NationStates Jolt Archive

Who do you think was the greatest conqueror in the history of the world?

Alexander the Great for sure..... He was awesome.

genghis khan owns

Hitler. Modern Expansionism is far more difficult then Ancient.

Attila the Hun!

Genghis!!

He'd slaughter whole towns just to make the next few surrender without a fight. Then he'd sometimes slaughter them too. He had the biggest empire ever :D

Genghis!!

He'd slaughter whole towns just to make the next few surrender without a fight. Then he'd sometimes slaughter them too. He had the biggest empire ever :D

Rape, Murder, and Plunder is easy. Conquer and Control takes skillz.

I'd say Hitler, but he failed in conquering sucessfully. As much as I hate to admit it, he had something going for him. Idiotic ideas drove him to defeat.

Instead, I'll hafta say Julius Ceaser. Wait, why DIDN'T YOU PUT CEASER?

Genghis!!

He'd slaughter whole towns just to make the next few surrender without a fight. Then he'd sometimes slaughter them too. He had the biggest empire ever :D

exactly!

Genghis. Here's why: Under his leadership, the mongols conquered basically all of china, all of russia, and bunch of the middle east. It was the largest empire in history, and it lasted longer than any of the other choices' empires did.

in order--

Hitler.
Napoleon.
Bismarck
Caesar.


and thats leaving out a large string of non-mainstream conquerors that i could put on there.

It's obvious innit. It's William the Conqueror. He's got "conqeror" in his name! 8)

It's obvious innit. It's William the Conqueror. He's got "conqeror" in his name! 8)

KHAN!

It's obvious innit. It's William the Conqueror. He's got "conqeror" in his name! 8)

william the C- minor feudal lord. nothing really special. won a couple battles, started a royal line, big f---in deal. Napoleon was the greatest absolute monarch/emperor. and even he didnt do as good of a job as hitler (for the most part). Napoleon was a general, hitler was a strategist and an incredible statesmen.

My friend named a pipe after Charles the Hammer, I don't know the whole story, but basically he killed a crap load of muslims and basically saved western culture......wait, then he's not a conqueror, damn.

Still a cool guy though.

Hirohito did an alright job, better than hitler.

In terms of land the greatest conquerer is: Genghis Khan

In terms of the most ambitious conquerer: Alexander the Great (he was 32 and had conquered the known world)

In terms of the shortest and short-lived conquerer: Napoleon

In terms of the most ruthless conquerer: Adolf Hitler

Personally I believe Hitler could have gone down in history as the greatest conqueror had he listened to his generals rather than his party cronies like Goering.

If we go on land mass, I believe Hitler would give Genghis Khan a run for his money, although I think Khan had taken just a little more than Hitler managed.

Hirohito did an alright job, better than hitler.

wrong.

Hirohito was a puppet for the behind the scene military dictatorship. hitler was the iron fist that was in control of his generals. of course, not completely- but most dictators have trouble with upper management in their military.

i agree that the japanese generals were genius in their rape and plunder of Asia though.

In terms of the most ruthless conquerer: Adolf Hitler



Hitler killed everyone who he thought was inferior. Khan slaughtered half the middle east because someone insulted him...

In terms of the most ruthless conquerer: Adolf Hitler



Hitler killed everyone who he thought was inferior. Khan slaughtered half the middle east because someone insulted him...

genghis was a much worse genocidal manic then hitler. He killed more people per capita of population then any world leader short of stalin.

Khan was pretty badass.

Ever see the simpson's episode where they have the VR helmets.

"Hi, I'm Ghengis Khan, you'll go where I go, kill who I kill, eat who I eat."

Khan was pretty badass.

Ever see the simpson's episode where they have the VR helmets.

"Hi, I'm Ghengis Khan, you'll go where I go, kill who I kill, eat who I eat."

he said 'defile what I defile' as well :D

What about Cortez or Pizzaro? They are the best, with only a few hundred men, they conquered the Aztecs, Mayans, and Incas, think about it, Pizzaro had 200 men, he conquered the Incan Empire using great strategy and biological warfare, european disease and civil war killed half the people of the Incan Empire, but still, 200 against millions, they takes, skill, and a hell of a lot of luck.

