Re: Greatest Conquerer in History

by JumpingJet on Sun Jun 14, 2009 9:14 am

So yeh, why do people not agree with me saying Ceasar?

Just tell me why you dont agree and i will have a come back.

Come one then, bring 'em on.

Razz

by TNine on Sun Jun 14, 2009 2:17 pm

JumpingJet wrote:So yeh, why do people not agree with me saying Ceasar?

Just tell me why you dont agree and i will have a come back.

Come one then, bring 'em on.

Ceasar was a fantastic conquerer, he was, however, bested by Genghis.

by JumpingJet on Sun Jun 14, 2009 3:18 pm

Genghis maybe took more land but who killed an army or 1,000,000 Barbarians with a meer 5,000 Legionairs?

Plus Genghis just took land, he left it dead and with no goverment in place, Ceasar, took land and made it sustainable.

by TNine on Sun Jun 14, 2009 7:09 pm

JumpingJet wrote:Genghis maybe took more land but who killed an army or 1,000,000 Barbarians with a meer 5,000 Legionairs?

Plus Genghis just took land, he left it dead and with no goverment in place, Ceasar, took land and made it sustainable.

Barbarians? That's like saying Hitlers the best leaders cause he killed millions of jews with only a few thousand soldiers. Barbarians didn't really know to fight, and the Legionairs were trained for years.

Now Genghis was able to force his way through a small gap in the mountains against an enemy with superior position and numbers. Not easy, though he can be credited with his superb flanking maneuver over supposedly impassable mountains.

by Ringleader on Sun Jun 14, 2009 7:14 pm

Alexander the Great was better then Ceaser I think, but Khan's empire was a lot bigger.

by Zaki90 on Mon Jun 15, 2009 4:53 am

I think we need a criteria to base this.

1. How much land conquered?

2. What enemies?

3. Background?

4. Size of military?

5.Time

And if you want to calcuate "points":

1. How much land conquered?
( Subtract land from before power and after power, 1 for each 10 thousand)
3837081 sq miles

2. What enemies?
( Hard= 2 plus/ Medium= 1 plus/ Easy=0 plus)

3. Background?
( Economic, Millitary, enemies keeping a close eye, Each count as 1 Plus Sign)

4. Size of military?
(Each thousand troops count as 1)

5.Time

( How many years did it take to achieve the peak of conquered land and subtract that by the years in power. Multiply the time that land was held and add it)

by Felix on Mon Jun 15, 2009 12:15 pm

Zaki90 wrote:I think we need a criteria to base this.

1. How much land conquered?

2. What enemies?

3. Background?

4. Size of military?

5.Time

And if you want to calcuate "points":

1. How much land conquered?
( Subtract land from before power and after power, 1 for each 10 thousand)
3837081 sq miles

2. What enemies?
( Hard= 2 plus/ Medium= 1 plus/ Easy=0 plus)

3. Background?
( Economic, Millitary, enemies keeping a close eye, Each count as 1 Plus Sign)

4. Size of military?
(Each thousand troops count as 1)

5.Time

( How many years did it take to achieve the peak of conquered land and subtract that by the years in power. Multiply the time that land was held and add it)

Hmmm... there is math involved in this, so it's a bad idea.

by JumpingJet on Mon Jun 15, 2009 2:27 pm

Zaki90 wrote:I think we need a criteria to base this.

1. How much land conquered?

2. What enemies?

3. Background?

4. Size of military?

5.Time

And if you want to calcuate "points":

1. How much land conquered?
( Subtract land from before power and after power, 1 for each 10 thousand)
3837081 sq miles

2. What enemies?
( Hard= 2 plus/ Medium= 1 plus/ Easy=0 plus)

3. Background?
( Economic, Millitary, enemies keeping a close eye, Each count as 1 Plus Sign)

4. Size of military?
(Each thousand troops count as 1)

5.Time

( How many years did it take to achieve the peak of conquered land and subtract that by the years in power. Multiply the time that land was held and add it)

But, what about goverments set in place? Society?

Its not realy conquering if you just take land becuse then you just have a patch of grassland and buildings

by Zaki90 on Mon Jun 15, 2009 8:40 pm

JumpingJet wrote:

But, what about goverments set in place? Society?

Its not realy conquering if you just take land becuse then you just have a patch of grassland and buildings

Goverments and society count as background.

Land conquered. What is a conquerer if he has not conquered land?
With land comes people, power, and economy. Without land we have almost nothing.

Would space count as land nowadays?

by TNine on Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:24 am

This is a systematic argument, not a mathmatical equation.

No points.

by **BBJynne** on Thu Jun 18, 2009 2:31 am

JumpingJet wrote:So yeh, why do people not agree with me saying Ceasar?

Just tell me why you dont agree and i will have a come back.

Come one then, bring 'em on.

Ceasar underestimated the usefulness and threats of cavalry

he still kicked ass, but you wanted 1 reason

by TNine on Thu Jun 18, 2009 10:23 pm

BBJynne wrote:
JumpingJet wrote:So yeh, why do people not agree with me saying Ceasar?

Just tell me why you dont agree and i will have a come back.

Come one then, bring 'em on.

Ceasar underestimated the usefulness and threats of cavalry

he still kicked ass, but you wanted 1 reason

In his warfare they weren't very useful. His army was based around a formation, a wall, calvalry wasn't good for that. Enemy calvary would be stopped by a shield wall, since enemy horses would not charge into a shield wall anymore than a brick wall.

by Kislany on Thu Jun 18, 2009 10:45 pm

my vote still stands

by Cheese on Thu Jun 18, 2009 11:15 pm

Bacteria, by any criteria.

by TNine on Thu Jun 18, 2009 11:19 pm

Cheese wrote:Bacteria, by any criteria.

They haven't ever conquered. Killed, maybe, but they cannot take or hold land.