Political Crossfire Forums

[superskippy]

Whom do you think it is? I mean single conqeurors who with their own command forged empires.

Napoleon? Alexander? Imperial Caesar?

These are all names of conquerors whom will live forever in history but which is the greatest?

I chose Napoleon, he remains to this day the only leader to have conquered and fought from the tips of Spain, to the forests of Germany, down to the tips of Italy, to the fields of the Russian Steepe, to the spires of Moscow, down to the fields of Austria, to the deserts of Africa, to the plains of the middle east.

And his finesse and tactical brilliance I beleive far exceed the brute force of which the mongols stormed from the steppe, and the power of his foes I think was greater then that faced by any of the other aforementioned conqeurors. We still marvel at him today, Napoleon a master of war as well as a master of Europe.

God has made but a few titans, and their champion is Napoleon master of Europ

[thundertaker]

But Napoleon met his Waterloo in the end. Alexander the Great on the other hand, ruled from Macedonia in the West to the River Indus in the East, and was never defeated in Battle.......

[superskippy]

But he fought in reality but one nation, and the Persian Empire had passed its height by his time. Ture it possessed great power but he needed to fight but one centralized power. In fact the greater powers he fought were arguabbly not the Persians but the great kingdoms in India.

Napoleon I beleive fought harder enemies that were still in their zennith or were rising to them, he fought mutliple powers and was a master of not only war but diplomacy which aided greatly in his conquests.

Not by a long shot am I belittling Alexander, I had to think for a while between Alexander or Napoleon but in the end Napoleon one it. Alexander was a titan of that no doubt can be said.

[Saracen]

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.

[LostSoul3412]

I would definitely have to go with Charlemagne. Not only did it conquer the all of modern-day France, Germany, most of Italy, and Poland... but he did it all without a country to start. Most conquers, like those listed, pitted their nations against others, but Charlemagne forged an empire out of nothing. The Holy Roman Empire was an empire that stood for over 500 years, and the Hapsburg line continued all the way till 1918 with the fall of Austria-Hungary.

The ability to create something, let alone an empire, out of the chaos that was created by the fall of Rome, is why I say that Charlemagne deserves the title "The Greatest Conqueror The World Has Ever Seen".

[superskippy]

Alexander virtually built the Middile East and Asia Minor, he basically created Hellenistic culture. He didnt just destroy and fight, he lifted up cities from the desert and made the marvels that last to the present day. The city of Alexandria in Egypt for centuries the center of the modern world, and a great city to this very day was raised from the sands by Alexander the Great.

He built cities, established a culture that survived for more then a millenia and still lives on to this day, he carved new empires, he established schools and universities.

He built and conquered more then the Islamic Caliphate. And he did it in less then 12 years. He was a Titan the likes of which this world has never seen. In my opinion only surpassed in skills as a conqueror by Napoleon.

[Saracen]

superskippy wrote: Alexander virtually built the Middile East and Asia Minor, he basically created Hellenistic culture. He didnt just destroy and fight, he lifted up cities from the desert and made the marvels that last to the present day. The city of Alexandria in Egypt for centuries the center of the modern world, and a great city to this very day was raised from the sands by Alexander the Great.

He built cities, established a culture that survived for more then a millenia and still lives on to this day, he carved new empires, he established schools and universities.

He built and conquered more then the Islamic Caliphate. And he did it in less then 12 years. He was a Titan the likes of which this world has never seen. In my opinion only surpassed in skills as a conqueror by Napoleon.

You're right, but don't forget the Islamic Empire's progress and advancements in the fields of science and medicine... all done in conquered lands. ;)

[superskippy]

Of course, I just beleive Alexander was greater. :-D

[Kalu]

I think Saladin was a really good commander. Shaka Zulu also excelled at conquering other territories in southern Africa and building up the Zulu nation from a small enclave into a large empire. I'd pick Saladin though as greatest conqueror.

[superskippy]

Saladin? Sure he was a great commander but his area of conquest was from the Sinia up to the southern borders of Turkey, whereas Alexander, Napoleon, Ghengis and Caesar rampaged across entire continents casting down numerous foes.

Saladin was a great commander, but a great conqeuror? I dont beleive so.

[KOV-14]

Haha I was almost sure that this poll was another one of those "Bush bashing" BS.

[Kalu]

superskippy wrote: Saladin? Sure he was a great commander but his area of conquest was from the Sinia up to the southern borders of Turkey, whereas Alexander, Napoleon, Ghengis and Caesar rampaged across entire continents casting down numerous foes.

Saladin was a great commander, but a great conqeuror? I dont beleive so.

Mm, I guess you're right, he really didn't want to conquer everything either. He more or less just wanted the crusaders out.

[Saracen]

KOV-14 wrote: Haha I was almost sure that this poll was another one of those "Bush bashing" BS.

Bush is somewhat an imperialist, but then again, most Amerikan prezdents are.

Saladin... yes, he is my hero, as is Abd-ar-Rahman El Amayi and Omar Ibn Abdl-Aziz.