As for Hitler and Napolean, they were unable to hold on to what they won, Germany's greatest extend lasted less than a year, how can he be considered the greatest when it was his bad decision making that led the way to the allied victory. He ordered one of his armies advancing on Moscow to stop and turn around to capture 300,000 russians, that cost them three weeks, consequently winter hit before the Germans could capture Moscow, it became a war of attrition, and in a war like that the bigger country always wins, a country of 50 million versus a country of 130 million, not hard to figure out who would win that.

Napolean's empire lasted only three years at its greatest extent, then the counquered people grew sick of his use of force and they started rebelling after the defeat of Napolean's Army when they attempted to invade Russia.

Hirohito was involved in WWII, much more than most people think, Japan is a very odd place, they have always had an Emporer but they rarely had any real power, the emperors were more of a figurehead, like the Royal Family of England now. The emperor was used to unite Japan in times of trouble, the US used this after WWII in reconstructing Japan, if we had arrested the Emperor for what he did in WWII all of Japan would have risen up against our soldiers in Japan, millions would have died and we would be forced to use the bomb on almost every major city in Japan because we would not have enough troops to go city by city and kill almost every single citizen of Japan, one by one. We basically wiped the slate clean with Hirohito so long as he agreed to cooperate in rebuilding Japan, which he was all to willing to do because as you may know, the military wanted to keep fighting after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but Hirohito was able to get the general populace to give up the fight and the military followed suit. And how can you say he was not involved when every battle the military fought was in the emperor's name?

Kahn definetly wins of the four mentions, he was the only one whose empite lasted more than a couple of decades, something like 243 years or so that the mongols ruled over Russia, they built the largest land empire in the history of mankind, and he started it all, infact all of europe my have fallen if he had not died, all the military was pulled back for the funeral and they were unable to return with the same number of forces they had under Genghis Kahn.

And as for Alexander the Great, he comes in a close second, very close, I only say that because he inevitably lost control of his military and they refused to push on after reaching India, but can you blame them? They had conquered the known world and beyond! That is huge for a country, and he did it using ingenious new technology, longer spears, smaller shields, gave them a much greater range for their basic footsoldier, also took out the advantage horses my have had at that time. The first day of Physics my teacher asked all the seniors to raise their hands, then he said this "You have 14 years to conquer the known world", that was how we started Physics, learning about Alexander the Great and how he related to our modern learning techniques.

And perhaps Queen Elizabeth deserves an honorable mention, she was the one who was ruling England when they defeated the Spanish Armada, she was most likely the one who inspired British colonialism, we even have a state in the US named after her, Virginia, only one other person has a state named after them, Washington, our capital is named after him also. That is a very elite group to be in, only two people are members of that club.

God Himself. Christians, Jews, and Muslims are all following him. He has "conquered" us. :wink:

And you have to admit, someone who makes pyramids out of the heads of enemies, soldiers and civialiands alike, is pretty bad ass, that alone would strike enough fear in a person that they would choose to unite rather than fight. One city defied him and over ten thousand people were beheaded and a pyramid was made out of their heads, oh yeah, I also believe they then burned the heads, but that could just be something from Lord of the Ring.

God Himself. Christians, Jews, and Muslims are all following him. He has "conquered" us. :wink:

He hasn't "conquered" us, he created us.

Ya...I'll have to go with GK. The guy took a bunch of barbaric, half starved mongol tribes and used them to build the largest empire the world has ever seen. Now that's what I call an achievment.

*Drags out his Romance of Three Kingdoms*

Cao Cao (pronounced 'sao' .. or about that .. just not "cow")

Went from a small general to taking over most of ancient china.

*Drags out his Romance of Three Kingdoms*

Cao Cao (pronounced 'sao' .. or about that .. just not "cow")

Went from a small general to taking over most of ancient china.

Multiply that by 10, and you have something like what GK accomplished. The guy started off as a slave boy...

Don't know if anyone has mentioned him yet, but the answer has got to be:

BILL GATES!!!!!

