Who is you're favourite conqueror?

Originally posted by Sterling46
If I had to pick one, my favorite conqueror would be Julius Caeser.
"Vendi, Vidi, Vici" ( I came, I saw, I conquered)

He didn't get Brittania though - that was left to Claudius.

Personally, I think for pure nastiness it has to be Vlad the Impaler. Not a particularly voracious conqueror as far as lands taken over, but somewhat unique in his own way.

Jesus.... Huge Empire! Still at it even today around 2000 years later, conquering whether he wanted or knew it or not!

Im going to have to go with Alexander the great because any homosexual who can take over the civilized world is okay in my book. AND because of the excessive naming of cities after himself. AND also Atilla the Hun because he was the man.

Originally posted by Pisky

Originally posted by Sterling46
If I had to pick one, my favorite conqueror would be Julius Caeser.
"Vendi, Vidi, Vici" ( I came, I saw, I conquered)

He didn't get Brittania though - that was left to Claudius.

Personally, I think for pure nastiness it has to be Vlad the Impaler. Not a particularly voracious conqueror as far as lands taken over, but somewhat unique in his own way.

William the Conquerer did though, my favourite.

Lay off of Bush. All great conquerers are hated in their own time. If or when he takes Korea, Cuba, Syria, and Iran he will have perpetrated the largest military expansion of the USA since the treaty of Guadalupe Hildago was secured after the war with Mexico, and he will thus be opening the door for US dominance of the Caribean, the shutting down of the Gulf of Mexico and eventual control of Mexico, as well as the opening of Asia to American expansion. As Canada continues to form in an EU sympathetic manner, odds are that when 1 world government begins to form, and likely goes through the formative conflicts than any new union must, Americans will look to George H W Bush and his subsequent puppets (Bush and beyond, as well as Reagan before, perhaps) as the dirty dispicable coward who saved our country for the next era by giving us greater influence over the coming Sino-Japanese alliance and Pan-Arab union, which will necessarily form as the world moves toward an organization of only a few super powers with no minor nations.
(Remember that you were told this in 2004- eventually the entire UN will be 10 nations. The United States (with mexico and carribean possessions), The Organization of (south) American States, The EU with Australia and Canada, The Restored Soviet Union, The Organization of Islamic States, The Economic Community Of West African States (expanded to all Africa), The East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere (including pacific Islands).
More to follow...

The details of the 1 world gov't theory will be in predictions soon. In the mean time I'll answer the topic of this thread.
HANNIBAL ET PORTES! He was the boogey man in his own friggin time man! You can't argue with that.
Genghis Kahn comes in a close second to Hannibal in my mind. The tactics were right, the organization of the mongols was a herculean accomplishment, but he wasn't my sort of general. Ultimately it was brute force and a happy coincidence that his culture's skills gave them an Asymetrical advantage on the battlefield. He can't measure up to Hannibal in terms of generalship, although he was actually a greater conquerer.
George Patton missed a great opportunity. If he had precipitated a meeting engagement with the Russians by advancing to and through Berlin against orders and scarring the Russians, we could have had a Pax Americana for the last 60 years, with most of the world safely behind America in military and technological terms because we would be the sole heirs to Nazi Germany.

Originally posted by Blackout
Kaiser Wilhelm II: Nearly gained victory after defeating Russia in WWI. Also, he has many royal family ties to monarchs such as Queen Victoria and I believe it was either his sister or cousin that was Tsarina of Russia. He declared war on his relatives nevertheless

.

Adolf Hitler: I don't support his justification behind the Holocaust but I give him credit for his political genius. He carefully timed his political actions so that he wouldn't face a two front war as did Wilhem II. However, Hitler arguably ruined the war for himself as well.

Publius Scipio Africanus: His ingenious strategy that conquered Carthago is known throughout all of the Roman Empire. Scipio's victory ultimately determined whether Rome or Carthage would be the dominant power.

Yes Scipio was a briliant general did burn Carthatge to the ground, as for Hannibal; I think he was very very stupid....

