Political Crossfire Forums

antonio62 · Posted: Thu Apr 06, 2006 3:02 pm Post subject:

Preechr wrote: 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 as 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.

He didn't conquer them by force himself though.

eynon · Posted: Thu Apr 06, 2006 3:17 pm Post subject:

Jingis Khan: breaker of things, maker of babies

Preechr · Posted: Thu Apr 06, 2006 3:18 pm Post subject:

antonio62 wrote: Preechr wrote: 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.

He didn't conquer them by force himself though.

..and if the topic had been ‘Who is the greatest military commander ever’, I’d agree. But in finding the one responsible for the greatest number of people being conquered, I thought his name would at least be worth a mention.

antonio62 · Posted: Thu Apr 06, 2006 3:23 pm Post subject:

Didn't read the OP did you first two sentances were. ''Whom do you think it is? I mean single conqeurors who with their own command forged empires.''

razergreen · Joined: 17 Apr 2006 Posts: 16 Location: Desk

Alexander the Great rode his army through the persian empire and attacked a few other armies, the numbers have been greatly exaggerated, his wrath did not equal the great Khan who swept through China and half of Asia, and his Sons swept all the way to Europe. Ceasar conquored part of France and a little bit of Britain, the area, and his enemies, the un-united Celts were not that difficult a foe when faced with Roman superiority.
IMO Napoleon was the greatest because he was facing armies which had roughly the same sort of equipment, and sometimes even vast numbers, Napoleon also ran numerous campains while he may have failed some, he was a true conquorer because unlike the other ones listed, he actually faced difficult and powerful enemies, he employed numerous types of forces, and his exploits are fairly well recorded so we know they are true.

ClubbedtoDeath · Joined: 17 Apr 2006 Posts: 34

alexander... duh

mr_happy · Joined: 29 Mar 2006 Posts: 319

best conqueror/empire builder......Alexander

best commander.....Hannibal Barca

simply put, he invented modern tactics.

Bobicito · Joined: 14 Aug 2005 Posts: 274 Location: Ohio

Modern tactics were not used though until Boer war bettween the Dutch and the British in Soth Africa. Hannibal might have invinted though ambush tactics but he did not use modern tactics.

Robin Hood · Joined: 14 Sep 2005 Posts: 3295

bob.appleyard wrote: From the selection, I chose Ghengis Kahn, on quite narrow grounds: volume of land conquered under the direction of a given individual. Quite quickly collapsed after he died, but that's not really his fault.

Since I could only vote once I chose Alexander but it could easily be Ghengis Khan.

Quote: best commander.....Hannibal Barca

simply put, he invented modern tactics.

I'm not sure if you can call something from ancient history 'modern tactics'.

Clara Listensprechen · Joined: 19 Apr 2006 Posts: 332

Saracen wrote: Well, I wouldn't say who the best conqueror is, but I would go with Alexander the Great for single-handed "conquering". However, at any best estimate, I would put the Islamic Empire first and foremost, because not only did they (the Muslims) "conquer", but they also built. They conquered and built. Alexander conquered and destroyed... almost.

And they preserved what they could of the famous Alexandria Library. Actually, the same could be said of the Roman Republic (to be distinguished from the subsequent Roman Empire), but that wasn't the size of the Islamic Empire begun by Moawiya and carried on by his successors.

I was looking for Moawiya's name up there, and failing to find it, selected "Other". Alexander couldn't hold what he obtained; the Islamic Empire was held fast until Ghengis Khan.

blankie · Joined: 07 Aug 2005 Posts: 3 Location: Vegas

ghengis khan is by far the best conquerer....he not only conquered more peoples he did it in the shortest time he, didn't start his conquest till his mid 40's. Granted his empire only lasted 200 years but he conquered rome and china the two greatest nations of the time he only failed in one campaign and that was against Japan.

