Conquered

[Mr. TM]

Who is the greatest conqueror of all time? This isn't the regular discussion in here, but I thought this is an interesting question. Some people believe that Alexander the Great from Macedonia, or his father Philip fill that role. How about Julius Caesar of Rome? The far east ruler known as Genghis Khan? An American president? Saladin?

My choice is John A. MacDonald. He was able to conquer the most land ever in one lifetime. He did it all with the stroke of a pen, when he was able to bring the lands of the Hudson's Bay Company, Rupert's Land into Canada. This large section of land, 4 million kilometers squared was brought into Canada, as well as the NorthWest Territories in one day. A couple years later, The entire state of British Columbia was also brought into Canada.

He was able to conquer more land then anyone else in a lifetime, and he did it in three years. He did it without gunfire, without losing morality, without hurting a single sole (Except for the Metis people). Sure, the land may not be the best land, but it is still significant. Who can top John A. MacDonald?

 

[Shadowmancer]

Ok let me get my teeth stuck into this one.

Military commanders of the last 100 years are pretty much automatically disqualified for being regarded as the greatest conquerors, this is because how do you measure a commander in the last 100 years? Is it the person in charge of the Nation? if that is the case then the greatest conquerors fall into two names, Stalin and Hitler. Why you may ask yourself why I put those names as the conquerors of the last 100 years, look at a map of Europe before June 6 1944, the Germans controlled almost all of Europe and managed to get right the way into Russia, it may not have lasted but that is conquest. The mention of Stalin is effectively the same, Russia conquered a shit load of European territory. Now this may be slightly Eurocentric in mesaying that but take into account that most European nations of the time were fairly decently armed for the time period, so to conquer the area is slightly more impressive. But I disqualified the last 100 years because of the fact that it was Generals fighting for a supreme leader that led to their conquests not them leading themselves.

going back in time, Ivan IV comes to mind as a great conqueror, he went from a small little area (in Russia, so it is pretty damned big) called Muscovy, he went and conquered a large majority of what is now European Russia. The Rule of thumb for Russian rulers up until around Peter was to keep secure of this area. Peter I is called the great for a reason the majority of the land that is on the Asian side of the urals came because of him, combined with the fact that he fought a King that people thought was the Bees knees in Charles XII of Sweden. Peter won this, he fought against Charles, as a gunner of some kind (I can't be bothered looking through my Riasanovsky to find out the proper stuff right now) Well he conquered the area that is now St. Petersburg. Catherine the Great is also a great conqueror the only problem is that she falls into the same problem that Modern conquerors suffer from.

Im tempted to split my response right now because if I don't it will rival 3 of Will's posts and a couple of Nofate posts all put together.

But first I will go through and point out a couple of Facts here, these facts rule out three of the historical figures that are mentioned. C. Julius Caesar is not the military commander that people seem to think he is, read the Gallic Wars if you don't believe me, He is nowhere near as good a commander as he makes himself out to be. Look at the failures he suffers, he takes no blame and puts it on others, the actual successes look for the importance of Titus Labienus in there, this is shown when Labienus defects to Pompey after Caesar crosses the Rubicon. The Importance of Labienus as a leader leads to questioning of Caesar as a general and conqueror. Ill show the way that you can discount Alexander and Phillip from being classified as great conquerors as well.

 

[Shadowmancer]

OK, time for my second installment in this thread, while it may be a double post I was tired when I posted what I posted and it isn't completely finished.

