Greatest Conqueror Ever

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by UberCryxic


you know how ridiculous you sound?

The French Revolution is the turning point in human history; by far the most important event to ever occur.


Again I reiterate, with the vain hope your brain-dead existence will comprehend, that modern nationalism was born in the French Revolution.....

You know how ridiculous you sound?

See above.

And the rest of your rant, which I really was too fatigued to bother copying.

How sad that you have to resort to, frankly, rather inadequate insults such as 'brain dead existence'.

Carry on by all means- it sounds as though you're well on the way to a self-induced cerebral haemorrhage.

[Ned]

Btw, using your own definition, UberCryxic, I would say that Joan de Arc provided the foundation of French nationalism.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Kami, what an interesting word. It means God, Hair, paper and probably a few other things. I found that amusing.

Kami for hair, kami for paper and kami for god aren't the same word, but merely homophones. They use different kanji to represent each.

Doesn't Mr. Fun play the homophone?

[Drake Tungsten]

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Both Kahn and Alexander had awesome logistical skills. I think Alexander had good skills in actual battle, but the Mongol battle plan seems pretty simple.

Again, I say Napolean had the best overall skills that a general needs to be successfull. I don't think Alexander would have done as well in Napolean's situation.

A great point which is often overlooked. I voted for Alexander because he was a great logician among other reasons.

He defeated a land and naval superpower with which he was not connected by land. He did this over 300 years before Christ, where battles were set-piece affairs and leaders actually fought rather than directed the action from a high point. He effectively used his heavy cavalry as a subtracted reserve in many battles, which is the first use of this technique that I can find in history.

He conquered Anatolia, the plains of Mesopotamia and the deserts of Egypt, and the mountains of Afghanistan. He fought large set piece battles, conducted wars of maneuver, brilliant sieges and assaults, and even successfully concluded a long guerilla war against indiginous opposition in Afghanistan.

He did all of this with a very moderate amount of force, and he didn't simply pass through an area and control it for a moment, but (with the exception of India) established a new politcal order in every land he conquered. He was a master strategist, tactician, logician and personality.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Ghengiz conquered the most territory, 'nuff said.

Hell, the U.S. conquered the moon with only 2 men.

[Ted Striker]

UberCryxic, I applaud your passion for the topic. It has certianly been interesting for sure. However:

The French Revolution is the turning point in human history; by far the most important event to ever occur.

Come on! Now honestly I haven't made a top 10 list, but this is a stretch bigger than the cumberbund around Napolean's beer gut.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
and of course mohammed only conquered the arabian peninsula, but his next 4 successors, the "rightly guided" caliphs, were perhaps the most impressive conquerors in world history. With a group of nomads as pathetic as any pre ghengis mongols, they beat two of the worlds greatest powers, took most of the heartland of ancient and classical civiilization, establishing an empire from the Atlantic to eastern persia, and whats more the empire they established lasted longer as a unit than Alexanders, and had a cultural impact that well exceeded that of the mongols.

as a collective they should get top honors.

Yes, but these conquests are similar in kind to the Allies rolling up the German and Japanese conquests toward the end of WW2. A weak and very overextended Byzantine empire did the Arabs a huge favor by eliminating the local potential opposition in much of this area, while not offering hardly any resistance themselves when the Arabs came knocking.

The Arab conquests are still amazing and all, but they fall into the same category as Cortes et al, depending in large part on extremely good fortune.

[Ted Striker]

Yeah, the locals were so fixated on beating up Byzantium that they fogot to watch their backs.

[UberCryxic]

Originally posted by molly bloom




You know how ridiculous you sound?

See above.

And the rest of your rant, which I really was too fatigued to bother copying.

How sad that you have to resort to, frankly, rather inadequate insults such as 'brain dead existence'.

Carry on by all means- it sounds as though you're well on the way to a self-induced cerebral haemorrhage.

I accept your concession, however replete with bs it may be......yo Striker, it probably was rash to say that without backing it up....I'll agree with you if that's what you were trying to say. But as you can tell by reading the convo between me and Molly, time wasn't on my side. If you REALLY want to discuss it though, then we certainly can. But I am not the only one who holds such an opinion. At the very LEAST, all would agree that it's one of the most important events in history......

