Greatest Conqueror Ever

[Ben Kenobi]

Actually, Genghis Khan cannot be given credit for conquering China, or the Steppes in Russia, as those came after his death.

So I am torn between Napoleon, and Hitler, given that Hitler managed to conquer in the span of 10 years:

1. The Rhineland and the demilitarised zone of the Ruhr.
2. Achieved anschluss with Austria.
3. Ceded the Sudetenland
4. Ran over the Czechs, and dismembered Czechoslovakia.
5. Rome Berlin alliance with Mussolini.
6. Allied with Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria and Finland.
6. Crushed Poland
7. Crushed Norway.
8. Ran through France, Belgium and the Netherlands.
9. Vichy gave him most f Northern Africa
10. Invaded Yugoslavia.
11. Invaded Greece and Crete
12. Invaded Egypt.
13. Conquered large swaths of the Soviet Union.

Territory-wise, the area he conquered tops Napoleon and Caesar, so he should definately be included among those conquerers.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Actually, Genghis Khan cannot be given credit for conquering China, or the Steppes in Russia, as those came after his death.

So I am torn between Napoleon, and Hitler, given that Hitler managed to conquer in the span of 10 years:

1. The Rhineland and the demilitarised zone of the Ruhr.
2. Achieved anschluss with Austria.
3. Ceded the Sudetenland
4. Ran over the Czechs, and dismembered Czechoslovakia.
5. Rome Berlin alliance with Mussolini.
6. Allied with Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria and Finland.
6. Crushed Poland
7. Crushed Norway.
8. Ran through France, Belgium and the Netherlands.
9. Vichy gave him most f Northern Africa
10. Invaded Yugoslavia.
11. Invaded Greece and Crete
12. Invaded Egypt.
13. Conquered large swaths of the Soviet Union.

Territory-wise, the area he conquered tops Napoleon and Caesar, so he should definately be included among those conquerers.

To be fair given that the title of the thread is just 'greatest conquerer' and since Hitlers empire was the shortest lived of those listed and as we can regard his methods as the least commendable I think it is safe to say Hitler needn't be even considered for title of Greatest Conquerer.

[Ben Kenobi]

And how long did Napoleon rule over Europe? The periods are comparable.

we can regard his methods as the least commendable

And the great Khan had better methods?

No dice. You just don't like Hitler, but the fact remains that he is a conqueror worthy of the title.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Actually, Genghis Khan cannot be given credit for conquering China, or the Steppes in Russia, as those came after his death.

So I am torn between Napoleon, and Hitler, given that Hitler managed to conquer in the span of 10 years:

1. The Rhineland and the demilitarised zone of the Ruhr.
2. Achieved anschluss with Austria.
3. Ceded the Sudetenland
4. Ran over the Czechs, and dismembered Czechoslovakia.
5. Rome Berlin alliance with Mussolini.
6. Allied with Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria and Finland.
6. Crushed Poland
7. Crushed Norway.
8. Ran through France, Belgium and the Netherlands.
9. Vichy gave him most f Northern Africa
10. Invaded Yugoslavia.
11. Invaded Greece and Crete
12. Invaded Egypt.
13. Conquered large swaths of the Soviet Union.

Territory-wise, the area he conquered tops Napoleon and Caesar, so he should definately be included among those conquerers.

The difference being, a) Hitler was by no means a military genius, and b) conquering a larger area isn't as impressive with greater technology.

[Ben Kenobi]

Why?

Consider the First World war. They were much more technologically advanced, yet that advantage did not translate into territorial gains.

a) Hitler was by no means a military genius,

What constitutes a conqueror? Must all of them be military geniuses?

[Alexander's Horse]

Hitler was hardly a successful conquerer - in 6 short years he won and lost the lot.

[Ted Striker]

My vote goes for Rhodes

What a *****

[Ben Kenobi]

So what about Napoleon? He won and lost the lot too.

[CerberusIV]

The Hitler suggestion raises a point. Are we talking about only those who actually commanded troops in battle as part of their conquest or are those who sat at the top and gave general orders about where their armies should march eligible. My impression was the first option so Hitler doesn't qualify.

I consider it to be a three way call between Alexander, Ghengis Khan and Napoleon. I still think Alexander got a head start the other two didn't and the first few steps on the road can be the hardest.

