20-09-2004 12:27									#331
	Support Apolyton

Huh?

	20-09-2004 18:24									#332
	Suffering from ads?

Heresson, yes. Exactly. Caesar would not have been treated so kindly if he had eventually lead his army deep into Parthia as he had planned and lost it, and then most of the Empire, as did Napoleon in Russia.

	20-09-2004 18:31									#333
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I think you have to consider both aspects of a conqueror: 1) did he actually extend the empire; and 2) in doing so, did he defeat an enemy that was his equal or superior?

Clearly Napoleon fails due to 1.
Alexander is questionable due to 2.
Ghengis Khan is also questionable due to 2.
Caesar cleary meets both criteria quite comfortably -- as also did Scipio as well.

	20-09-2004 18:37									#334
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Genghis started as a banned chief of a small tribe. His enemies WERE superior.
Caesar's enemies were not superior to him at all.

	20-09-2004 18:48									#335
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Heresson, I said at least as good.

But, consider that at Alesia Caesar was surrounded by and surrounded a commander that had previously defeated him. He then went on to defeat a Roman commander, Pompey, who, until he was defeated, was one of Rome greatest conquerors ever and whom, at the time of his defeat, had most of the resources of the Empire on his side.

	20-09-2004 18:52									#336
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Heresson Genghis started as a banned chief of a small tribe. His enemies WERE superior. Caesar's enemies were not superior to him at all.

Sounds like Atilla or Timor the Lame. Ghenghis was not the only man to unify previously warring tribes under one command. But, after that, who did he meet on the field of combat that was his equal in terms of troops or previous victories?

	20-09-2004 18:54									#337
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

One Alesia doesn't change everything.
Pompey was a great general - perhaps, but Pont was already weakened, Armenia was never a superpower, and Syria was in chaos. The only thing He really did well was the fight against pirates.
Also, Pompey lost against Caesar only because pesky senators that were with him didn't want to accept all of his plans.
Also, he did have support of majority of the empire, but not at hand, and Caesar had the state treasury and Italy in his hands.

	20-09-2004 18:57									#338
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Ned Sounds like Atilla or Timor the Lame. Ghenghis was not the only man to unify previously warring tribes under one command. But, after that, who did he meet on the field of combat that was his equal in terms of troops or previous victories?

Everyone, until He started being the conqueror.
Kereits were originally as strong

	20-09-2004 19:47									#339
	Increase Your PM Length

Striker Warriors Clan

	21-09-2004 02:51									#340
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Ned I think you have to consider both aspects of a conqueror: 1) did he actually extend the empire; and 2) in doing so, did he defeat an enemy that was his equal or superior? Clearly Napoleon fails due to 1. Alexander is questionable due to 2. Ghengis Khan is also questionable due to 2. Caesar cleary meets both criteria quite comfortably -- as also did Scipio as well.

Your criteria is absolutely ridiculous. You definitely need to read the first post I ever made here. There are simply TOO MANY sides and points to consider when evaluating the 'greatest conqueror ever'. I mean come on, ever wondered why historians are disinclined to give historical figures such titles? How come a few no-life internet losers could figure out the answer when all the world's greatest minds couldn't? As I mentioned before, you're simply observing basic elements like total square miles conquered. I at least commend you for including the relative strengths of the enemy, because those definitely are relevant, but confining such a prestigious title to so few intervals is an egregious mistake. And, in a way, all of us, including me, can be accused of having made this mistake. I really haven't layed out a concrete case for why Napoleon would be the greatest, but that's because to do so I'd need a book. Anyway, I will evaluate your considerations. Let's start with the first....1) did he actually extend the empire?....I was going to ask if you meant this question in the sense of at one point in time, or by the time of the person's death. But it's plainly obvious what you meant now (the latter). In that sense, Napoleon failed. The Congress of Vienna reduced France to her pre-Revolutionary borders. How Alexander and Khan are questionable in your eyes is beyond me. But then I realized your Caesar-first agenda and all became starkly clear. Alexander and Khan succeeded in the first count. In terms of square miles annexed, Khan holds the top spot in all of history and if you neophytes feel that is justification enough to declare someone 'the greatest conqueror ever' then by all means go ahead. If this is the loosely-held system of what entails a great conqueror, then I should like to add Mahmud of Ghazni to our list. He conquered more than Caesar. Oh and not ONLY THAT.....but, to get to your second proviso, he repeatedly defeated enemies with armies MUCH larger than his own and virtually as competent. Where is he on your lists? I heartily believe that Ghazni is far more compatible with your conditions than Caesar.......I'll let you ponder that over...

