Re: Greatest Conquerer in History

by Indecisive One. on Fri Mar 26, 2010 7:01 pm

Basically what that means is it was Napoleon's job to keep his officers in line. Its his fault as much as it is theirs.

by The Pariah on Fri Mar 26, 2010 7:03 pm

omfg you all must really hate us british

its not bast opinion but queen vic was the conquerer of all time

genghis khan was good but probably ranking second

by Ruski on Fri Mar 26, 2010 7:08 pm

Dud Doodoo wrote: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.

His campaign through Russia was successful for the most part as well...execpt he under-estimated the Russians and had not prepared for the Russian Winter.

by Indecisive One. on Fri Mar 26, 2010 7:13 pm

Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles
is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists
in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting. Kyle I was trying to follow up my point. Why are you always butting in? Just kidding. That was a good point.

by Indecisive One. on Fri Mar 26, 2010 7:15 pm

sargentbilco wrote:omfg you all must really hate us british

its not bast opinion but queen vic was the conquerer of all time

genghis khan was good but probably ranking second

When I think of conqueroring I think of Sun Tzu and Napoleon, not Queen Victoria. Sorry.

by Dud Doodoo on Fri Mar 26, 2010 7:36 pm

Ruski wrote:
Dud Doodoo wrote: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.

His campaign through Russia was successful for the most part as well...execpt he under-estimated the Russians and had not prepared for the Russian Winter.

He didn't underestimate them, he won against them every time. Like you said, he just didn't prepare for the winter.

by Ruski on Fri Mar 26, 2010 7:51 pm

Dud Doodoo wrote:
Ruski wrote:
Dud Doodoo wrote: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.

His campaign through Russia was successful for the most part as well...execpt he under-estimated the Russians and had not prepared for the Russian Winter.

He didn't underestimate them, he won against them every time. Like you said, he just didn't prepare for the winter.

He did underestimate them. They used the Scorched Earth tactic while also trading space for time. While it appeared he was winning, the Russians were just preparing even more in other locations.

So when he "won the location" they burned what he could use. Remember, they burned half of Moscow down to keep him from providing his soldiers shelter from the winter.

by Indecisive One. on Fri Mar 26, 2010 7:57 pm

The scorched Earth policy. So exactly what conqueror are you pullin for?

by The Pariah on Fri Mar 26, 2010 8:05 pm

Pancakes are amazing! wrote:
sargentbilco wrote:omfg you all must really hate us british

its not bast opinion but queen vic was the conquerer of all time

genghis khan was good but probably ranking second

When I think of conqueroring I think of Sun Tzu and Napoleon, not Queen Victoria. Sorry.

yes because a woman cant conquer... chauvinist

by Gauz on Fri Mar 26, 2010 8:08 pm

Joan of Arc!!!

^women conquerer

by Indecisive One. on Fri Mar 26, 2010 8:23 pm

sargentbilco wrote:
Pancakes are amazing! wrote:
sargentbilco wrote:omfg you all must really hate us british

its not bast opinion but queen vic was the conquerer of all time

genghis khan was good but probably ranking second

When I think of conqueroring I think of Sun Tzu and Napoleon, not Queen Victoria. Sorry.

yes because a woman cant conquer... chauvinist

I meant no offense to you or your country's history. I just meant that these are the people we have learned in school. When we learn about joan of arc or queen victoria the I'll think of them as conquerors. I don't talk about what I don't know.

by The Pariah on Fri Mar 26, 2010 8:42 pm

never said you insulted my county or even implied it... patronizing bastard

by **Angatar** on Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:47 pm

Gauz wrote:Joan of Arc!!!

^women conquerer

Didn't really conquer, but she repelled the British.

by The Pariah on Fri Mar 26, 2010 11:05 pm

yeah and she did it rather well

by Spartan15 on Mon Mar 29, 2010 3:48 am

Well i'd definitely rule out Adolph Hitler as one of the greatest conquerers of all time. Nothing more than a murderer and callous bastard. Not exactly sure who i'd chose as the " greatest conquerer".