[Kuciwalker]

Alexander was a great conquerer, but in my opinion he actually had the advantage. Darius could not easily take his big army along to the west, because usurpers could easily take control then, he needed to rely on satraps, and his army was a combination of various peoples with different customs, languages, their own leaders. It's hard fighting like that against an opponent that is much better organized. The only advantage Darius had was that he had endless funds and supply lines, and Alexander had more problems with that

Why doesn't the superior organization of his forces count in Alexander's favor as a great conqueror? Surely that's part of his skill.

[Ned]

The technological advantage issue is an important consideration. Alexander won in part due to better armor, equipment and training. GK had a tremendous advantage in technology as well. They also used rockets, technology with which Western armies had no experience.

That is why I like Caesar and to some extent Napolean. Caesar beat Pompey, the foremost Roman general of his time, and clearly Caesar's equal in most respects. His conquests in Gaul, Germany and Britain were less impressive because he faced enemies with inferior technology, even if they had vastly superior numbers.

[Heresson]

Caesar didn't conquer Germany nor Britain. Btw., is they guy in your avatar You?

[Traianvs]

Why doesn't the superior organization of his forces count in Alexander's favor as a great conqueror? Surely that's part of his skill.

His army was organized and disciplined already, it's not an innovation of his. Darius was an average organizer, and he was weak on the military front. Had he faced great Persian conquerers such as Cyrus the Great Alexander surely wouldn't have won in the way he did against Darius III. Also had Darius himself been a bit more courageous he could have had better results. It's the same thing every time; If the general flees the battle, the troops follow his example; in Darius' case, he fled when the fight had hardly begun. That's not a good way to win battles. So Alexander was a bit lucky to face such a weak general

[Alexander's Horse]

That would be true if Alexander faced Darius in all his battles but he only faced him twice - at Issus and Gaugamela. Very important battles to be sure but only 2. Other battles like Granicus were equally important.

Secondly, both battles were more close run things than you make out and both were backs-to-the-wall affairs for the Greeks. Where the Persians could regroup with their almost unlimited resources, as they did after Issus, Alexander's army could not. For the Macedonians both Issus and Gaugamela were win or die affairs.

This probably goes some way to explain why Darius fled the field in both battles - he believed he could fight another day. Unfortunately for him, the Persian nobles did not agree after Gaugamela and killed him. Similarly the Macedonians fought very hard in all their battles because they knew would never get home if they lost.

[UberCryxic]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Wellington beat Napoleon. Nappy was the better general, but he made a mistake and lost.

I don't want to be mean but your comment almost forces me to. Obviously you know squat about the Waterloo Campaign. First of all, let's dispel some myths. Britain didn't beat Napoleon there. 1/3 of Wellington's army was British, the rest were mostly Dutch and Belgians. Now to the actual Battle of Waterloo...most, if not all, historians will tell you that had Blucher not arrived in time Wellington would've lost the battle. The Prussian assault on the French right tied down an entire corps, Lobau's VI, plus battallions of the Young and Old Imperial Guard. Ney's suicidal cavalry charges were crazy, but it appears that several British squares had been virtually destroyed and that the British center was teetering on collapse. ENTER BLUCHER.....Wellington's savior! Yadda yadda yadda....it was an Anglo-Prussian victory....just to be historically correct.

As for the greatest conquerer ever, this doesn't have to be that complicated. If we're looking at strictly square miles conquered, Genghis Khan is the greatest conqueror ever. It all depends on the angle you decide to view the situation from....if you're looking at which conqueror spread civilization and ideas, then it'd be a strong contest between Alexander and Napoleon. If you're looking at the decisiveness of their battles/campaigns, then Napoleon is the greatest. I could go on and on and very shrewdly set up the situation to qualify every one in that list as the greatest conqueror ever. That's why it gets VERY complicated if we don't do it by square miles conquered (and even on this there's debate...you can find sources online which say that Napoleon conquered the most! They must be using some weird system though).....I voted for Napoleon. He was a freaking genius and by far the greatest military commander that ever lived. His combined military and political domination of Europe has never been equalled or surpassed. He revolutionized warfare....etc etc...you can write volumes on Napoleon. And historians often do....I have a book called the Atlas of World Military History and it's divided into 9 sections I believe, all covering military history from the first armies to the present. Alexander has two pages devoted to him...Napoleon has one entire section (which I estimate is something like 16 pages)! There's a reason people.....Rivoli, Marengo, Ulm, Austerlitz, Jena, Friedland, Wagram, Dresden....read up on your history....btw I would place Alexander as the second greatest ever...