Greatest Conqueror Ever

[Heresson]

Also, there is no boarder that constitutes a line between the known and the unknown. You always know something about a land You are a neighbour of.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Ned
Ancryrean, the Greeks at the time of Alexander knew the Carthaginians and Romans. As well, Alexander's men panicked and wanted no more of India after the encounter with Porus and his elephants.

So much for the "known-world" argument.

Well again this underlines Alexander's achievement - neither Carthage nor Rome were major powers in the 4th century BC and not worth conquering. In other words Alexander conquered all the civilised world before the rise of Rome and Carthage.

Elephants were used by the Persians at Gaugamela (up to 50 of them) and Alexander had them in his own army after the Persian conquest. His missile troops and skirmishers knew how to deal with them. Initially they caused fear but actually war elephants weren't very effective in battle.

India was not part of the known world. His troops refused to go on basically because of war weariness and homesickness. It was clear there were powerful kingdoms in this unknown world and they feared they would never see their homes again if they went on.

[Ancyrean]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


Well again this underlines Alexander's achievement - neither Carthage nor Rome were major powers in the 4th century BC and not worth conquering. In other words Alexander conquered all the civilised world before the rise of Rome and Carthage.

India was not part of the known world. His troops refused to go on basically because of war weariness and homesickness. It was clear there were powerful kingdoms in this unknown world and they feared they would never see their homes again if they went on.

I fully agree with AH Alexander the Great became a legend for a reason. The story of his conquests is an epic. The absolute value in square milesof territory conquered by him, for example, is an irrelevant criterion to dismiss him in comparison to Ghenghis Khan or Napoleon, because what he conquered was almost the whole known world. All this centuries before other contestants (millenia, in the case of Napoleon). His achievements were so staggering and he always faced so impossible odds, all of which he overcame by such a unique combination of courage, leadership and military genious, that he became a legend, a utopia to be inspired from. Only Julius Caesar comes a semblance of closeness to this, but not as close.

[Ned]

Had Caesar not been assassinated, he surely would have conquered Parthia.

[Heresson]

And there would be no Sassanians, no Chosroes Parwiz, no Arabic conquests, no Middle Ages, and Byzantine Empire would last forever


Wait, that would mean that mine civ2 scenarios wouldn't exist too.
Damn.

[UberCryxic]

Originally posted by Ancyrean
Sorry, but I'll approach the issue from another angle. Here's what made me decide on who is the greatest conqueror:

The candidates discussed here belong to very different ages with different conditions and circumstances. It is very difficult to provide an adequate comparison between them including all the matierial and immaterial factors as there are so many aspects to discuss for each candidate and his circumstance (Alexander the Great and Napoleon lived 2100 years apart, right?).

On the other hand, if I may call it, the "known world criterion" provides us with a handy shortcut tool. The extent of the known world seems like a rough but good yardstick by which to judge the overall difficulty of a military enterprise in any given age. The extent of the known world must be directly related to the difficulties of conquest in any age.

On that score, Alexander is the greatest conqueror of all time. He conquered almost all of the known world in the 4th century BCE. Nobody ever comes close, not even Genghis Khan, let alone Napoleon, with all due respect to his military genius

Mmm I was nodding as I was reading the first paragraph. Then I got to your second and went, "??!!??"....your analysis suffers from the same parochial attitude that characterized Ned's. There is simply not enough time to pursue this to an end. But anyway, what he conquered is not "most of the known world". As Ned mentioned, there was Carthage, Rome (which he was planning to attack later), AND another civilization that has survived independently for 5,000 years. You might've heard of it....called China. In fact, if a reasonable definition for "known world" is conjured, then we'd find that the majority of people in the 'known world' didn't find themselves under Alexander's boot. Territorially also, most of the 'known world' was independent from his lightning march. Your 'known world criterion' seems to be specifically designed to place Alexander on top. It's like me designing a system of the following sense: Europe is the heart of military history. Therefore, anyone who dominated it the most must've been the greatest. Tadda Napoleon! That's gay though.....and wholly not useful. Ned's system was inadequate but way better than yours. To those that think they've finally found the most objective, most complete system to rate the greatest conquerors ever, forget it! I'm telling you this so you can spare us with your bs.....you would need to write volumes (literally VOLUMES, as in thousands of pages) on what system you picked and why you did it. Then use the system to write volumes more on why your candidates deserve the title....you can't come here with the gay teacher's pet 5-sentence attitude....

