02-09-2004 04:50									#211
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Velociryx Heresson! -=Vel=-

Thank You. Tell me your state to let me give it to You as a fief when I conquer it.

	02-09-2004 04:51									#212
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara His father conquered Greece.

Stop being a nit - yes, we know that - but after Philip's death the Greek city states revolted en masse and Alexander was forced to subdue them, which he did in a lightening campaign.

This was the first test of his leadership and generalship - and probably most importantly consolidated his kingship against pretenders.

One of Alexander's most remarkable qualities was his ability to sum up a situation and act decisively. Sounds easy but he makes the right decision in battle after battle and then acts quickly on his insights. The ability to quickly sum up and act separates great generals from the rest.

This is really what brings Darius undone. Alexander constantly wrong foots him even when Darius has got into a winning position. Future generals from Caesar through to Napoleon all studied his battles with admiration.

The fact that he was only in his late teens and early 20's during his most famous victories makes it all the more remarkable. He was probably helped greatly by his father's generals and his veteran army but at the end of the day it is Alexander who calls the shots.

Another legendary quality was his fearlessness in battle. He led the cavalry and it was the Macedonian shock cavalry that won the battles with hair raising charges into the mass of the enemy.

	02-09-2004 05:00									#213
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by OliverFA Were are Pizarro? And Cortes?

Numerous factors, only one of which was smallpox, make his victories much less likely to indicate some military genius.

A good comparison would be Iraq - do you think the generals who planned the attack were military geniuses?

	02-09-2004 05:11									#214
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Heraclius was a great conqueror. He got the empire consisting of roman Africa and several isolated points in Balkans, Italy and Greece, and reconquered Anatoly, Armenia, Syria, part of Mesopotamia, Egypt - but He lost most of it to Arabs soon.
Basilios Bulgaroktonos was a great general too.
Of Turks, Orchan, Murad II, Selim the Cruel and many others.
In Poland, I can only say Boleslaw Chrobry, who conquared Czechs/Moravians, Slovakians, subdued militarily Ruthenia (Ukraine/Russia/Byelorus), conquered some other stuff such as southern half of former democratic Germany, parts of Prussia. But this was only regional.
Gustav Adolph?
Charlemagne?

	02-09-2004 05:16									#215
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

South Carolina, good sir...and a fine fief it shall be!

-=Vel=-

	02-09-2004 05:20									#216
	Inflate your Upload Space

You and your sons will inherit South Karolina. As my loyal vassal, I grant You North Karolina too, but only for You, your sons will return it to the Empire.
Heresson dixit

	02-09-2004 05:37									#217
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by OliverFA I disagree. But anyway, this is your thread. In that case, were is Smallpox the Conqueror?

Right up there with bubonic plague and Spanish influenza.

The bubonic plague gets the 14th Century as its own, to keep in perpetuity, and Spanish Influenza gets the first half of the 20th Century for finishing off the job that WWI started, and reaching more places (Spitsbergen, the Canadian Arctic, and isolated South Pacific islands).

Cortes and Pizarro were undoubtedly helped by European introduced diseases, and not just smallpox (as the Spanish noted, one of their African slaves had brought a live dose with him) and also by diseases nowadays not thought fatal, such as measles, but also the enmity of conquered peoples in Central and South America to the Aztec and Inca rulers.


The Aztecs had only relatively recently imposed their dominion on others in Central America, so there were ready made allies for the conquistadors. Similarly in the Incan Empire, there had been a civil war and the conquest of other states which made for eager allies for the Spanish.

Diseases brought along trading routes from Central America to the furthermost Incan outposts softened up the empire for the Spanish.

It should be said the Mongols had similar luck in defeating the Khwarizm khanate who had alienated a good many of their subjects through the use of despotic rule and tyrannical local governors.

	02-09-2004 05:47									#218
	Suffering from ads?

Pizarro was a freaking idiot. He gave up the element of surprise and goodwill of the natives byattacking and looting the first little village they came to after leaving San Mateo Bay, for a very small financial gain. Disease and the Inca civil war were his best friends.

	02-09-2004 06:43									#219
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Heresson Heraclius was a great conqueror. He got the empire consisting of roman Africa and several isolated points in Balkans, Italy and Greece, and reconquered Anatoly, Armenia, Syria, part of Mesopotamia, Egypt - but He lost most of it to Arabs soon. Basilios Bulgaroktonos was a great general too. Of Turks, Orchan, Murad II, Selim the Cruel and many others. In Poland, I can only say Boleslaw Chrobry, who conquared Czechs/Moravians, Slovakians, subdued militarily Ruthenia (Ukraine/Russia/Byelorus), conquered some other stuff such as southern half of former democratic Germany, parts of Prussia. But this was only regional. Gustav Adolph? Charlemagne?

Speaking of the Romans of that era, I think that Belisarius was great as well.

	02-09-2004 06:59									#220
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Oh, yes, but He wouldn't have conquered Italy without Narses.