Robin Hood · Joined: 14 Sep 2005 Posts: 3295

blankie wrote: ghengis khan is by far the best conquerer....he not only conquered more peoples he did it in the shortest time he, didn't start his conquest till his mid 40's. Granted his empire only lasted 200 years but he conquered rome and china the two greatest nations of the time he only failed in one campaign and that was against Japan.

He didn't conquer Rome - Rome was long gone. Furthermore he conquered 'just' northern China, not the Song dynasty in the south.

Bobicito · Joined: 14 Aug 2005 Posts: 274 Location: Ohio

Quote: ghengis khan is by far the best conquerer....he not only conquered more peoples he did it in the shortest time he, didn't start his conquest till his mid 40's. Granted his empire only lasted 200 years but he conquered rome and china the two greatest nations of the time he only failed in one campaign and that was against Japan.

This guy loves Ghengis Khan, I think somethings up between the both of them :-D

Robin Hood · Joined: 14 Sep 2005 Posts: 3295

Bobicito wrote: Quote: ghengis khan is by far the best conquerer....he not only conquered more peoples he did it in the shortest time he, didn't start his conquest till his mid 40's. Granted his empire only lasted 200 years but he conquered rome and china the two greatest nations of the time he only failed in one campaign and that was against Japan.

This guy loves Ghengis Khan, I think somethings up between the both of them :-D

yeah he said this in another thread: Rome and the Mongals should of had a duel to see who was better. Very Happy Rome and the mogols did fight and the mongols under ghengis khan destroyed rome and burnt it to the ground.... attil ...

Which is funny since GK was born in 1162 hundreds of years after the collapse of Rome: Ghengis Khan: time conqueror! :lol:

antonio62 · Posted: Sun Apr 30, 2006 3:48 pm Post subject:

blankie wrote: ghengis khan is by far the best conquerer....he not only conquered more peoples he did it in the shortest time he, didn't start his conquest till his mid 40's. Granted his empire only lasted 200 years but he conquered rome and china the two greatest nations of the time he only failed in one campaign and that was against Japan.

He was dead when the attempted invasion of Japan happened.

Bobicito · Joined: 14 Aug 2005 Posts: 274 Location: Ohio

Quote: yeah he said this in another thread: Rome and the Mongals should of had a duel to see who was better. Very Happy Rome and the mogols did fight and the mongols under ghengis khan destroyed rome and burnt it to the ground.... attil ...

Which is funny since GK was born in 1162 hundreds of years after the collapse of Rome: Ghengis Khan: time conqueror!

I agree, if he beat the Romans he must have the technology to travel through time. :-D

JonnytheHammer · Joined: 29 Apr 2006 Posts: 2968 Location: DIRTY SOUTH :)

i think Patton should be up there i mean didn't he go like 400 miles in 7 days in France and the Netherlands during ww2

Bobicito · Joined: 14 Aug 2005 Posts: 274 Location: Ohio

No, Patton was not a conquer, he was doing his duty. His mission was to liberalize France for the Allies, not conquer that which was already under German control.

mendosan · Joined: 02 May 2006 Posts: 2691

I think that Genghis Khan was the greatest conqueror Mounted mongol archers were the greatest force on any battlefield until the 18th. I would also put the greatest Muslim conqueror as Sultan Mehmed II the man who took Constantinople and the Turks in general as the greatest Muslim conquerors.

Bobicito · Joined: 14 Aug 2005 Posts: 274 Location: Ohio

Quote: I think that Genghis Khan was the greatest conqueror Mounted mongol archers were the greatest force on any battlefield until the 18th. I would also put the greatest Muslim conqueror as Sultan Mehmed II the man who took Constantinople and the Turks in general as the greatest Muslim conquerors.

I don't know if I agree or not. Yes Mongol horrse archers were deadly but everything has a weakness. If the Mongols faced an army that could counter them or use a weapon against them with a deadly effect then the Mongols were dead. I don't really know waht could conquer them in the first place.