Who is the greatest conqueror of the ancient times ?
-
Greatest conqueror does not mean one that occupies the most lands right?
Adolf Hitler
Napolean
Qian Long
Alexander
Augustus Caesar
Ghengis Khan
QinShi Huang
Caocao
Liu Bang
Attila the Hun? nah..
hmm...i can think of many Chinese ones...but most of them are Generals but not conquerers.. -
Let's get the records straight.
Genghis Khan didn't reach Spain. The Mongols reached Hungary, but it wasn't Genghis. His follower did. And only in the times of his grandson Kublai was China fully subjugated. The Mongols struck at Japan and also Java, albeit unsuccessfully, in one of those less-mentioned sidenotes of history. Certainly we shall be able to find Mongol shipwrecks of that fleet in the South China Sea!
Iskander is a name which has Greek origins. And it is true in the Arabic language the name has its roots in Alexander the Great. Nonetheless, in local history of our region, many kings chose the name Iskander. An early king of Malacca from the 15th century went by that name after he converted to Islam and he was known as a great empire builder. Alexander the Great reached northern India after crossing the Pamir Highlands at his greatest extent.
All William the Conqueror did was to strike across the sea from Normandy in northern France to defeat the Saxons in England in 1066 and establish his kingdom. The English would like to say England has not been invaded since.
I choose Genghis Khan because the Mongol empire was conquered in his name and it was already a large expanse in his time. -
I suggested William the Conquerer not because of his actually military conquests but cannot anybody imagine a world where it didnt happen? Imagine England without Hastings. Without William, we wouldn't have Queen Elizabeth I. Without William, we would have King John,much less the Magna Carta and by connection the Westminster System. Without William, I highly doubt the world would what we know now. The United States, rooting from Norman conquered England mostly likely wouldn't be the nation we know now.Originally posted by calvin2224:Let's get the records straight.
Genghis Khan didn't reach Spain. The Mongols reached Hungary, but it wasn't Genghis. His follower did. And only in the times of his grandson Kublai was China fully subjugated. The Mongols struck at Japan and also Java, albeit unsuccessfully, in one of those less-mentioned sidenotes of history. Certainly we shall be able to find Mongol shipwrecks of that fleet in the South China Sea!
Iskander is a name which has Greek origins. And it is true in the Arabic language the name has its roots in Alexander the Great. Nonetheless, in local history of our region, many kings chose the name Iskander. An early king of Malacca from the 15th century went by that name after he converted to Islam and he was known as a great empire builder. Alexander the Great reached northern India after crossing the Pamir Highlands at his greatest extent.
All William the Conqueror did was to strike across the sea from Normandy in northern France to defeat the Saxons in England in 1066 and establish his kingdom. The English would like to say England has not been invaded since.
I choose Genghis Khan because the Mongol empire was conquered in his name and it was already a large expanse in his time.
Thats where I disagree about Genghis Khan. Can anybody say that human history has been irrevesibly changed by his conquests? Even the Yuan Dynasty lasted only about 90 years. Are the Mongolians spread around the world? Is Mongolian our lingua franca? By the virtue that the Mongol Empire was large but somewhat limited in its legacy. -
Iskander D'zulkarnain. Descended from Alexander the Great, I think.
-
Zhuge liang and the Simas. arent they conqueror too? their war tactics were all superb
-
have to be Alexander for sure.he could conquer the whole of earth if it wasnt for his death during his early age as an adult
-
Do you mean the known world? If not, I seriously doubt that he would be able to go down to the New World.Originally posted by shutterpod:have to be Alexander for sure.he could conquer the whole of earth if it wasnt for his death during his early age as an adult -
i choose myself can?? i conquer the world leh... play game la of course
-
They are considered more as the greatest strategists.Originally posted by felirox:Zhuge liang and the Simas. arent they conqueror too? their war tactics were all superb -
Greatest general or conqueror? if we are looking for the greatest Conqueror, then it is Genghis Khan, without any doubt.
His empire stretched from South East Asia to Central Europe.
At the peak, over 100 million people lived under his rule.
The empire lasted 150 years, during this time, the silk road, the visit of MarcoPolo to China...brought the east and the west together, the resulting influence from trade to culture was of great significance.
He did not fight all the wars himself, he was able to lead his men to succeed his ambition which proved that he also conquered the heart and mind of his people.
