Who was the greatest conqueror the world has ever known?

[Memnoch]

Geez, you don't seem all that happy about this list, Bungleau. It's supposed to be the number of square miles, according to the site I got it from (Coming-Anarchy.com).

By the way, we are allowed to criticise the list, that's the point of the post. Also, I think the inclusion of Dubya in there is supposed to be a joke, and not meant to offend or be taken seriously. I would be disappointed if some of us were so sensitive to take it as such. I'm glad as of this postion pretty much all respondents have taken this in the right spirit. I'm posting this disclaimer as I have been warned by someone in PM that people might take it as flamebait, which it's not meant to be. It's intended to engender serious and not-so-serious discussion in what is a pretty quiet GD these days.

In fact, if Bungleau was right then Dubya should actually be higher on the list - above Napoleon. But maybe they excluded Afghanistan since Dubya gave it back.

[ 07-24-2006, 10:49 PM: Message edited by: Memnoch ]

[Bungleau]

It's later in the day and I've had my mountain dew now... life is much, much better

I'm going to go with Genghis Khan. Why? Because his empire lived on several centuries after his death... not so with most of the others. And he took the most territory, too.

*edit* Plus, he lived to the ripe old age of 65... quite a feat in those days.

[ 07-24-2006, 11:23 PM: Message edited by: Bungleau ]

[robertthebard]

Originally posted by johnny: What i'd like to know is why Gaius Julius Caesar is not on that list ?

Doesn't count if you stand on the shoulders of greatness. He would have actually had to command the armies that did the conquering, instead of taking over the reigns...

[wellard]

GW Bush .. So far he has an undefeated as yet record (*cough* thanks to vote rigging *cough*) and still going strong, with Syria, Iran, all lined up his futures so bright we all gotta wear shades! All the others have failed the test of time [img]tongue.gif[/img]

BTW I dont think the square miles conquered include that of his poodle and pet rat that he has running his empire in the UK and Australia, if they where included he would be #1 on that list


*Irony is not just for laundry mmmkay!*

[Sever]

Ghenghis Khan. He had the supposedly inferior technology (according to his enemies) and still brought them to their knees in front of him while he unzipped the proverbial fly. Attitudes towards the effectiveness of heavy armour and chain vs silk armour kinda changed after that. And their horsemen were arguably the most skilled that ever lived.

[Aelia Jusa]

Originally posted by robertthebard: quote: Originally posted by johnny: What i'd like to know is why Gaius Julius Caesar is not on that list ?

Doesn't count if you stand on the shoulders of greatness. He would have actually had to command the armies that did the conquering, instead of taking over the reigns... [/QUOTE]While it's true that in Gaul Caesar had many legions spread over his provinces for which he had lieutenants who were in command, he was without question one of the greatest military commanders that has ever lived, and was the commander in many of the pivotal battles in the Gallic wars. Certainly on a par with Alexander. Not to mention his genius in organisation and efficiency.

Anyway if that were a criterion, then others on the list (e.g., Hitler, Bush) should certinaly be eliminated as well.

[Dundee Slaytern]

Off-topic, but when I read this thread's title... it just so happened that I read the title of the thread below it as well... which was Callum's "It's me!"

Surreal.

[robertthebard]

My point wasn't that you couldn't be the leader, but that your army had to be the one that built the empire, Julius inherited most of the Roman Empire, already built. Skirmishes to keep it not withstanding the topic.

[Memnoch]

I think that Genghis Khan's got a good case. He may have conquered less territory than Alex, but he had to use innovative tactics, military discipline and mobility to defeat some pretty well-armed and well-trained European armies, as well as the Chinese and the Arab cities of Baghdad (the greatest city in the Muslim world at the time) and Damascus. Although to be fair, I think Genghie had carked it by then - it was Ogodei (his son), Guyug, Mongke and then Kublai Khan who went on with things.

[Aelia Jusa]

Originally posted by robertthebard: My point wasn't that you couldn't be the leader, but that your army had to be the one that built the empire, Julius inherited most of the Roman Empire, already built. Skirmishes to keep it not withstanding the topic.

Caesar hugely expanded Rome's territories in Gaul and Germany. This was one of the major reasons that his enemies in Rome criticised him - because they argued that he was the aggressor by starting wars to increase the empire. Provincial governors were supposed to govern within their territory and only fight to defend themselves from attack. So while it's true that he didn't have much to do with the established provinces in Africa, Asia, Greece, and Spain, it was because of him that Rome ruled over Gaul and Germany.