[Traianvs]

Yeah but he defeated all sorts of enemies; civilized people, mountain tribes, Indians etc.. He did sieges (such as Tyre). He was never defeated in his life. He handled the organisation of his empire pretty well as long as he was alive....
Looks like he knew an answer to everything that stands in his way; that's what makes him great, not because of how much land he took.

I'm not saying he's the greatest but he's among the top contenders in any case

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Ned
Had Caesar not been assassinated, he surely would have conquered Parthia.

I doubt it. The reason the Macedonians succeeded where Rome failed was they had very good cavalry. Roman legions were infantry heavy. Legion after legion left their bones in Parthia.

[Ted Striker]

Here is a question for you experts:

Now, obviously Alexander was moving at a very fast pace and conquering a vast amount of land and people in a short time. Now, wouldn't he have had to leave behind some of his guys to act as peacekeepers? How was this done, and how could he hold his numbers and expertise of his advancing army?

Did he just rely on the fear of his army to keep the peace in newly conquered lands?

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Here is a question for you experts:

Now, obviously Alexander was moving at a very fast pace and conquering a vast amount of land and people in a short time. Now, wouldn't he have had to leave behind some of his guys to act as peacekeepers? How was this done, and how could he hold his numbers and expertise of his advancing army?

Did he just rely on the fear of his army to keep the peace in newly conquered lands?

He made peace with local rulers, he adopted Persian court manners and dress and pressured his officers to marry local women. He himself married Roxanne, the daughter of a Tashkent tribal leader, to cement an alliance.

He also established small cities called Alexandria's at strategic points and settled veterans and invalids in them. I think about 30 were established, the most famous being the one in Egypt, but they stretched all the way to India.

There was one Greek Alexandria in India - a mind boggling thought - it survived for a couple of centuries.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


He made peace with local rulers, he adopted Persian court manners and dress and pressured his officers to marry local women. He himself married Roxanne, the daughter of a Tashkent tribal leader, to cement an alliance.

He also established small cities called Alexandria's at strategic points and settled veterans and invalids in them. I think about 30 were established, the most famous being the one in Egypt, but they stretched all the way to India.

There was one Greek Alexandria in India - a mind boggling thought - it survived for a couple of centuries.

Thanks for the info, I always wondered about it.

Persian women.

[Ancyrean]

Your 'known world criterion' seems to be specifically designed to place Alexander on top. It's like me designing a system of the following sense: Europe is the heart of military history. Therefore, anyone who dominated it the most must've been the greatest. Tadda Napoleon! That's gay though.....and wholly not useful. Ned's system was inadequate but way better than yours.

That's not a point I "designed" to bring Alexander on top but an aspect of his circumstance that should not be omitted in the argument. You have been detailing Napoleon's circumstance, and this one is part of Alexander's. It's sign of certain factors in his time which should at least be drawn attention to. This should not be as difficult to understand as your incredulity suggests.

Originally posted by UberCryxic
But anyway, what he conquered is not "most of the known world". As Ned mentioned, there was Carthage, Rome (which he was planning to attack later), AND another civilization that has survived independently for 5,000 years. You might've heard of it....called China. In fact, if a reasonable definition for "known world" is conjured, then we'd find that the majority of people in the 'known world' didn't find themselves under Alexander's boot. Territorially also, most of the 'known world' was independent from his lightning march.

Your cynicism aside, the world is and was of course more than what Alexander knew it to be, but what I was trying to say is that the general perception in Alexander’s time and geography about the world to be as limited as we now know it is only a sign of how difficult things were at the time, in all aspects of life as well as warfare you can think of. It's imperfect and intangible but it's still a sign, and indication.