If I have to say 2 people, it would be:

Fredrich the Great of Prussia

Napoleon Bonaparte

Hannibal Barca OF COURSE!!!!!



Followed closely by Alexander The Great!

By empire size I'd say Ghengis Kahn....Another interesting little known guy is Mahmud Ghaznavi.

Cyrus, who United Persia and Medes into the great persian Empire (C.550BC), and wrote the first known charter of human rights as well. He liberated slaves, freed any minority that wished to go back to their homeland, He created the first known Postal system, and the provincial system of government. He respected the religious beliefs of the people he Liberated, as well as their culteral practices.

Originally posted by Midnight Raven
Favourite conqueror ???
I don't think so. I don't have one because I can't see the point of warsof conquest. They are unnecessary and frankly evil.

no, not evil, many were great leaders who just were put in that position because everyone attacked everyone else and if they didnt dominate they wouldve been dominated, theres many types of conquerer, the evil, religious fanatic, the delusional, greatness aspiration, the wealth bringer, the uniter of nation, the expansionist, etc, you cant compare the different times because the world of today vs 300 years vs 1000 years + are not the same.

[Edited on 29-5-2004 by namehere]

Originally posted by AD5673
as for Hannibal; I think he was very very stupid....

How so? He took the path he took would never have been considered by the Romans. He also had to of had alot of Heart to make it.

My favorites are: Hannibal, Julius Caesar, and Adolf Hitler

I would have to say Alexander the Great.

He conqured over 2 million square miles, creating one of the largest empires the world has ever seen. Thats quite an impressive feat if you ask me.

Some runners up would have to be people like Gengish Kahn, Napoleon... yeah, you get the point.

Just about anyone that can be labled a "conqueror" has to be great, right?

Julius Ceasar, Hannible(even though he lost) Alexander the great,Atilla the hun,Napoleon,otto von bismarck,William I,Hitler,Stalin,USA in general,

err Vlad the Impaler - wery wery evil

How so? He took the path he took would never have been considered by the Romans. He also had to of had a lot of Heart to make it.

Going over the Alps, and all that stuff, also when Scipio went to Carthage Hannibal should've destroyed Rome (as he was close to doing) gathered Rome's enemies, and go to Carthage and defeat Scipio there. He shouldn�t had turned back, and run away. Also if he invaded by sea he probably would've won...

[Edited on 31-5-2004 by AD5673]

AD, I want to be calm and mature about this, but I'm not gonna. I'm gonna go make an effigy for you and subject it to stuff that cost Vlad the Impaler his appetite.
1. I assure you the crossing of the Alps was the better route. Hannibal was not an American general; He couldn't just put ashore whereever he wanted and start fighting then. The further into Roman territory he had attempted to sail before putting ashore, the greater the risk that he would never get a chance to fight at all.
2. Hannibal was a general not a king. Hannibal didn't have the luxury of writing off Carthage to persue Rome. When a soldier is ordered to come home, he comes home. Remember that this is not the modern age- knowledge was imperfect. For all Hannibal knew, the orders could have represented a golden opportunity to anhilate a Roman force of who knows what size.
3. Stupid is as stupid does. In the case of Cannae, stupid surrounded and crushed a superior force by an absolutely awesome combination of deception, charisma, and boldness.
4. Julius Caesar's reorganization of the legions was heavily infleunced by the effectiveness of Hannibal's spanish cavalry. The same sort of mercinaries were sought out to add a stronger cavalry component to every Roman legion.

No Hannibal could've sailed there. Carthage had enough transport ships. And mosy likley they would've gotten there because Rome never did use the sea a lot. Now because he went through the Alps out of his 300 something elephants only about 30 survived, and out of his about 70,000 mean only 30,000. Think about it...

Publius Scipio Africanus: His ingenious strategy that conquered Carthago is known throughout all of the Roman Empire. Scipio's victory ultimately determined whether Rome or Carthage would be the dominant power.

Yes Scipio was a briliant general did burn Carthage to the ground, as for Hannibal; I think he was very stupid....