Page 1 of 5

Greatest conquerors in history

Posted: 02 Mar 2012 14:44
by Solarius
Who, in your opinion, are the greatest conquerors in history?

I would say that Genghis Khan (of course), Pachacuti, and maybe Pizzaro. I may add to this post later!

Re: Greatest conquerors in history

Posted: 02 Mar 2012 16:25
by Thakowsaizmu
Qin Shi Huangdi.

Re: Greatest conquerors in history

Posted: 02 Mar 2012 18:27
by Micamo
Depends on what you mean by "greatest."

Slaughtered the most people that they didn't like? Definitely Joseph Stalin.

The conqueror I'd most like to live under? I nominate my cat.

Re: Greatest conquerors in history

Posted: 02 Mar 2012 18:40
by cybrxkhan
I'd say Genghis Khan and his direct descendants: conquered something almost the size of the British Empire in a couple of decades. With an army of no more than 125000. And he wasn't actually too bad of a douchebag, with the tolerance for all religions and merit-based system of governing and all... well, unless if you pissed him off, then he killed every single man, woman, child, dog, cat, insect, ghost, and imaginary friend related to you, so yeah.

Re: Greatest conquerors in history

Posted: 02 Mar 2012 20:16
by Omzinesý
What about the Inka, whoever he was when the empire was grounded very quickly.

Re: Greatest conquerors in history

Posted: 02 Mar 2012 20:23
by Solarius
Omzinesý wrote:What about the Inka, whoever he was when the empire was grounded very quickly.
That's Pachacuti. :roll:

Re: Greatest conquerors in history

Posted: 03 Mar 2012 15:39
by Avjunza
Gandhi. He conquered India without even fighting.

Re: Greatest conquerors in history

Posted: 03 Mar 2012 17:25
by CrazyEttin
Avjunza wrote:Gandhi. He conquered India without even fighting.
[+1]

And if not Gandhi, then propably Gengis Khan.

Re: Greatest conquerors in history

Posted: 06 Mar 2012 07:26
by Bristel
Gengis Khan.

Re: Greatest conquerors in history

Posted: 07 Mar 2012 03:05
by brandrinn
Avjunza wrote:Gandhi. He conquered India without even fighting.
Maybe it's Once Upon a Time for conquering the female 25-35 demographic.
No, no, it's Susan Boyle because she conquered our hearts.

Re: Greatest conquerors in history

Posted: 07 Mar 2012 07:45
by Ànradh
brandrinn wrote:Maybe it's Once Upon a Time for conquering the female 25-35 demographic.
No, no, it's Susan Boyle because she conquered our hearts.
... O_o
I'm goin' for Gengis.

Though as conqerers go, many lesser names much closer to home have affected me to a greater extent. A certain William is eponymous with the concept of taking other people's stuff.
Then there's Caesar (not exactly a 'lesser name') and Plautius, whose contact with Britain seem to be key links in the chain of events that lead to English being so... 'odd'.
And there's Cromwell too, of course.

Re: Greatest conquerors in history

Posted: 07 Mar 2012 21:42
by SomeoneSomewhere
Avjunza wrote:Gandhi. He conquered India without even fighting.
And the British empire with a bamboo stick, as a textbook from history states! :3 I found it rather amusing at the time.
Image

Re: Greatest conquerors in history

Posted: 23 Apr 2012 19:13
by DanH34
Probably Genghis. I'm worried he'll come back from the dead to destroy my city if I don't give him the credit.

Honourable mention must be made, though, of Tsubodai the Valiant - possible the most successful general in history in terms of his victory:defeat ratio and total amount of territory conquered. And, if the stories are to be believed, he began his life as the lowliest of Mongol tribesmen.

Dan

Re: Greatest conquerors in history

Posted: 23 Apr 2012 19:27
by eldin raigmore
How does Alexander compare with Genghis?

Re: Greatest conquerors in history

Posted: 23 Apr 2012 23:32
by DanH34
eldin raigmore wrote:How does Alexander compare with Genghis?
Good question.

All I can offer in reply is the observation that, while Alexander inherited a fully-functional polity with an excellent military from his father, Genghis took a bunch of steppe-dwelling, illiterate, mutton-grease-reeking nomads (whom the Chinese had been keeping at one-anothers' throats for centuries) and turned them from nothing into the most powerful military force the world had (has?) ever seen. And built a postal service that wasn't bested until the development of the godsdamn steam locomotive over half a milennium later.

I notice we don't have your opinion on the greatest conqueror yet, though, Eldin. Do tell.

Also, I suppose that Caesar deserves a mention here, since (here goes:) venit, vidit, vicit.

Dan

Re: Greatest conquerors in history

Posted: 23 Apr 2012 23:44
by cybrxkhan
eldin raigmore wrote:How does Alexander compare with Genghis?
This is more opinion than fact, but I've always felt that Alexander was the narcissistic megalomaniac that some people portray him as, well Genghis was a cunning, patient, and intelligent strategist - passion vs. rationality, perhaps? Not to mention Genghis was pretty badass as a pre-teen/teen, having to keep his tiny little family alive after it was abandoned by the tribe after his dad died.