	02-09-2004 07:09									#221
	Put an end to popups!

H-man, you're on!

-=Vel=-

	02-09-2004 07:26									#222
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

and out, and in, and below, and up, and in between. Heresson is everywhere. Heresson is.

	02-09-2004 07:27									#223
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

(an aside to Heresson)
You know...the whole reason I set up my home network (3 workstations so far) is so we could get some KILLER EU2 games going...

-=Vel=-

	02-09-2004 07:36									#224
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Ah, I can't play EU2 right now. I'm learning for an important exam. uh uh what am I doing here?

	02-09-2004 07:37									#225
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Give in to the power of the Dark Side...

-=Vel=-

	02-09-2004 09:18									#226
	Remove this text

Actually, Genghis Khan cannot be given credit for conquering China, or the Steppes in Russia, as those came after his death.

So I am torn between Napoleon, and Hitler, given that Hitler managed to conquer in the span of 10 years:

1. The Rhineland and the demilitarised zone of the Ruhr.
2. Achieved anschluss with Austria.
3. Ceded the Sudetenland
4. Ran over the Czechs, and dismembered Czechoslovakia.
5. Rome Berlin alliance with Mussolini.
6. Allied with Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria and Finland.
6. Crushed Poland
7. Crushed Norway.
8. Ran through France, Belgium and the Netherlands.
9. Vichy gave him most f Northern Africa
10. Invaded Yugoslavia.
11. Invaded Greece and Crete
12. Invaded Egypt.
13. Conquered large swaths of the Soviet Union.

Territory-wise, the area he conquered tops Napoleon and Caesar, so he should definately be included among those conquerers.

	02-09-2004 09:24									#227
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Actually, Genghis Khan cannot be given credit for conquering China, or the Steppes in Russia, as those came after his death. So I am torn between Napoleon, and Hitler, given that Hitler managed to conquer in the span of 10 years: 1. The Rhineland and the demilitarised zone of the Ruhr. 2. Achieved anschluss with Austria. 3. Ceded the Sudetenland 4. Ran over the Czechs, and dismembered Czechoslovakia. 5. Rome Berlin alliance with Mussolini. 6. Allied with Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria and Finland. 6. Crushed Poland 7. Crushed Norway. 8. Ran through France, Belgium and the Netherlands. 9. Vichy gave him most f Northern Africa 10. Invaded Yugoslavia. 11. Invaded Greece and Crete 12. Invaded Egypt. 13. Conquered large swaths of the Soviet Union. Territory-wise, the area he conquered tops Napoleon and Caesar, so he should definately be included among those conquerers.

To be fair given that the title of the thread is just 'greatest conquerer' and since Hitlers empire was the shortest lived of those listed and as we can regard his methods as the least commendable I think it is safe to say Hitler needn't be even considered for title of Greatest Conquerer.

	02-09-2004 09:28									#228
	Suffering from ads?

And how long did Napoleon rule over Europe? The periods are comparable.

quote: we can regard his methods as the least commendable

And the great Khan had better methods?

No dice. You just don't like Hitler, but the fact remains that he is a conqueror worthy of the title.

	02-09-2004 09:45									#229
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Actually, Genghis Khan cannot be given credit for conquering China, or the Steppes in Russia, as those came after his death. So I am torn between Napoleon, and Hitler, given that Hitler managed to conquer in the span of 10 years: 1. The Rhineland and the demilitarised zone of the Ruhr. 2. Achieved anschluss with Austria. 3. Ceded the Sudetenland 4. Ran over the Czechs, and dismembered Czechoslovakia. 5. Rome Berlin alliance with Mussolini. 6. Allied with Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria and Finland. 6. Crushed Poland 7. Crushed Norway. 8. Ran through France, Belgium and the Netherlands. 9. Vichy gave him most f Northern Africa 10. Invaded Yugoslavia. 11. Invaded Greece and Crete 12. Invaded Egypt. 13. Conquered large swaths of the Soviet Union. Territory-wise, the area he conquered tops Napoleon and Caesar, so he should definately be included among those conquerers.

The difference being, a) Hitler was by no means a military genius, and b) conquering a larger area isn't as impressive with greater technology.

	02-09-2004 10:25									#230
	Tired of ads?

Why?

Consider the First World war. They were much more technologically advanced, yet that advantage did not translate into territorial gains.

quote: a) Hitler was by no means a military genius,

What constitutes a conqueror? Must all of them be military geniuses?

	02-09-2004 10:27									#231
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Hitler was hardly a successful conquerer - in 6 short years he won and lost the lot.

	02-09-2004 10:30									#232
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

My vote goes for Rhodes

What a *****

	02-09-2004 10:31									#233
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

So what about Napoleon? He won and lost the lot too.

	02-09-2004 19:10									#234
	Remove this text

The Hitler suggestion raises a point. Are we talking about only those who actually commanded troops in battle as part of their conquest or are those who sat at the top and gave general orders about where their armies should march eligible. My impression was the first option so Hitler doesn't qualify.

