Greatest Conquerer in History

Ghangis Khan and Hitler.

Both dominated

Are you kidding? Hitler? Are you retarded?

Oh wai...

Angatar wrote:Are you kidding? Hitler? Are you retarded?

Oh wai...

Hitler almost controlled all of Europe and nearly destroyed England. He also got lots of people to kill 6 million Jews for the some crazy reason. He had some pretty insane leadership skills.

He could of made a man jump off a cliff for no reason execpt to furfill a "final solution".

And fixed the German economy in almost 6 years.

... He did all of this in 6 years even though Germany lost land during the Treaty of Versasslis (spelling), German government was broke, and the great deppression had deep effect on everyone.

He beat Poland with a surprise attack.
He attacked Belgium to get to France.
France auto-loses.
He broke a treaty with Russia.

He was a great conqueror, as he just attacked random countries for no real reason.

Germany lost because of Hitler.

Angatar wrote:He beat Poland with a surprise attack.
He attacked Belgium to get to France.
France auto-loses.
He broke a treaty with Russia.

He was a great conqueror, as he just attacked random countries for no real reason.

Germany lost because of Hitler.

He was crazy. He just felt like attacking. Probably the drugs.

he attacked Russia because it had such a high population of Jews and Slavs, both of which he HATED

that's my view

Lets not forget that he hated communists.

Oh Van der Lubbe. You have an awesome name.

Genghis Khan overcame much larger forces, and had much more land than Hitler. He also wasn't absoultely insane.

Angatar wrote:

TNine wrote:One of Genghis Khan's Generals, Tsubodai, routed a 12,000 man army with 750 men.

More with just Genghis, i don't believe Genghis has ever been in control and lost a battle.

I think I'm the greatest general, as in Medieval II: Total War I routed a full army from the late game with 3 battalions of peasents.

Pssh, that's nothing. I've killed about 1200 enemies of a higher tech level with only like 150 guys. (by 1200 I mean about 1500, and by 150, I mean about 300, but they did suck)

So you exaggerated? Congrats.

When I say I did it, they actually did. 3 battalions of peasents v. Feudal Knights, Dismounted Feudal Knights, Yeoman Archers, and Heavy Levy Men should not end well for the peasents, but it did!

Siege battles don't count.

My point still stands that Ghangis Khan fought and won less battles than Napoleon. Napoleon only lost ONE battle, and that was with terrible health.

Also consider that; Ghangis Khan, Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, and Hitler were all fighting technologically inferior opponents.

last I checked, Ghangis Khan was using nomads (with awesome tactics and strategy) against the most high-end armies of the day.

Their weaponry was superior. The mongol bow, and their cavalry tactics outmatched almost every army the mongols face. The only reason the mongol empire fell was because of the plague

dragoon9105 wrote:Their weaponry was superior. The mongol bow, and their cavalry tactics outmatched almost every army the mongols face. The only reason the mongol empire fell was because of the plague

Actually, the mongols used inferior weapons to the chinese, but they used supperior tactics.

The main reason the mongols fell, was because they became "civilized" and lost their barbarian heritage basically.

No the plague decimating them, your thinking of the huns who became "civilized". The mongols kept their empire until the black death appeared. Then their empire crumbled essentially.