All these were done on horse back! there were no war machines involved. -
To add to the list.
My apology to TS if u strictly refer conqueror in ancient times.
Hirohito
Emperor of Japan reigning from 1926 to 1989.
Many people in China, Taiwan, Korea and Southeast Asia see Hirohito as the mastermind behind the atrocities committed by the imperial forces in the Second Sino-Japanese War and in World War II. -
Kublai Khan.The grandson or son of Genghkis kahn.He created e biggest army in the world n conquered asia except japan.He used a sea fleet but got sunk in a typhoon when trying to invade japan
-
Chinese is a new race. it is form on consolidation of Hans, Zhuangs, Mongols, Liaos, Manchus, Tibetians etc...
So since Mongols are part of the Chinese race, does that mean Ghengis Khan is Chinese?
Han was defeated twice by the Mongols and Manchus. But now all have assimilated into a single entity called Chinese.
Hmm...thats what the textbooks of China is teaching now.. controversy, controversy..
So am i Han or am i Chinese?
p.s. inner mongolia is bigger than mongolia and has more chinese-mongols than mongolia-mongols
Ghengis Khan is Chinese and the Chinese conquered the world!! -
no u all wrong........ the greatest conqueror is Tang Shang Zhang and his disciples.... from east to west
-
Its Cao Cao!
-
Originally posted by storywolf:
Where every you read that man it's exaggerated
Alexander army - are make up of foot soldiers - Phalanx & shield bearers , cavalry - a very good balance force , but more on close quarter combat.
Genghis khan - however is more on light cavarly. which is more on arrows, they have 2 blows one for fast shooting and one for long distance. Usually they engage enemy in long distance shooting. [b]The range of their arrows which is armour pericing is over 500m to 600m they can penterate the roman shields and armour easily. Usually each man will have 2-4 horse each so they can ride long distance. Also usually they will pretent to retreat and attack later, which their mobility enable them.
I view of this I guess Alexander army is the strongest if face on and in close combat fight. But in the end , I think if the Mongol refuse to get engage in close combat, but with range weapons and mobility, they should have the advantage over Alexander army.
[/b]
There is no way any human can provide a pull with enough force to shoot that far besides their strings might snap fast even if u cld pull that much. Even composite bows made these days can only provide a range of around 500 yards which is around 300m? Which honestly speaking is plenty.
Anyway on horse back,the pull of the bow is less and hence it's range.Usually by as much as 50%. Bows used by foot archers having a more stable platform and can also use more weight then a horse archer.
However the 1 advantage they did have, is speed. Which meant that they cld hit foot archers easier since those guys dont move.And since they are moving the foot archers will have a tougher time hitting them.
And yes like someone mentioned, the mongols did stop at east Hungary. I believe he stopped short of Poland.
And while many believe the Mongols were all powerful and could take on the world, honestly speaking they would have alot of trouble taking western Europe proper. It's a long explaination and theory so i wont type it up unless someone wants to know
The greatest i believe would either be The Timurids lead by Temur the Lame or if we went farther back Yes Alexander would be the other choice.
The rest just do not really stand up.
Hannibal while tactically 1 of the best, the very fact that he spent YEARS walking up and down Italy so he wants much of a conqueror.
The Roman Generals while good usually had a basic manual to read to and well they have good backing, politically.Most of their enemies were screwed by the Roman politics and stuff. Alexander went head on and bashed everyone in his path so yea. Besides he did more in his short life time then most.
Though i think Genghis did around the same. -
Greatest Conquerer is the one and only Genghis Khan whose men not only move fast on horseback to cover ground everyday but also one of the early inventors of Terrorism.Step One, he would order his men to use all kinds of torture and brutal force and then let a few escape so that they can go back and tell the horror that they saw.Step 2,he ordered them to build hundreds of giant Taiko drums and beat on the drums before every battle.Step 3 most people would run for their lives than face the the wrath of Genghis ..........so this is how the Mongols went all the way !![/quote]
-
the british empire
america, canada, parts of africa,middle east, indian subcontinent, parts of south east asia and hong kong, australasia , oceania and new zealand
i know not ancient but pretty impressive empire -
I tot Attila the Hun nearly topple the roman empire?
-
nearly but didnt.He cldnt even topple a dying sick old empire.The west empire.What more could he do againest the resurgent east empire?Originally posted by larrenV2.003:I tot Attila the Hun nearly topple the roman empire?