I consider it to be a three way call between Alexander, Ghengis Khan and Napoleon. I still think Alexander got a head start the other two didn't and the first few steps on the road can be the hardest.

	02-09-2004 19:42									#235
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Alexander was a great conquerer, but in my opinion he actually had the advantage. Darius could not easily take his big army along to the west, because usurpers could easily take control then, he needed to rely on satraps, and his army was a combination of various peoples with different customs, languages, their own leaders. It's hard fighting like that against an opponent that is much better organized. The only advantage Darius had was that he had endless funds and supply lines, and Alexander had more problems with that

Why doesn't the superior organization of his forces count in Alexander's favor as a great conqueror? Surely that's part of his skill.

	02-09-2004 21:24									#236
	Increase the size of your Attachments

The technological advantage issue is an important consideration. Alexander won in part due to better armor, equipment and training. GK had a tremendous advantage in technology as well. They also used rockets, technology with which Western armies had no experience.

That is why I like Caesar and to some extent Napolean. Caesar beat Pompey, the foremost Roman general of his time, and clearly Caesar's equal in most respects. His conquests in Gaul, Germany and Britain were less impressive because he faced enemies with inferior technology, even if they had vastly superior numbers.

	03-09-2004 02:12									#237
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Caesar didn't conquer Germany nor Britain. Btw., is they guy in your avatar You?

	03-09-2004 02:43									#238
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Why doesn't the superior organization of his forces count in Alexander's favor as a great conqueror? Surely that's part of his skill.

His army was organized and disciplined already, it's not an innovation of his. Darius was an average organizer, and he was weak on the military front. Had he faced great Persian conquerers such as Cyrus the Great Alexander surely wouldn't have won in the way he did against Darius III. Also had Darius himself been a bit more courageous he could have had better results. It's the same thing every time; If the general flees the battle, the troops follow his example; in Darius' case, he fled when the fight had hardly begun. That's not a good way to win battles. So Alexander was a bit lucky to face such a weak general

	03-09-2004 06:44									#239
	Increase Your PM Length

That would be true if Alexander faced Darius in all his battles but he only faced him twice - at Issus and Gaugamela. Very important battles to be sure but only 2. Other battles like Granicus were equally important.

Secondly, both battles were more close run things than you make out and both were backs-to-the-wall affairs for the Greeks. Where the Persians could regroup with their almost unlimited resources, as they did after Issus, Alexander's army could not. For the Macedonians both Issus and Gaugamela were win or die affairs.

This probably goes some way to explain why Darius fled the field in both battles - he believed he could fight another day. Unfortunately for him, the Persian nobles did not agree after Gaugamela and killed him. Similarly the Macedonians fought very hard in all their battles because they knew would never get home if they lost.

	07-09-2004 05:41									#240
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Wellington beat Napoleon. Nappy was the better general, but he made a mistake and lost.

I don't want to be mean but your comment almost forces me to. Obviously you know squat about the Waterloo Campaign. First of all, let's dispel some myths. Britain didn't beat Napoleon there. 1/3 of Wellington's army was British, the rest were mostly Dutch and Belgians. Now to the actual Battle of Waterloo...most, if not all, historians will tell you that had Blucher not arrived in time Wellington would've lost the battle. The Prussian assault on the French right tied down an entire corps, Lobau's VI, plus battallions of the Young and Old Imperial Guard. Ney's suicidal cavalry charges were crazy, but it appears that several British squares had been virtually destroyed and that the British center was teetering on collapse. ENTER BLUCHER.....Wellington's savior! Yadda yadda yadda....it was an Anglo-Prussian victory....just to be historically correct.

As for the greatest conquerer ever, this doesn't have to be that complicated. If we're looking at strictly square miles conquered, Genghis Khan is the greatest conqueror ever. It all depends on the angle you decide to view the situation from....if you're looking at which conqueror spread civilization and ideas, then it'd be a strong contest between Alexander and Napoleon. If you're looking at the decisiveness of their battles/campaigns, then Napoleon is the greatest. I could go on and on and very shrewdly set up the situation to qualify every one in that list as the greatest conqueror ever. That's why it gets VERY complicated if we don't do it by square miles conquered (and even on this there's debate...you can find sources online which say that Napoleon conquered the most! They must be using some weird system though).....I voted for Napoleon. He was a freaking genius and by far the greatest military commander that ever lived. His combined military and political domination of Europe has never been equalled or surpassed. He revolutionized warfare....etc etc...you can write volumes on Napoleon. And historians often do....I have a book called the Atlas of World Military History and it's divided into 9 sections I believe, all covering military history from the first armies to the present. Alexander has two pages devoted to him...Napoleon has one entire section (which I estimate is something like 16 pages)! There's a reason people.....Rivoli, Marengo, Ulm, Austerlitz, Jena, Friedland, Wagram, Dresden....read up on your history....btw I would place Alexander as the second greatest ever...