	21-09-2004 02:58									#341
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Ned UberCryxic, sure there are differences in details between Andrianople and Russia, but both had the same effect: decimation of the Empire's field army, from which both Empires never fully recovered. They are also similar in that both events could have been avoided if the respective Emperors had been just a little more cautious. Also compare the Athenians loosing its field army at Syracuse. That whole adventure was unnecessary and Athens never fully recovered.

You're marginalizing the differences in those details a bit too much there buddy. Our concern here is who the greatest commander is, and I'm implying that you can fault Napoleon's poor decision for invading Russia in the first place, but you can't barrage his battlefield conduct too heavily (at Borodino, he had a cold and bladder problems and so was forced to sit the fight out). We are analyzing only the military wisdom of our respective candidates. Valens made a military mistake. He didn't wait for the western army on its way. Napoleon made a political mistake, namely, the invasion itself (he made slight blunders militarily during the campaign, but none to the scale of Valens; his prime mistake remains just invading Russia). I'm basically telling you to back off the Valens-like-Napoleon comparison, unless you want your penis castrated......honestly, no bs.....Napoleon is on a whole other plane when analyzed against Valens.

	21-09-2004 03:06									#342
	Remove this text

You're marginalizing the differences in those details a bit too much there buddy. Our concern here is who the greatest commander is, and I'm implying that you can fault Napoleon's poor decision for invading Russia in the first place, but you can't barrage his battlefield conduct too heavily (at Borodino, he had a cold and bladder problems and so was forced to sit the fight out). We are analyzing only the military wisdom of our respective candidates. Valens made a military mistake. He didn't wait for the western army on its way. Napoleon made a political mistake, namely, the invasion itself (he made slight blunders militarily during the campaign, but none to the scale of Valens; his prime mistake remains just invading Russia). I'm basically telling you to back off the Valens-like-Napoleon comparison, unless you want your penis castrated......honestly, no bs.....Napoleon is on a whole other plane when analyzed against Valens.

	21-09-2004 04:44									#343
	Support Apolyton

Uber, I once had a management training class that studied the movie the Bridge on the River Kwai. In the movie, the Brit commander was clearly superior to the Japanese commander in virtually everything except keeping the ultimate goal in mind. His job #1 was to assure that the bridge would fail. The Japanese commander's job #1 was to see that bridge was build on time. The Japanese commander succeeded and was the better manager.

If one wins battle after battle after battle and has temporary success but long term failure in extending the Emprie, there is no doubt that that person is a great General, just like the British commander, but in the final analysis, he is a failure as a conqueror.

Napoleon clearly was a great general. But he lost in the end. This places him on the same footing as Valens, the Athenians at Syracuse and, for that matter, Hannibal.

	21-09-2004 05:17									#344
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Uber, I like Alexander, Caesar and Scipio. Each had tremendous impacts on history and each was clearly a very competent military commander.

Hannibal started a war that ended in the final destruction of Carthage. He obviously was a failure. Napoleon not only lost the Empire, but he restored the French monarchy.

	21-09-2004 05:22									#345
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Hey, do not mix II punic with III punic...
I guess You know the difference, but...

	21-09-2004 05:35									#346
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Ned Uber, I once had a management training class that studied the movie the Bridge on the River Kwai. In the movie, the Brit commander was clearly superior to the Japanese commander in virtually everything except keeping the ultimate goal in mind. His job #1 was to assure that the bridge would fail. The Japanese commander's job #1 was to see that bridge was build on time. The Japanese commander succeeded and was the better manager. If one wins battle after battle after battle and has temporary success but long term failure in extending the Emprie, there is no doubt that that person is a great General, just like the British commander, but in the final analysis, he is a failure as a conqueror. Napoleon clearly was a great general. But he lost in the end. This places him on the same footing as Valens, the Athenians at Syracuse and, for that matter, Hannibal.

