Greatest Conqueror Ever

[Ned]

Impaler, but GK didn't found something that lasted. Caesar turned Gaul into a Roman province that gave us today's France. He also turned the Republic into an Empire, which formed the basic structure of many modern states, such as the United States.

[Velociryx]

You know....now that we have proof that the Mongols never existed, I'm beginning to wonder about this whole issue with the Romans, too.

Monk....have you any research on that topic?

Did the Romans really exist, or was it part of some conspiracy from Germania?

-=Vel=-

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Ned
Impaler, but GK didn't found something that lasted. Caesar turned Gaul into a Roman province that gave us today's France. He also turned the Republic into an Empire, which formed the basic structure of many modern states, such as the United States.

mystifying opinion of the week

[Arrian]

It's the Nedaverse, whaddya want?

On the subject of troop strengths, didn't Alex have "auxiliaries" as well?

-Arrian

[CerberusIV]

Temujin (Ghengis Khan to the ignorant) gets my vote, mainly because he started from virtually nothing with a relatively unimportant tribe and built the military superpower of its day. He personally commanded many of the early battles, against competent and often numerically superior enemies.

Alexander inherited a formidable army from his father and a plan to conquer all of Greece. Napoleon benefited from being in the right place at the right time to take advantage of the numbers of troops released by mass conscription under the French revolutionary system, something his enemies had to adopt to wear France down and defeat him eventually. They definitely complete the top 3 in my book though.

If success is measured by how bad the things everyone else says about you are then Temujin and the Mongols win hands down in this company.

[Arrian]

That is a good point, re: Alex inheriting the army Philip created & trained. That was rather useful.

-Arrian

[Drake Tungsten]

Alexander inherited a formidable army from his father and a plan to conquer all of Greece.

Philip had already conquered Greece before Alexander took the throne. For the ignorant...

[Ned]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


mystifying opinion of the week

True, Caesar did not "intend" to create a position we now know as "president". That was left to his nephew. But he did transform the Republic in some ways that were beneficial, and those reforms have stood test of time.

(The central problem, of course, was that the Emperor was nominally elected by the Senate and really elected by the Army. Had Caesar or Augustus instead set up periodic elections by the people, the post of Emperor would have been identical to the modern presidency.)

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Ned
Impaler, but GK didn't found something that lasted. Caesar turned Gaul into a Roman province that gave us today's France. He also turned the Republic into an Empire, which formed the basic structure of many modern states, such as the United States.

I used to think this was the case but if you look at our legal system it appears to be entirely based on english common law rather than roman law. There are plenty of states we could point to as inheritors of roman legal framework but the uk and the us are probably poor examples.

[Ned]

I think the founding fathers took a look at the Roman Empire and simply tried to fix it. There was much discussion of WHY the Brit form of government was wrong. The worst part, was that the government came from the majority in Parliament. Separation of powers, as was seen in the Empire, was important.

Moreover, the president has virtually the same powers as an Emperor. Both were commander in chief, both had the power of veto, both had to sign legislation to make it effective, both had the power to appoint certain officials and to enter into treaties, both with the advice and consent of the Senate.

[Kuciwalker]

The Empire had seperation of powers?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
The Empire had seperation of powers?

Yes, in the beginning.

[Ned]

The problem of course is that Emperors increasingly ruled through Edicts. Our modern analogy are Executive Orders.

Unfortunately, the Empire had no Supreme Court to contain power of the Emperor.

[Kuciwalker]

Funny, when I read the Federalist they didn't make too much of a mention of Rome - much more of historical examples of confederations.

[Ned]

K, true. But what the FF's wanted was a fix for what went awry in the Empire. They were specifically critical, as I said, of the British form of government.