It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Who is you're favourite conqueror?

page: 3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in


posted on May, 31 2004 @ 09:29 AM
I'm no expert on the Roman navy so I'm letting that issue die, however there is no mistaking Hannibal for an idiot. You don't survive that long on your own in the midst of the Roman empire, dispatching legions with ease (especially the beautiful victory an Cannae) unless you've got a highly functional head on your shoulders.

posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 11:50 PM
i would have to say alexander the great because his tactics are still being taught to our officers at west point today

posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 12:32 PM

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.

Well Alexander the Great conquered lots of lands. He almost didnt fight at all. He wnet to evry land a respected the people, and honored their gods. So he set up his cities and went on.

posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 12:51 PM
Timmur the Lame, a.k.a Tammerlane. Outdid Idi Amin for personally executing the most captives with his own hands. Formed an empire in South Central Asia the size of Rome, but was posthumously overshadowed by Temuchin (Chengis Khan). Unknown in the West.

MacArthur. Truman dropped the bomb, but Mac did the dirty work of retaking the Philipines, etc. He also governed Japan for 4 years after victory. Truman will one day be remembered in infamy for stopping him in Korea.

Vlad the Impaler. Kind of the "Judge Roy Bean" of central Europe, and practically the only potentate to resist Medieval Islam in Eastern Europe. He's the main reason that the language spoken in Vienna is not Arabic.

Patton. The nemisis of the Third Reich. One of the main reasons we are not having this discussion in German.

Rommel. The only reason Hitler could even dream of fighting a war on 3 fronts.

Napoleon. Ushered in modern infantry armies.

Frederick Barbarossa. That guy was one of the busiest tyrants who ever lived, kind of a military and diplomatic Thomas Edison. Too bad Germany has no natural boundaries. (And he was trying to locate and authenticate the True Cross. But more on that later.)

Ming the Merciless. Oops, wrong universe. But I love that outfit. Dude.

posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 02:25 PM
Yeah failed to mention Frederick Barbarossa in my reply
. The guy created a huge empire, and had the largest army in Europe during the Crusades in the Middle Ages. Reached Jerusalem pickled in a barrel!!
. He drownd, so some of his knights pickled him!! Great leader too bad he never did find a pice of the Cross, but did reach Jersalem....dead.

posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 02:40 PM
I'd vote for Alexander the Great. If anything, he over-conconquered but never really had time to consolidate.
If we're allowed proportional representation however, I'd have to go for the humble, oft forgotten barbarian, nibbling remorselessly at the toes of empire
or does that count?

posted on Jun, 16 2004 @ 12:22 PM
Now what makes me think AD5763 is a fellow "Age of Empires" addict?

I'm working on some info on relics, especially the true cross. I'll try to post a thread when I've got enough info. I think the hunt for it may be a motivating force on the world stage . . .

Conquerors. Hmm. Who have we left out?

Pizzaro & Cortez.

I use both of these for models of what would happen if we faced belligerant extraterrestial contact. The more specialized ( I hesitate to say 'advanced') civilization had superior body armor, distance weapons (cannon/musket), transportation the victims could not keep up with (horses & galleons) and the computational ability to calculate supplies needed, plus a far more advanced communication network and technology (alphabet); plus industrial production that simply overwhelms the primal culture.

The real killer though was disease. Most Spanish casualties were the result of combat. Most amerindian casualties were the result of malaria, smallpox, and the probably the common cold.

Now Pizzaro and Cortez were not in the league w/ Alexander and Napolean. Like the Nazis, they reaped the benefits of short-term differentials in technology vis-a-vis their victims. Still, for the pure adventure of exploring a new land and amassing so much silver & gold that it revolutionized (and still impacts) the world economy, you just have to be impressed.

Both commmanders ran out of gunpowder in the new world, and were forced to re-invent it, build factories to produce it, and distribute it to troops without the enemy grasping the technology. No small feat. In some ways, they were more intrepid than say, Napolean, who was as much a chess-player on the chessboard of Europe as he was an innovator and courageous leader.

posted on Jun, 16 2004 @ 12:27 PM
Jesus took on the original "axis of evil", DEATH HELL and the GRAVE, and he OVERCAME THEM ALL!!!

So he gets my vote.

posted on Jun, 16 2004 @ 12:39 PM
George Patton

If we had listened to him in WWII we would not have had the evil empire that controled Europe and the world for decades.

Just think, if Patton would have rolled into Russia and pushed back the Red tide the world could have been a totally different place.

No Cuba, No Vietnam, No North Korea just to name a few.

The possibilities are endless if Patton had rolled!


posted on Jun, 16 2004 @ 02:22 PM
long live ceaser and atilla was good, alexander the great, hmmm cao cao, sunjian,sun tzu, sun quan, sun ce, sima yi, liu bei, lu bu. also gengis khan was great.

[edit on 6/16/2004 by machinegunjordan]

posted on Jun, 16 2004 @ 02:58 PM
mmmm...Alexander The GREAT ... I also like Ghengis Khan.

posted on Jun, 16 2004 @ 05:10 PM

Now what makes me think AD5763 is a fellow "Age of Empires" addict?

I played the game. Im not an addict. I like Red Alert 2 though!!

[edit on 053030p://ex30 by AD5673]

posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 07:16 AM
My fav General has to be Arthur Wellesley or lord wellington what ever you wont to call him he was good.

Alfred the great only english king to ever be remberd as 'Great' unlucky to lose to William the conquer who i also respect.

& of course all the old school people who have been mentioned already

robert Lee was a good general as well but im sure alot of grant surporters will say grant was better he lost less men than lee etc but i still think lee to be the better out of the two.

any one said Sun-zu yet?

posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 07:30 AM
I used to go Conquering when I was a child, and once got a Niner...!!

posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 08:01 AM
Ceasar ruled the land. All my votes go to him.
I am curious though, when will we have the next true conqueror? Some people say we have Bush right now, but I would like to live to see another. Just don't take that the wrong way.

posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 02:23 PM
lol but conquering isnt exactly a good thing...

posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 03:07 PM
After Bush, I mean he had the guts to invade a country like Iraq when anybody with a a brain wouldn't have. Other than that Mr. Rockafeller (he conquered the oil buissness). Or I have to give some credit to Hitler, personally I dislike him a lot but the facts add up that he was good at conquering. Then again with guys like Neville Chamberlin (I call him Wet Noodle) it would have been easy to take over places.

posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 07:15 AM
Maybe you guys should start a thread entitled:

"Worlds best serial killers"


"The housewives favourite side arm"

posted on Jun, 19 2004 @ 08:28 AM
See no point in that response.

posted on Jun, 19 2004 @ 03:07 PM
Alexander the Great...

Only man to ever conquer the known world... Tutored by philosophers, and embracing the culture of those he conquered, and integrating thier culture with his... Brilliant, but ruthless strategist.....

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4 >>

log in