Now, I ended the last post by saying that you can discount Alexander III and Philip II, both of Macedon, as great conquerors, why you may ask, Philip did bring a kind of peace to a warring Northern Greece, and did take over from Thebes as the dominant region in Greece. "Conquering" Greece, which was not done it was manipulation into an alliance so, he didn't conquer fuck all, he won battles but he didn't conquer. Now Alexander is a different kettle of fish, why? Because he did conquer, the only problem is that it was a clusterfuck to the conquest, read the histories of Alexander, he was a useless strategist, bloody brilliant Tactically, but a useless strategist, he let his Athenian navy go home, and pretty much every port behind him was being recaptured that was onhis way down the coast. He focused on a relatively strategically useless city in Tyre just so he could pray at an alter of Heracles (different one from the one the Greeks knew, older as well). look at the way that the Bactrian campaign was run, it was a shambles, while facing nomadic warriors is difficult it isn't too hard to direct your troops to fight them in a different way after 3 or 4 losses not after 10-15. there is far more to direct against Alexander but I don't want to shatter peoples beliefs that he was a great general.

now onto some Ancient figures that I do feel have chances of being the greatest conquerors of their day. First lets start of with a Persian, Cyrus the Great. he conquered so much land, he conquered Media, Babylon, Lydia, conquering what is now Afghanistan, he died fighting the Scythians, his son took Egypt so making assumptions here, if he hadn't died Egypt would be in his grasp, he was the first ruler of Persia, his backstory is interesting if not repetitive of a certain Greek Tyranos but his back story is written in Herodotus, I think it is also covered in the Anabasis but I haven''t read that yet.
The next conqueror that I will say is Scipio Africanus, he conquered a large proportion of the Iberian peninsula during the second Punic war, he never lost, he beat Hannibal, he effectively conquered Carthage, he was the greatest Roman General until Marius and Sulla, then Pompey. Brennus is a possibility, him and his Gauls sacked Rome in 390 BC, scaring the shit out of the Romans, and making the Romans extremely scared of the Gauls right up until Rome starts conquering Gaul and other areas.

again this is going to be a very long post if I put it together I will come back with thoughts on Genghis Khan and a couple of other far Eastern Conquerors.

 

[Shadowmancer]

Its been awhile since I posted into this thread and I did say that I would.

Genghis Khan as a conqueror, conquered a vast amount of territory, check; did it completely, check; empire not falling to complete shit after his death, check. The Kahn gets put in this list because of numerous things that he did to gain this position. He did conquer land, but he was also a shrewd enough politician to be given the title of Genghis Kahn as opposed to his birth name of Temujin. The extent that the Mongol Empire reached is amazing for its vastness in that they were scaring the living shit out of the Hungarians and the Poles. So Genghis Khan is possibly the greatest conqueror ever since he did what no one else has ever or probably ever will do. Win a land war in Asia. (Rep points for the person that knows the full quote and the movie).

Sun Tzu is another conqueror of Asia that needs to be brought up. I don't know much about his work or his conquering, I know that he was a great general, and that his philosophical way of war is still widely read. but to still be known as a general after so many years is impressive due to the fact that most people nowadays do not know the names of some important Generals from World War 2.

 

[ServantofTwilight]

Its been awhile since I posted into this thread and I did say that I would.

Genghis Khan as a conqueror, conquered a vast amount of territory, check; did it completely, check; empire not falling to complete shit after his death, check. The Kahn gets put in this list because of numerous things that he did to gain this position. He did conquer land, but he was also a shrewd enough politician to be given the title of Genghis Kahn as opposed to his birth name of Temujin. The extent that the Mongol Empire reached is amazing for its vastness in that they were scaring the living shit out of the Hungarians and the Poles. So Genghis Khan is possibly the greatest conqueror ever since he did what no one else has ever or probably ever will do. Win a land war in Asia. (Rep points for the person that knows the full quote and the movie).

Sun Tzu is another conqueror of Asia that needs to be brought up. I don't know much about his work or his conquering, I know that he was a great general, and that his philosophical way of war is still widely read. but to still be known as a general after so many years is impressive due to the fact that most people nowadays do not know the names of some important Generals from World War 2.

You only think I guessed wrong! That's what's so funny! I switched glasses when your back was turned! Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is this: never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha...

The Princess Bride.