The difficulty of a military expedition in Alexander’s time and the odds he faced can simply not be compared with Napoleon’s time for this very reason, and that should be definitely considered when trying to seek putting the battle of Hydaspes with Austerlitz or Borodino, or when making a comparison between marching an army from Poland to Moscow in the early 19th century and marching one from Macedonia to India in the 4th century BCE.

[Ancyrean]

To those that think they've finally found the most objective, most complete system to rate the greatest conquerors ever, forget it! I'm telling you this so you can spare us with your bs.....you would need to write volumes (literally VOLUMES, as in thousands of pages) on what system you picked and why you did it. Then use the system to write volumes more on why your candidates deserve the title....you can't come here with the gay teacher's pet 5-sentence attitude....

First of all, I’m not saying that I have discovered the “most objective, most complete system to rate the greatest conquerors ever”. Nor did I swear to prove Alexander is the greatest conqueror. I just want the comparison to stand out clearer for the sake of argument. For that purpose, here’s some reflections on what you’ve been saying:

- Previously you advocated we should go by the square-miles-conquered criterion, precisely as to not make things very complicated. That was why, you said, you went along with Napoleon. Lo and behold, Genghis Khan beats everybody here, with or without Louisiana for Napoleon. Isn’t GK credited with creating the greatest land empire ever?

- On the issue of lasting impact, you conceded a tight match between Alexander and Napoleon. Much as I agree with this, I would hazard some speculation here by saying that Alexander’s effect resonated for much longer than Napoleon's, and therefore so many things changed as a result of his legacy, the number of what-ifs (had he not been around) are infinitely more than the what ifs concerning Napoleon. And if that’s a measure of lasting effect, Alexander, alas, has the upper hand.

- You dismissed Alexander’s conquests on the grounds that Persia was a decrepit empire and therefore weak, whereas in Europe Napoleon faced great powers. Persia might have been decrepit but we know it so clearly only today. Then, it was still the world’s greatest empire, admired and feared by everyone including the ancient Greeks and its weaknesses did not liberally advertise itself to invite invasions from all corners of the world. It was a great sense of depth and intuition on the part of Alexander that he calculated it worthwhile to even try conquer it all.

Furthermore, Persia could still field armies many orders of magnitude greater than Alexander’s and that for 3 consecutive times. This was unimpressive for you because Alexander faced incompetent commanders so by implication it was a given he would win every time and that he won is no big deal, whereas Napoleon faced reputable opponents, so had more probability of losing than Alexander, therefore Napoleon pwns. Although this argument has some merit to it, it’s still too presumptive to make this the decisive argument for Napoleon.

- You further claimed Napoleon is greatest if we consider decisiveness of battles/campaigns. This omits the most obvious fact that he was in the end decisively defeated for good, whatever alleviating reasons you can elaborate, with whatever mistakes and misfortunes you can attribute. A conqueror who conquered considerable real estate against considerable odds but who lost it spectacularly in the end can not be the greatest conqueror. It doesn’t come any more simpler than that.

Despite whatever argument you can put against him, Alexander has become a legend. A legend as a conqueror more than anybody else before and after him. Napoleon did not. Napoleon will never inspire as Alexander did and still does.

[Alexander's Horse]

I really object to this view that Persia was a broken down empire - the major battles, Granicus, Issus and Gaugamela were close run affairs. They could have gone either way.

The Persian army was no pushover even with poor leadership - they had superb light and heavy cavalry and excellent infantry who were well suited to the terrain and fighting conditions. There was a reason why they were called "the Immortals".

[Ancyrean]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
I really object to this view that Persia was a broken down empire - the major battles, Granicus, Issus and Gaugamela were close run affairs. They could have gone either way.

The Persian army was no pushover even with poor leadership - they had superb light and heavy cavalry and excellent infantry who were well suited to the terrain and fighting conditions. There was a reason why they were called "the Immortals".

Exactly. If the Persian Empire was so broken, how could it field so large armies battle after battle despite being severely defeated each time and losing more land, treasure and resources everytime?