Greatest Conqueror Ever

[Ned]

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

So, that means he is not the "greatest."

[Arrian]

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

A lot of which was sparsely populated. [EDIT: but then again, China helps make up for that.] 1000yrs later with a horse-based attack force.

Alex did what he did in the 4th century BC with a footsoldier-based army.

-Arrian

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned


Conquering vast wastelands is not impressive at all.

China, Persia, the ME, and Central Asia were not vast wastelands.

[Ned]

Not on the list is Timor the Lame. He certainly was a conqueror. Ruthless as hell. Never lost a battle. But, as well, he didn't beat another general with any reputation.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


China, Persia, the ME, and Central Asia were not vast wastelands.

GK, didn't conquer all that himself.

[Ned]

So, it really comes down to Caesar, Alexander and George Bush.

[Kuciwalker]

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Not on the list is Timor the Lame. He certainly was a conqueror. Ruthless as hell. Never lost a battle. But, as well, he didn't beat another general with any reputation.

Yes he did. He beat Beyezit the Thunderbolt. Beyezit was almost as good a general, but he was arrogant and overconfident (because he'd never lost a battle), and he made a stupid mistake and let himself get cut off from water East of Ankara before Timur crushed him. It could have gone the other way had he holed up in Ankara.

[Arrian]

What about Charlemagne? Does he merit consideration (not that I think he would beat out either Alex or the great Khan).

-Arrian

[GePap]

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

Wellington and Blucher beat Napoleon together- thought a lot of Brits would argue about saying Wellington was not as good as Napoleon- thought I do think Napoleon was better.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Yes he did. He beat Beyezit the Thunderbolt. Beyezit was almost as good a general, but he was arrogant and overconfident (because he'd never lost a battle), and he made a stupid mistake and let himself get cut off from water East of Ankara before Timur crushed him. It could have gone the other way had he holed up in Ankara.

Good.

Then Timor has to be ranked right up there.

And, please replace George Bush with Tommy Franks. (But of course, denigrate what he did because the US Military is so good.)

[Kuciwalker]

Conquering Iraq was not much of a feat - it says nothing about the general, just the army.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Arrian
What about Charlemagne? Does he merit consideration (not that I think he would beat out either Alex or the great Khan).

-Arrian

All he did was beat a few German tribes - Caesar did that as well. Ditto Patton.

Charlemagne got his ass handed to him in Spain.

[Kuciwalker]

They weren't exactly German "tribes" that Patton beat

[lord of the mark]

P. Scipio Africanus - unlike Caesar, who beat up on the Gauls, he beat an enemy that actually was a match for Rome. Some brilliant victories as well. But at an earlier stage in the life of the Republic his victories were of lesser internal political importance.

Yitzhak Rabin - his conquest of the Jerusalem and the West Bank seems to be the pivot around which the politics of the entire globe now revolve, at least if you listen to some people.

Clive - Yup the Brits conquered India, and with minimal resources, and this set the state for world politics since.

Sargon II of Akkad - first conquest of a large, multinational empire.

Some Ottoman guy belongs here, I cant keep em straight.