Edit: Just wanted to clear something up. I answered this because I knew the quote and the movie. I did not expect or need anyone to rep me. I was simply answering trivia which was asked in this thread.

It has been mentioned that I could have commented on the topic. While I found the topic interesting and am impressed with the knowledge displayed here...I am not as knowledgeable on the topic. While I certainly could have double talked my way through an answer/opinion, that seemed cheap. Sorry if I ruffled feathers.

 

[Mjolnir]

Genghis Kahn definatley... his legacy is still felt to this day in the way that societies work (taxation, currency, roads). He was smart enough to grant religious freedom and fund scientific endeavors in his conquered lands to keep the masses at ease, all while demanding they pay tribute. If there is any doubt to the might of his ability as a conquerer... just look at the area that was conquered during his reign (and the reign of his decendents)... we are talking about Central Asia, Russia, parts of China and India... basically the largest amount of conquered land in history. During World War II, both Allied and Axis powers were scrambling to translate the literary works that related his "military secrets", and luckily due to some well-timed bombing raids, the Germans never were able to distribute their translation. The ideas of Genghis Kahn were the foundations of successful military manuevers like the Blitzkreig... the most devestating tactic of WWII. If they had figured out how to organize and manuever their tank forces the way that Genghis organized and manuevered calvary units, we would all be eating Sauerkraut and this post would be in German. I recently read a book called "Genghis Kahn and the Making of the Modern World", which tells even more about his great wisdom and ability. I would go far enough to say that his influence in the history of the world is unmatched, not only as a conquerer, but all together... if he is not the #1 influential figure in history then it is a tie with Jesus

 

[HHH19KK]

This one is interesting. I would have to say Napolean. He was i believe in the battle of Trafalgar where he was outnumbered 25 to 1 with ships and he was sailing on the Nile and he won. Well done indeed, untill like hitler he ran into the cold, harsh lands of Russia

 

[Shadowmancer]

Napolean failed. He lost to Russia on favourable terrain, he did not actually fight at either of the two big sea battles of the Napoleonic Wars. I have a friend that is a huge Napoleon fan, and I have talked to her about it, but he isn't a great conqueror. Great General yes, fantastic one of the best there is no doubt about that but when you put him as a conqueror it pails in comparison to others that I have dismissed. and eliminated from my own criteria that it is tough to even come up with a greatest conqueror. Remember that Napoleon made it up through the ranks which is an impressive feat for the time but revolution and Monsieur Guillotine being a key part of his rise. Being a great conqueror means that you beat those that you should beat and by all intents and purposes he should have beaten Alexander I.

As for the Russian Campaign there is a great book out there called "1812: Napoleon's Fatal March on Moscow" by Adam Zamoyski. Well worth the read if you want to get further into the actual Russian Invasion. And for a general overview go for 'A History of Russia" by Nicholas Riasanovsky. And then there is another book called Russia's great empires or something like that. Both a very good books and are very useful as resources for knowledge on a still important player in the world geo-political bullcrap.

Hitler also never went anywhere near the frontline and never experienced the hardships that the troops faced. Napoleon was at least there.

 

[Shadowmancer]

I'm just going to keep going until someone actually disagree's with me and we can have a proper debate. Richard III is another failed conqueror, while he did capture Jerusalem during the third crusade. He failed to maintain a hold on it and it was subsequently lost back to Saladin's forces.

Edward Longshanks didn't conquer enough to be considered a top conqueror. Capturing scotland but not putting it under heel doesn't show up as one of the best conquerors out there. I know there are generally issues with the conquering of people and them being not happy over the fact that they lost. But to win and then fail is a feat in and of itself.

There could be a case argued for Sir Robert Cecil being an important conqueror but that was only about the succession of the English crown smoothly between England and Scotland after the death of Elizabeth I. But he was resented by the populace and did not have a fraction of the support that Sir Robert Devereaux the Earl of Essex. nost other conqueror's have a significant form of support from the general population for the actual conquering to occur.