*Drags out his Romance of Three Kingdoms*

Cao Cao (pronounced 'sao' .. or about that .. just not "cow")

Went from a small general to taking over most of ancient china.

Multiply that by 10, and you have something like what GK accomplished. The guy started off as a slave boy...

and hitler started out as a bum. big fuckin deal, warlords came and went, he just happened to be more ruthless and in a better position.

Genghis. Here's why: Under his leadership, the mongols conquered basically all of china, all of russia, and bunch of the middle east. It was the largest empire in history, and it lasted longer than any of the other choices' empires did.

I have to agree. My criteria is largest as well.

*Drags out his Romance of Three Kingdoms*

Cao Cao (pronounced 'sao' .. or about that .. just not "cow")

Went from a small general to taking over most of ancient china.

Multiply that by 10, and you have something like what GK accomplished. The guy started off as a slave boy...

and hitler started out as a bum. big f--- deal, warlords came and went, he just happened to be more ruthless and in a better position.

ruthless

As a military strategist Napoleon was unrivaled

As a military strategist Napoleon was unrivaled

Waterloo :roll: ...need I say more?

I'd say Hitler, but he failed in conquering sucessfully. As much as I hate to admit it, he had something going for him. Idiotic ideas drove him to defeat.

Instead, I'll hafta say Julius Ceaser. Wait, why DIDN'T YOU PUT CEASER?



I AGREE!!!!!!!I want ceasar

As a military strategist Napoleon was unrivaled

Waterloo :roll: ...need I say more?


lol thats true! :lol:

but to be defeated countries had to join together to defeat him :roll:

The U.S. Corporate system. Greatest conquerer ever.

Clearly Cincinnatus was the greatest conqueror of all time.

He defeated a vastly superior enemy and erased their civilization from the face of the earth for all time, and simultaneously stopped an invasion dead in its tracks without levelling one spear at the massive army that was invading his country.

He understood the fundamentals of warfare better than Alexander, Hitler, or Khan.

I still think Pizzaro and Cortez should be on here too.

I still think Pizzaro and Cortez should be on here too.
They killed a bunch of poorly armed natives with steel weapons and firearms... yeah, really big surprise there.

I still think Pizzaro and Cortez should be on here too.
They killed a bunch of poorly armed natives with steel weapons and firearms... yeah, really big surprise there.

thats true the aztecs and inca i think were very badly equipped

And all of the candidates went from poverty to greatness, Napolean was born on an island in the Mediterranean to a poor family and was sent to the Military Academy and from their he gained fame by protecting the National Assembly from protestors. Hitler was a Austrian bum who served in WWI and was jailed for a failed Coupe in but later was given power by the German people (I am fascinated by Nazi and Roman history and how closely they resemble each other, I don't like the Nazis politics though). Genghis Kahn and Alexander, I am not sure about them but I know they both rose from poverty also, I think.

No, no.

They themselves didn't understand how they were defeating their enemies. Disease killed off the emperors of the civilizations they conquered before thye ever met them, which is what fractured those empires to begin with.

The emperors they deposed were newbies to their respective thrones.

The horses and steel and guns they used were no testament to either Pizarro's or Cortez's military finesse. They were a product of a lucky history.

And disease really finished the job, not armies. These boys were really far from home and reinforcements.

Alex was the son of a King.

People won't be reading my reply because it passed to the lastp age so quickly, but really...

Cincinnatus is by far the best conqueror of all time.

probarly Alexander the Great.

Napolian was really tactically inadempt and made many stupid decisions (Like Hitler) He outnumbered Wellington's good toops 2-1 and still lost thanks to his incistance of not using the Rifle and using collums to attack.

No, no.

They themselves didn't understand how they were defeating their enemies. Disease killed off the emperors of the civilizations they conquered before thye ever met them, which is what fractured those empires to begin with.

The emperors they deposed were newbies to their respective thrones.

The horses and steel and guns they used were no testament to either Pizarro's or Cortez's military finesse. They were a product of a lucky history.

