Greatest Conqueror Ever

[Kidlicious]

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.

[Solomwi]

Originally posted by Dissident
Here's an even tougher question. Who was the worst conqueror.

I'd like to here an answer to that one.

Mussolini.

[Ned]

It's close between Caesar and George Bush.

[Arrian]

I don't agree, Kid. Alexander, given Napolean's position, may very well have conquered continental Europe and been somewhere in central Asia contemplating invading China when his troops revolted.

-Arrian

[Kuciwalker]

And then he would've died around Baghdad of malaria

[Ned]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Alexander - marching a Greek army in 350 bc all the way from Hellas to India via Egypt and Central Asia, fighting all the way, is one of the greatest feats of arms of all time. An achievement never equalled.

No doubt.

But did he defeat a Roman Army?

Caesar not only defeated the barbarians, he defeated a fellow Roman, Pompey, who himself was a great general. In that time, leadership, not just Army size, was extremely important.

[Ned]

Napoleon never beat a better general, and lost one of the largest armies in history in Russia.

Ditto, Ghenghis Khan and Attilla.

Caesar stands alone as the greatest in history.

[GePap]

I find many of Napoleon's victories much more impressive than Alexander's- winning agaist huge enemy armies made of of lots of imperial components just waiting to break and run if the more loyal forces are crushed is not as impressive as fighting a larger enemy army of men as determined as yours.

Austerlitz was just a brilliant battle.

I find the Mongol conquests overall by far the most impressive in history- though they occured undr several rulers and not only one, like Alexander.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned
Napoleon never beat a better general, and lost one of the largest armies in history in Russia.

Ditto, Ghenghis Khan and Attilla.

Caesar stands alone as the greatest in history.

How would you beat a "better" general?

[Az]

Duh, have a much bigger army.

Like the USA in the civil war, for example.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Azazel
Duh, have a much bigger army.

Like the USA in the civil war, for example.

If by that you mean Grant beating Lee, I would seriously state that a general needs to be both a good tactician and a good strategist- and I think Grant had Lee beat in the later and was not a bad tactician, thus overall a better General.

[chequita guevara]

Ghengiz conquered the most territory, 'nuff said.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap


How would you beat a "better" general?

A general, who prior to the victory by their opponent, for example, Caesar, had at least as good if not better record.

Scipio, not on the list, did just that when he beat Hannibal.

But, Caesar beat both Vercingetorix and Pompey.

[chequita guevara]

Wellington beat Napoleon. Nappy was the better general, but he made a mistake and lost.

[Ned]

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

Conquering vast wastelands is not impressive at all.