[Ned]

I cannot accept that a general who won a lot of important battles against able generals, but lost a gigantic army in Russia that lead to France's second-rate status for the rest of its history can be labelled the best conqueror in history. If this is your criteria, Hannibal has to rank up there as well, even though his side lost the war and he lost the decisive battle.

Khan, Alexander, Caesar and Scipio all have to rank above Napoleon, IMHO.

[UberCryxic]

Originally posted by Ned
I cannot accept that a general who won a lot of important battles against able generals, but lost a gigantic army in Russia that lead to France's second-rate status for the rest of its history can be labelled the best conqueror in history. If this is your criteria, Hannibal has to rank up there as well, even though his side lost the war and he lost the decisive battle.

Khan, Alexander, Caesar and Scipio all have to rank above Napoleon, IMHO.

France a second-rate power after Napoleon??? Hardly....their defeat of Austria in 1859 lead to Italian Independence and...oh yea they did amass an empire that by the end of WWI stretched for around 5 million square miles. In fact, military observers thought France was the strongest nation in Europe (and thus indirectly, the world) for much of the time in the 19th century that preceded the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71. Impressive French performances in the Crimean War (1854-56) and the Franco-Austrian War (1859) only reinforced this view. France maintained its status as a superpower until it utterly lost it in WWII. And do not forget the Great War. The French soldier was the German's worst nightmare. Had France not held out under the manouvers of rectification of Joffre (which made up for his disastrous start in the Battle of the Frontiers) WWI would've been won by Germany.

"I cannot accept that a general who won a lot of important battles against able generals.." - I detect somewhat of a condescending tone here. Napoleon actually defeated Emperors and Czars. The Battle of Austerlitz is known by a famous nickname, "The Battle of the Three Emperors". Napoleon defeated just about anyone and everyone (even in losing campaigns).

"If this is your criteria, Hannibal has to rank up there as well, even though his side lost the war and he lost the decisive battle." - Well "my" criteria was actually chosen by your misguided proclivities, but I have the utmost respect for Hannibal. In fact, my top five military commanders of all time are, starting with the first and going up, Napoleon, Alexander, Hannibal, Frederick (I'm surprised at how little he's been mentioned, if at all...if we exclude Silesia, he's not much of a conqueror since he largely fought in a defensive posture during the Seven Years War, but still he's one of the greatest commanders ever), and Caesar. Cannae is my favorite all-time battle; I consider it to be the most decisive in history (from the military standpoint; politically it produced the resignation of half the Roman senate and a lot of commotion...but not much else)....

[Alexander's Horse]

How does one compare the epic marches of Alexander with those of Napoleon? Napoleon abandoned his army in Russia. Alexander led his force all the way to India and back before 300 bc. Even if there had been no fighting it would still have been one of the greatest marches of all time.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
How does one compare the epic marches of Alexander with those of Napoleon? Napoleon abandoned his army in Russia. Alexander led his force all the way to India and back before 300 bc. Even if there had been no fighting it would still have been one of the greatest marches of all time.

Poor Ubercryxic is so caught up in his hero worship he doesn't appreciate that Napoleon frequently faced (certainly in the Austrian commanders) high ranking soldiers of staggering ineptitude, and had rather better highways to use than Alexander did.

[Kuciwalker]

"If this is your criteria, Hannibal has to rank up there as well, even though his side lost the war and he lost the decisive battle." - Well "my" criteria was actually chosen by your misguided proclivities, but I have the utmost respect for Hannibal. In fact, my top five military commanders of all time are, starting with the first and going up, Napoleon, Alexander, Hannibal, Frederick (I'm surprised at how little he's been mentioned, if at all...if we exclude Silesia, he's not much of a conqueror since he largely fought in a defensive posture during the Seven Years War, but still he's one of the greatest commanders ever), and Caesar. Cannae is my favorite all-time battle; I consider it to be the most decisive in history (from the military standpoint; politically it produced the resignation of half the Roman senate and a lot of commotion...but not much else)....

I take it you're excluding modern battles? Like, say, Gulf I/II?