Greatest Conqueror Ever

[Heresson]

Huh?

[Ned]

Heresson, yes. Exactly. Caesar would not have been treated so kindly if he had eventually lead his army deep into Parthia as he had planned and lost it, and then most of the Empire, as did Napoleon in Russia.

[Ned]

I think you have to consider both aspects of a conqueror: 1) did he actually extend the empire; and 2) in doing so, did he defeat an enemy that was his equal or superior?

Clearly Napoleon fails due to 1.
Alexander is questionable due to 2.
Ghengis Khan is also questionable due to 2.
Caesar cleary meets both criteria quite comfortably -- as also did Scipio as well.

[Heresson]

Genghis started as a banned chief of a small tribe. His enemies WERE superior.
Caesar's enemies were not superior to him at all.

[Ned]

Heresson, I said at least as good.

But, consider that at Alesia Caesar was surrounded by and surrounded a commander that had previously defeated him. He then went on to defeat a Roman commander, Pompey, who, until he was defeated, was one of Rome greatest conquerors ever and whom, at the time of his defeat, had most of the resources of the Empire on his side.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Heresson
Genghis started as a banned chief of a small tribe. His enemies WERE superior.
Caesar's enemies were not superior to him at all.

Sounds like Atilla or Timor the Lame. Ghenghis was not the only man to unify previously warring tribes under one command. But, after that, who did he meet on the field of combat that was his equal in terms of troops or previous victories?

[Heresson]

One Alesia doesn't change everything.
Pompey was a great general - perhaps, but Pont was already weakened, Armenia was never a superpower, and Syria was in chaos. The only thing He really did well was the fight against pirates.
Also, Pompey lost against Caesar only because pesky senators that were with him didn't want to accept all of his plans.
Also, he did have support of majority of the empire, but not at hand, and Caesar had the state treasury and Italy in his hands.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Ned


Sounds like Atilla or Timor the Lame. Ghenghis was not the only man to unify previously warring tribes under one command. But, after that, who did he meet on the field of combat that was his equal in terms of troops or previous victories?

Everyone, until He started being the conqueror.
Kereits were originally as strong

[Ted Striker]

Striker Warriors Clan

[UberCryxic]

Originally posted by Ned
I think you have to consider both aspects of a conqueror: 1) did he actually extend the empire; and 2) in doing so, did he defeat an enemy that was his equal or superior?

Clearly Napoleon fails due to 1.
Alexander is questionable due to 2.
Ghengis Khan is also questionable due to 2.
Caesar cleary meets both criteria quite comfortably -- as also did Scipio as well.

Your criteria is absolutely ridiculous. You definitely need to read the first post I ever made here. There are simply TOO MANY sides and points to consider when evaluating the 'greatest conqueror ever'. I mean come on, ever wondered why historians are disinclined to give historical figures such titles? How come a few no-life internet losers could figure out the answer when all the world's greatest minds couldn't? As I mentioned before, you're simply observing basic elements like total square miles conquered. I at least commend you for including the relative strengths of the enemy, because those definitely are relevant, but confining such a prestigious title to so few intervals is an egregious mistake. And, in a way, all of us, including me, can be accused of having made this mistake. I really haven't layed out a concrete case for why Napoleon would be the greatest, but that's because to do so I'd need a book. Anyway, I will evaluate your considerations. Let's start with the first....1) did he actually extend the empire?....I was going to ask if you meant this question in the sense of at one point in time, or by the time of the person's death. But it's plainly obvious what you meant now (the latter). In that sense, Napoleon failed. The Congress of Vienna reduced France to her pre-Revolutionary borders. How Alexander and Khan are questionable in your eyes is beyond me. But then I realized your Caesar-first agenda and all became starkly clear. Alexander and Khan succeeded in the first count. In terms of square miles annexed, Khan holds the top spot in all of history and if you neophytes feel that is justification enough to declare someone 'the greatest conqueror ever' then by all means go ahead. If this is the loosely-held system of what entails a great conqueror, then I should like to add Mahmud of Ghazni to our list. He conquered more than Caesar. Oh and not ONLY THAT.....but, to get to your second proviso, he repeatedly defeated enemies with armies MUCH larger than his own and virtually as competent. Where is he on your lists? I heartily believe that Ghazni is far more compatible with your conditions than Caesar.......I'll let you ponder that over...

[UberCryxic]

Originally posted by Ned
UberCryxic, sure there are differences in details between Andrianople and Russia, but both had the same effect: decimation of the Empire's field army, from which both Empires never fully recovered. They are also similar in that both events could have been avoided if the respective Emperors had been just a little more cautious.

Also compare the Athenians loosing its field army at Syracuse. That whole adventure was unnecessary and Athens never fully recovered.

You're marginalizing the differences in those details a bit too much there buddy. Our concern here is who the greatest commander is, and I'm implying that you can fault Napoleon's poor decision for invading Russia in the first place, but you can't barrage his battlefield conduct too heavily (at Borodino, he had a cold and bladder problems and so was forced to sit the fight out). We are analyzing only the military wisdom of our respective candidates. Valens made a military mistake. He didn't wait for the western army on its way. Napoleon made a political mistake, namely, the invasion itself (he made slight blunders militarily during the campaign, but none to the scale of Valens; his prime mistake remains just invading Russia). I'm basically telling you to back off the Valens-like-Napoleon comparison, unless you want your penis castrated......honestly, no bs.....Napoleon is on a whole other plane when analyzed against Valens.

[UberCryxic]

You're marginalizing the differences in those details a bit too much there buddy. Our concern here is who the greatest commander is, and I'm implying that you can fault Napoleon's poor decision for invading Russia in the first place, but you can't barrage his battlefield conduct too heavily (at Borodino, he had a cold and bladder problems and so was forced to sit the fight out). We are analyzing only the military wisdom of our respective candidates. Valens made a military mistake. He didn't wait for the western army on its way. Napoleon made a political mistake, namely, the invasion itself (he made slight blunders militarily during the campaign, but none to the scale of Valens; his prime mistake remains just invading Russia). I'm basically telling you to back off the Valens-like-Napoleon comparison, unless you want your penis castrated......honestly, no bs.....Napoleon is on a whole other plane when analyzed against Valens.

[Ned]

Uber, I once had a management training class that studied the movie the Bridge on the River Kwai. In the movie, the Brit commander was clearly superior to the Japanese commander in virtually everything except keeping the ultimate goal in mind. His job #1 was to assure that the bridge would fail. The Japanese commander's job #1 was to see that bridge was build on time. The Japanese commander succeeded and was the better manager.

If one wins battle after battle after battle and has temporary success but long term failure in extending the Emprie, there is no doubt that that person is a great General, just like the British commander, but in the final analysis, he is a failure as a conqueror.

Napoleon clearly was a great general. But he lost in the end. This places him on the same footing as Valens, the Athenians at Syracuse and, for that matter, Hannibal.

[Ned]

Uber, I like Alexander, Caesar and Scipio. Each had tremendous impacts on history and each was clearly a very competent military commander.

Hannibal started a war that ended in the final destruction of Carthage. He obviously was a failure. Napoleon not only lost the Empire, but he restored the French monarchy.

[Heresson]

Hey, do not mix II punic with III punic...
I guess You know the difference, but...