.....oook well I understand a little better now what you're trying to say. Although I strongly disagree...on the following terms: 1) Be sure not to say "was on the same footing" because that implies "same footing" in terms of skill, at least to most that read it. It is true that ultimately Valens and Napoleon were both ultimately losers, but what's untrue because it borders on the devious is you eschewing the circumstances behind their ultimate losses. Napoleon had an entire continent against him, Valens only one army. Thus you can't place them "on the same footing" because Napoleon's loss was less calamitous. It took Europe three years after the Russian disaster in 1812 to finally remove him, whereas Valens suffered loss of grace in history's eyes in one battle.

"If one wins battle after battle after battle and has temporary success but long term failure in extending the Emprie, there is no doubt that that person is a great General, just like the British commander, but in the final analysis, he is a failure as a conqueror." --- I'm not certain I see the correlation with Napoleon and the British commander. In the movie you referrenced the commander as being superior to the Japanese one in every respect. Well does that include a strategic mindset? Because I can tell you in that area Napoleon wasn't lacking. Napoleon was the greatest strategist ever. Hell, look strategy up in the dictionary and you'll find his picture. To reiterate, this British commander must've been superior to the Japanese one in materiel only. Also, you failed to specify the degree of superiority. The issue is nuanced and unfortunately you failed to provide the adequate analysis.

"Napoleon clearly was a great general. But he lost in the end. This places him on the same footing as Valens, the Athenians at Syracuse and, for that matter, Hannibal." --- This is blatant contradiction like I've ever seen any. You can't call Napoleon a "great general" then proceed to rank him alongside Valens. Napoleon was ultimately a loser, but overall a winner. He fought 12 major campaigns in his life and ended with a 7-5 record. Here are the campaigns he directed personally, along with a short description of what happened:

1.First Italian Campaign, 1796-97: Win. Napoleon continuously holds off and defeats larger Austrian armies. This campaign would be studied at military academies throughout the 19th century.

2.Egyptian Campaign, 1798-99: Loss. The French fight four land battles (Chobrakit, the Pyramids, Jaffa, and Aboukir) and win them all. Their naval disaster at Aboukir Bay, however, dooms the expedition. Napoleon sails back to France in the summer of 1799.

3.Second Italian Campaign, 1800: Win. Napoleon uberowns the Austrians at Marengo. One of the greatest campaigns in history.

4.Austrian Campaign, 1805: Win. Napoleon defeats the Russo-Austrian army at Austerlitz. End of Third Coalition.

5.Prussian Campaign, 1806: Win. Napoleon crushes the Prussians at Jena and Auerstadt (won by Davout).

6.Polish Campaign, 1807: Win. Friedland...need I say more?

7.Spanish Campaign, 1808-09: Win. Napoleon invades Spain in November, 1808 and pwns the Spanish armies, forcing the British to withdraw from the Peninsula as well.

8.Danube Campaign, 1809: Win. Napoleon defeats Austria again. 4th time in 13 years....sigh....

9.Russian Campaign, 1812: Loss. 95,000 come out alive...this out of 600,000 that went in.

10.German Campaign, 1813: Loss. Leipzig....

11.French Campaign, 1814: Loss. Allies depose him...

12.Hundred Days Campaign, 1815: Loss. Waterloo ends his career permanently.

7-5...

I realize to gage his career this way is crude, but you've almost forced me to do it, just so I could dispel any thoughts clouding your mind about him being some sort of "loser". Conquest isn't necessarily about the win and the loss. Sometimes it's about the ideas, the dreams, the legacies, and the hopes. No era in history has left a larger print on war annals than the Napoleonic Era. The Corps system he helped institute would form the strategic building block for 19th and 20th century armies. In this sense, Napoleon's influence was longer than Alexander's, who watched 'from the grave' as just a century and a half after his death the prized phalanx system was eaten alive by the legion (although we can debate whether this was due to the strength of the legion or the incompetency of Macedonian commanders. For example, Pyrrhus utilized the phalanx system and constantly defeated Roman armies employing legions). Napoleon's concepts still endure, even though technology has dramatically altered the tactical side of warfare. Let me give you a rundown of post-Napoleonic military thinking: there were basically two schools (in the area I'm covering...don't get ideas here). Those that saw divided armies as opportunity, and those that saw them as liabilities. Napoleon saw them as an opportunity, and decades after his death in 1866, the Prussians, led by the legendary Moltke, trounced the Austrian armies through the very system of divided corps. And you see it even today: armies never move like they did in the 18th century as a singular unit; they are always spread out and intent on encircling.

