Greatest Conquerer in History

Sure

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/7/45

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez

Have a look at some of those articles.

All of them are thinking about the worse case scenario.

I think the greatest conqueror is Alexander the Great. He conquered a lot of territory and spread greek religion and idealogy.

Pancakes are amazing! wrote:I think the greatest conqueror is Alexander the Great. He conquered a lot of territory and spread greek religion and idealogy.

Nice necro, newbie.

While we are here... I agree with him.

Ruski wrote:

Pancakes are amazing! wrote:I think the greatest conqueror is Alexander the Great. He conquered a lot of territory and spread greek religion and idealogy.

Nice necro, newbie.

Nothing wrong with Necro imo - well, within reason. If he missed his chance to speak before I don't see why he shouldn't get to.

thank you. And Ruski can go screw himself. Oh and wheres your picture?

Offensive Bias wrote:While we are here... I agree with him.

Sorry, Temuchin wins. His empire actually lasted after he died.

Yeah. Good point.

I looked up Temuchin and it said Genghis Khan. I never knew that was a title not a name. I guess you learn something every day.

Death no more wrote:

JumpingJet wrote:

Elabajaba wrote:

Dud Doodoo wrote:Napoleon fought and won more battles than Alexander, Hannible, Caeser, Peter, and Fredric combined.

He wins.

I'm pretty sure that Genghis Khan had more territory, same with Alexander the Great, among others.

Ditto

Plus, has anyone not thought about Julius Caesar?

not really, I usually see him as more of political leader than a military leader, but its not secret hes a brilliant strategic mind.For me I would have to with...*thinks of a great military person that not obvious*... give me minute... *thinks harder* Sun tzu count? he made a frickin book about war -.-

Sun tzu did conquer a little empire so he could be in there.

Napoleon wins, as he won more battles than almost all of the proposed candidates combined.

More wins yes, but better commander no. This question refers to the greatest conqueror, not who has the wins. Territory, leadership, battlefield strategy, and impact are all or at least some things to consider when deciding the greatest commander.

I mean conqueror on the last sentence.

Napoleon created an entire ERA for Europe, and completely redefined the way wars were fought. He led the French (yes, the FRENCH) from being a weak post revolutionary nation to a full scale empire comparable to Rome. Keep in mind, this was not a crusade against far less advanced and developed surrounding barbarians, this was against military equals, and in many cases superiors. Napoleon was the greatest general to have ever lived, not only in tactic, but how he led. Unlike other generals of the era, he led his troops from the front, often charging in at the head of the line. He was never wasteful with the lives of his soldiers and designed his strategies so that they would survive the fray. Because of this, the French held him as a god-emperor, incapable of error. The only battle he lost (yes, waterloo was the only battle he ever lost) can be attributed more to the over-eagerness of his officers than a flaw on his end. Napoleon was, simply, perhaps the only example of military perfection there ever was.

That is why Napoleon is in this category. Because he was a great and valiant leader / self-appointed emperor. But you brought up Waterloo. Sun Tzu's Art of War clearly explains how. "By method and discipline are to be understood
the marshaling of the army in its proper subdivisions,
the graduations of rank among the officers, the maintenance
of roads by which supplies may reach the army, and the
control of military expenditure."