And disease really finished the job, not armies. These boys were really far from home and reinforcements.


actually cortez killed montezuma same with pizarro i dont remember any sort of disease

I vote for Alexander. Because he died thinking that he won. :o

I still think Pizzaro and Cortez should be on here too.
They killed a bunch of poorly armed natives with steel weapons and firearms... yeah, really big surprise there.

thats true the aztecs and inca i think were very badly equipped

200 against 80,000, I don't care how well equipped they are, that division of the Incan Army alone should have been able to throw the Spanish out of their asses, muskets could fire maybe three rounds a minute at best, so that is 600 rounds in one minute, ok, lets say that the Incas had to run towards the Spanish for five minutes while within range of the Spanish Guns, that is 3,000 shots, now, lets say that each bullet killed one Incan warrior, that still leaved 77,000 Incan warriors in that one division, 200 versus 77,000 in close quarters combat, I know what should have happened, and yet the spanish still won, if you think that isn't the most one sided battle in history you are sorely mistaken, and the Incan Empire had possibly as many 10 million people and was the largest nation on earth at the time, and to have been defeated by only 200 men, that is quite the accomplishment.

No, no.

They themselves didn't understand how they were defeating their enemies. Disease killed off the emperors of the civilizations they conquered before thye ever met them, which is what fractured those empires to begin with.

The emperors they deposed were newbies to their respective thrones.

The horses and steel and guns they used were no testament to either Pizarro's or Cortez's military finesse. They were a product of a lucky history.

And disease really finished the job, not armies. These boys were really far from home and reinforcements.


actually cortez killed montezuma same with pizarro i dont remember any sort of disease

Small Pox most notably.

I vote for Alexander. Because he died thinking that he won. :o

So did Genghis.

I still think Pizzaro and Cortez should be on here too.
They killed a bunch of poorly armed natives with steel weapons and firearms... yeah, really big surprise there.

thats true the aztecs and inca i think were very badly equipped

200 against 80,000, I don't care how well equipped they are, that division of the Incan Army alone should have been able to throw the Spanish out of their asses, muskets could fire maybe three rounds a minute at best, so that is 600 rounds in one minute, ok, lets say that the Incas had to run towards the Spanish for five minutes while within range of the Spanish Guns, that is 3,000 shots, now, lets say that each bullet killed one Incan warrior, that still leaved 77,000 Incan warriors in that one division, 200 versus 77,000 in close quarters combat, I know what should have happened, and yet the spanish still won, if you think that isn't the most one sided battle in history you are sorely mistaken, and the Incan Empire had possibly as many 10 million people and was the largest nation on earth at the time, and to have been defeated by only 200 men, that is quite the accomplishment.

see the spanish also had swords to fight with just in that instance and think of the of their weaponry they were half naked indians running at them with spears and shooting arrows

What about queen Victoria.
Her armies and settlers created the largest empire ever known.

What about queen Victoria.
Her armies and settlers created the largest empire ever known.

so what about rome which spanned over 3 continents

As a military strategist Napoleon was unrivaled

Waterloo :roll: ...need I say more?

We very nearly lost that - The Prussians bailed us out at the 11th hour

How about a 5th category: "George the almighty".

What about queen Victoria.
Her armies and settlers created the largest empire ever known.

so what about rome which spanned over 3 continents

only 3 HA HAHAHAAAAAA

Wars not make one great.

Fuck 'em all.

Alexander the Great for sure..... He was awesome.

yep, one night him and his friends got slightly pissed and burnt down an entire city. But on the other hand Khan is just Khan

Genghis Kahn and Alexander, I am not sure about them but I know they both rose from poverty also, I think.
Incorrect.

I don't think any of them are comparable to each other. The amount of land mass isn't equivalent to the amount of people which isn't equivalent to the number of cultures which doesn't equate to the amount of time 'conquered'. (Can you really call Hitler a conquerer for the small amount of time that he actually conquered?) I think they would only be comparable in a similar time period and in a similar culture.

What about queen Victoria.
Her armies and settlers created the largest empire ever known.

so what about rome which spanned over 3 continents

But that was a series of emperors and brilliant generals, not one person who conquered all of what became Rome. All of these other people conquered all, or almost all, of what was their country, Rome did it slowly by assimilating the conquered peoples, except the Visigoths, which ended up being their downfall.