it was at a right angle so the chest would recieve 100% of the force, whereas, being the shoulder is round the arrow would hit at an obtuse or acute angle still allowing the shoulder to take impact but not even close to the impact that the chest would recieve. He also helped with their leather armor. They used leather to slow down the arrow and they knew that being silk was such a tight stitch the arrow wouldn't be able to penetrate it.

[GTTofAK]

Rockgod214 wrote: I chose Ghegis Khan because he was for one the inventer of psychological warfare, two he and the mongols held the largest empire the world has ever seen. He had his troops perfectly displined and would litteraly follow him through fire. Ghengis Khan also was able to use what looked like disorganized attacks (even though they weren't) and were able to use the terror that created in his conquests. He also was one of the few leaders besides Attila that made the most of his cavalry. He also helped figure out that soldiers didn't need as much padding on the shoulders as they do on the chest. This is by using the ideas of geometry and physics. He used these things by knowing that when an arrow hit the chest it was at a right angle so the chest would recieve 100% of the force, whereas, being the shoulder is round the arrow would hit at an obtuse or acute angle still allowing the shoulder to take impact but not even close to the impact that the chest would recieve. He also helped with their leather armor. They used leather to slow down the arrow and they knew that being silk was such a tight stitch the arrow wouldn't be able to penetrate it.

But the thing is Kahn conquered a bunch of small states. Even China was divided into 3 states at the time. He never faced a challenge like Alexander did with Persia.

[Quell]

On pure ass kickery..Im going to have to go with Atilla the hun..I would also rank Hannibal up there as well.

From the ones you listed on overall greatness, I'd have to go with Alexander.

[antonio62]

Quell wrote: On pure ass kickery..Im going to have to go with Atilla the hun..I would also rank Hannibal up there as well.

From the ones you listed on overall greatness, I'd have to go with Alexander.

Hannibal was one hell ofa general one of the best eer but he never really conquered much which was partly not his fault.

[thefranzkafkafront]

All thouse options suck

Robert Clive.

The man conquered india, and is critical underrated.

[Preechr]

Of those listed, I have to go with Ghengis Khan. That being said, I would like to offer up another name for consideration. What do you all think about Mohammed, the Islamic Profit, as the greatest conqueror ever?

The number of cultures that have been crushed and replaced with Islamic cultures is staggering. To this very day, Spain, France, and Germany are in danger of succumbing to Islam in the next century. The number of people under Islamic rule today would rival the populations of any of the empires mentioned in the question. Unlike the other conquerors mentioned, Mohammed didn’t let a little thing like death slow him down or unravel his empire.

Just food for thought.