Who was the greatest conqueror the world has ever known?

[johnny]

Aelia is right, Gaius Julius was a lot on the road with his troops. He completely conquered Gaul, expanding the Empires boundries all the way to the Atlantic ocean. And btw...it wasn't an empire before he came along, it was a republic, with squabbling senators and backstabbing upperclass citizens.

Furthermore he conquered Alexandria, parts of North Africa, and Iberia. He was also responsible for the first Roman invasions in Britannia in 55 BC.

Gaius Julius Caesar deserves more to be on that list than most who names i see, especially Hitler. Not one time did he lead an army into battle, and he became more notorious because of his tactical blunders than his military genius.

Oh...before i forget...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Caesar

[Hivetyrant]

I am a big admirer of Adolf (not becasue of what he did, just how he was able to do it) so my vote would go to him, but Genghis Khan definately comes in with a close second.

[Nightwing]

I would say Alexander because of the way he built up the cities and trade routes. He built ports for sea trade he built an infastructure for prosperity, he also helpped map the region so he provided great knowledge for trade as well as expanding culture.

[Sever]

Originally posted by Aelia Jusa: quote: 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. [/QUOTE]Hitler took over the reigns of a shattered nation and made the rest of Europe do whoopsies in their pants (for a while). His success at rebuilding a nation, if only for war, cannot be denied. His ability to lead a nation in time of war, however, pales by comparrison. But conquer he did, and did it from scratch

The fact that George Bush is on this list at all is disconcerting.

[robertthebard]

Originally posted by Aelia Jusa: quote: 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. [/QUOTE]I bow to your wisdom, oh history buff type... [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img] I can't remember what I had for dinner the previous night most of the time. However, a question, wasn't Gaul actually where Germany is now? No reason that I couldn't be very far off base with this, but I seem to remember that.

[Legolas]

Gaul is more like France than Germany.
I should know, having personally directed armies to victory in countless simulations of conflict all over the earth, and on many other planets besides [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Luther]

Originally posted by robertthebard: wasn't Gaul actually where Germany is now? No reason that I couldn't be very far off base with this, but I seem to remember that.

Nope. At the time of the Late Republican Period, Gaul was the area we now refer to as 'France'.

[johnny]

And the Gauls as one faction is also a misconception, it was a bunch of tribes of which the Aedui and the Arverni were the most important.

[robertthebard]

Well no wonder they got beat up... [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img]
Seriously though, now that it's mentioned, I do remember that. I'm going to quit playing history games. Between headaches and medicine, it's a wonder I can remember my....

[Captain Obvious]

Gaul is more Modern France. Have you never read Asterisk man!?

good old Julius did kick ass - his troops loved him and he could inspire them to Awesome feats. even the way they marched was amazing - they regulalry notched up 50 miles a day (and that is with all their gear. Occasionally, they would march like that, arrive, and dive right into a fight/siege.

Ceasar loved surrounding enemy cities/towns etc with walls to stop them getting out. it was amazing how fast those guys could build solid walls all the way around a settlement.

Still, I like Alexander. He founded the Great Library!!! and, named a city after his favourite Horse! i mean, that is pretty sweet! you didnt see hitler renaming France "Roverville' or anything.

Also, Alexander had a crazy mother (bring on the orgiastic rituals!!!) who said she was impregnated by a snake (who of course, was Zeus). SWWEEEEETTT!