[Kalu]

Saracen wrote: KOV-14 wrote: Haha I was almost sure that this poll was another one of those "Bush bashing" BS.

Bush is somewhat an imperialist, but then again, most Amerikan prezdents are.

Saladin... yes, he is my hero, as is Abd-ar-Rahman El Amayi and Omar Ibn Abdl-Aziz.

What do you think of Muhammad Ali (not the boxer, the Egyptian king during the early 1800s who nearly overthrew the Ottoman Empire)?

Who's Abd-ar-Rahman El Amayi and Omar Ibn Abdl-Aziz?

[Jehan]

LostSoul3412 wrote: I would definitely have to go with Charlemagne. Not only did it conquer the all of modern-day France, Germany, most of Italy, and Poland... but he did it all without a country to start. Most conquers, like those listed, pitted their nations against others, but Charlemagne forged an empire out of nothing. The Holy Roman Empire was an empire that stood for over 500 years, and the Hapsburg line continued all the way till 1918 with the fall of Austria-Hungary.

500 years is an understatement. The Holy Roman Empire was around until it was dissolved by a treaty signed by the Austrians after Napoleon wiped them across the floor at Austerlitz. If you do the math, that's over a 1000 years. I can't think of another empire that lasted that long.

[Jehan]

Saracen wrote: Saladin... yes, he is my hero, as is Abd-ar-Rahman El Amayi and Omar Ibn Abdl-Aziz.

You also have to factor in the incompetence of the Frankish leaders in the Crusades. The only real opponent Saladin ever faced was Richard the Lionheart, who beat the Muslims everywhere he fought them. It was only because Richard understood that his army could not defeat Saladin's vast hordes that he didn't move to take Jerusalem.

[Saracen]

Jehan wrote: Saracen wrote: Saladin... yes, he is my hero, as is Abd-ar-Rahman El Amayi and Omar Ibn Abdl-Aziz.

You also have to factor in the incompetence of the Frankish leaders in the Crusades. The only real opponent Saladin ever faced was Richard the Lionheart, who beat the Muslims everywhere he fought them. It was only because Richard understood that his army could not defeat Saladin's vast hordes that he didn't move to take Jerusalem.

You're right, of course, Jehan. However, the Muslims at the time were driven out of Jerusalem by the Crusaders at first, with indiscriminate slaughtering of Muslims, Jews, and even Eastern Christians. When the Muslims retook Jerusalem, not a lot of blood was spilled except those of the perpetrators. Richard the Lion-Hearted was smart enough not to confront the Muslims in Jerusalem, and he was quite an exceptional character. Even I admire him for these reasons.

Devaka wrote: What do you think of Muhammad Ali (not the boxer, the Egyptian king during the early 1800s who nearly overthrew the Ottoman Empire)?

Muhammad Ali Pasha?

Devaka wrote: Who's Abd-ar-Rahman El Amayi and Omar Ibn Abdl-Aziz

They were both Umayyad Caliphs. Abd-ar-Rahman El Amawi was a survivor of a massacre that was inflicted on his friends and family by the Abbassids. He arrived to al Andalus, which was at first in a state of anarchy, and yet he managed to unite the tribes and rule as the First Emir of Spain. Omar Ibn Abdl Aziz was another Umayyid Caliph who ruled over Medina, I believe. The mosque next to my house is named after him.

[LostSoul3412]

Jehan wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: I would definitely have to go with Charlemagne. Not only did it conquer the all of modern-day France, Germany, most of Italy, and Poland... but he did it all without a country to start. Most conquers, like those listed, pitted their nations against others, but Charlemagne forged an empire out of nothing. The Holy Roman Empire was an empire that stood for over 500 years, and the Hapsburg line continued all the way till 1918 with the fall of Austria-Hungary.

500 years is an understatement. The Holy Roman Empire was around until it was dissolved by a treaty signed by the Austrians after Napoleon wiped them across the floor at Austerlitz. If you do the math, that's over a 1000 years. I can't think of another empire that lasted that long.

I wasn't sure about the exact times, so I figured I'd play it safe and call it 500. Don't to be proven wrong on a politics forum. :wink:

[Jehan]

Saracen wrote: You're right, of course, Jehan. However, the Muslims at the time were driven out of Jerusalem by the Crusaders at first, with indiscriminate slaughtering of Muslims, Jews, and even Eastern Christians. When the Muslims retook Jerusalem, not a lot of blood was spilled except those of the perpetrators. Richard the Lion-Hearted was smart enough not to confront the Muslims in Jerusalem, and he was quite an exceptional character. Even I admire him for these reasons.

Saladin actually wanted to slaughter everyone in Jerusalem. The Christians, who had no intention of dying in such a way, threatened to destroy the Al-Aqsa Mosque, one of the most reverred Islamic sites of worship. This threat convinced Saladin that a violent attack would be too costly, and agreed to let them go peacefully after they paid a ransom.

While there is little doubt that the Crusaders were barbaric, there are instances where the Muslims were no better. If you don't believe me, see what happened when they took Edessa.

[bob.appleyard]

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.