	21-09-2004 05:40									#347
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by UberCryxic Why would you say something like this? Napoleon's forces marched way over 1,000 miles in his 1805-1807 stint that saw the defeat of Austria, Prussia, and Russia (and if we're counting the return trip and the Spanish campaign of late 1808 and early 1809 then there's a lot of mileage there buddy).

And this is somehow superior to the thousands of miles the Macedonian army marched some 2000 years before Napoleon?

The French army spent a lot of its time marching around in circles because unlike Alexander, Napoleon proved quite unable to decisively defeat his main enemies.

	21-09-2004 06:00									#348
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Heresson Hey, do not mix II punic with III punic... I guess You know the difference, but...

I know the difference H. But there is no doubt that the last punic war was Rome just finishing Carthage off. The cause of Carthage's weakness was its loss in the Second Punic War.

	21-09-2004 06:38									#349
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Of course, but note that Hannibal wanted to conduct reforms in the state; perhaps if He was successful in that...
Rome was a class higher from the start

	21-09-2004 06:56									#350
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Alexander's Horse And this is somehow superior to the thousands of miles the Macedonian army marched some 2000 years before Napoleon? The French army spent a lot of its time marching around in circles because unlike Alexander, Napoleon proved quite unable to decisively defeat his main enemies.

Hey dude I'm not interested in your who's-got-the-bigger-penis comparisons. My post was supposed to rectify your statement that Napoleon had no 'great march'. I showed that he did. Take it or leave it. Now I have a bone to pick with your second paragraph.....By 1807 Napoleon had decisively defeated the armies of Austria, Russia, and Prussia. In July, 1807 he signed the Treaty of Tilsit with Russian Czar Alexander I. He could've just as easily annexed Prussia, Austria, and then enter Russia for full-scale conquest to make Alexander's and Khan's efforts seem paltry, but those weren't his intentions. Napoleon wanted to dominate France's powerful neighbors, not necessarily "conquer" them. That's why I deplore the square mile comparisons....Napoleon never played that 'kind of game'. Anyway, saying Napoleon didn't decisively defeat his opponents shows a lot about your knowledge of Napoleonic warfare. Here, start by enlightening yourself on the following battles/engagements: Ulm (1805), Austerlitz (1805), Jena (1806), Auerstadt (1806), Friedland (1807).

	21-09-2004 08:11									#351
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by UberCryxic How come a few no-life internet losers could figure out the answer

I'm sure you are excluding yourself from this group.

quote: when all the world's greatest minds couldn't?

Such as? You?

	21-09-2004 08:12									#352
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by UberCryxic Hey dude I'm not interested in your who's-got-the-bigger-penis comparisons.

The question is moot.

Ted Striker has the biggest penis.

	21-09-2004 08:26									#353
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I WAS including myself....just to clarify....but it was a playful comment; nothing substantive.....

	21-09-2004 08:27									#354
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

What about my penis comment?

	21-09-2004 09:02									#355
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I'd rather take on Napoleon than Alexander any day. Napoleon was predictable - fought the same boring battle every time. Alexander was wild - one of the boldest generals ever, completely fearless.

	21-09-2004 09:03									#356
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Reminds me of myself.

	21-09-2004 09:09									#357
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

what? boring?

	21-09-2004 11:14									#359
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Sorry, but I'll approach the issue from another angle. Here's what made me decide on who is the greatest conqueror:

The candidates discussed here belong to very different ages with different conditions and circumstances. It is very difficult to provide an adequate comparison between them including all the matierial and immaterial factors as there are so many aspects to discuss for each candidate and his circumstance (Alexander the Great and Napoleon lived 2100 years apart, right?).

On the other hand, if I may call it, the "known world criterion" provides us with a handy shortcut tool. The extent of the known world seems like a rough but good yardstick by which to judge the overall difficulty of a military enterprise in any given age. The extent of the known world must be directly related to the difficulties of conquest in any age.

On that score, Alexander is the greatest conqueror of all time. He conquered almost all of the known world in the 4th century BCE. Nobody ever comes close, not even Genghis Khan, let alone Napoleon, with all due respect to his military genius

	21-09-2004 14:47									#360
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Ancryrean, the Greeks at the time of Alexander knew the Carthaginians and Romans. As well, Alexander's men panicked and wanted no more of India after the encounter with Porus and his elephants.

So much for the "known-world" argument.