Also Genghis has better facial hair.

And he has more descendants than anyone alive.

AND he helped fight against Global Warming before it was even an issue. (article)

Okay, so maybe it is a fact that Genghis makes Alexander look like some wimpy brat of a conqueror who played on easy level.

Re: Greatest conquerors in history

Posted: 24 Apr 2012 23:35
by eldin raigmore
DanH34 wrote:I notice we don't have your opinion on the greatest conqueror yet, though, Eldin. Do tell.
I don't really have one.
I do have a conqueror I think is very interesting; namely, Chaka the Zulu.
I have a list of "historical figures I admire, but would rather admire from a distance"; Chaka is one, and Joab (David's sister's son) as another.

DanH34 wrote:venit, vidit, vicit.
I have long liked the "vidi, vici, veni" version better. First-person-singular instead of third-singular-masculine, and the order of the verbs is more enjoyable.

How does Cyrus the Great compare with either Alexander or Genghis?

Re: Greatest conquerors in history

Posted: 25 Apr 2012 19:16
by DanH34
eldin raigmore wrote: I do have a conqueror I think is very interesting; namely, Chaka the Zulu.
[+1] for the unconventional option. I'd have to go for the 'admire from a distance so I don't get horribly tortured to death' option, though.

Queen Ranavalona I (conclusive historical proof that obscene violence is far from an exclusively male preserve) would also be an interesting one to see from a long way away (ideally a different continent).
Joab (David's sister's son)
Well, if we're going for fictional characters, that changes the game completely.

Uhtred of Bebbanburg.
Thomas Theismann, Javier Giscard, and Lester Tourville.
Heracles.
The list goes on...
I have long liked the "vidi, vici, veni" version better. First-person-singular instead of third-singular-masculine, and the order of the verbs is more enjoyable.
Awesome; does 'come' work as a double-entendre in Latin, or is it just a fortuitous coincidence when used with English? Do/did Latin verbs have gender, though?

Dan

Re: Greatest conquerors in history

Posted: 25 Apr 2012 22:24
by eldin raigmore
DanH34 wrote:Queen Ranavalona I (conclusive historical proof that obscene violence is far from an exclusively male preserve) would also be an interesting one to see from a long way away (ideally a different continent).
Thanks for telling me about her! I'd never heard of her until your post. Now I've read Wikipedia's entry about her. She was interesting!

DanH34 wrote:
me wrote:Joab (David's sister's son)
Well, if we're going for fictional characters, that changes the game completely.
Uhtred of Bebbanburg.
Thomas Theismann, Javier Giscard, and Lester Tourville.
Heracles.
The list goes on...
No, I think if we allow fictional characters, the game is no longer interesting.
I regard the "history" books of the Hebrew Bible as actual history.
True, up through Joshua, Judges, and Ruth, (and possibly also at least some of I Samuel), it's possibly legendary. (For purposes of this post I define "legend" as a story based on the truth that, for at least some part of its life-cycle, was communicated solely mouth-to-ear rather than hand-to-eye. Legends are therefore more vulnerable to mutation than histories that were always written, starting with eye-witnesses; because "the palest ink is stronger than the strongest memory".)
And a lot of it may also be myth. (For purposes of this post I define "myth" as a story that explains something culturally important, such as the name of a certain thing, or why a certain holiday is observed, or how a certain saying came to be. I don't think either legends or myths have to be false.)
Nevertheless, I think II Samuel, I Kings, II Kings, I Chronicles, and II Chronicles, should count as "history"; so Joab should count as a historical character. The parts of I Samuel having to do with Saul are probably also historical. And the story of Ruth the Moabitess was probably a family legend in Jesse's family.

DanH34 wrote:... does 'come' work as a double-entendre in Latin,
Not as far as I know.
DanH34 wrote:or is it just a fortuitous coincidence when used with English?
As far as I know, it is.
DanH34 wrote:Do/did Latin verbs have gender, though?
I don't think so. But I don't know Latin all that well.

Latin verbal adjectives, such as gerundives and passive participles and active participles, probably agree with the gender of the nouns they modify, don't they? Wouldn't "Amanda" necessarily be feminine?

Re: Greatest conquerors in history

Posted: 25 Apr 2012 23:28
by DanH34
eldin raigmore wrote:Thanks for telling me about her! I'd never heard of her until your post. Now I've read Wikipedia's entry about her. She was interesting!
You're more than welcome.

I came across her via the ever-wonderful Flashman, who should be required reading for all humans.

Seriously, I can't recommend the series enough.
I regard the "history" books of the Hebrew Bible as actual history.
On what evidence do you base this summation?
I don't think either legends or myths have to be false.
I agreee with you a hundred percent on this one.
Nevertheless, I think ... should count as "history"
Despite the fact that David and Soloman's 'empire' has absolutely no attestation in the historical record?
The parts of I Samuel having to do with Saul are probably also historical.
What makes you say that?
I wrote:... does 'come' work as a double-entendre in Latin,
Not as far as I know.
That's a shame.
Wouldn't "Amanda" necessarily be feminine?
I suppose so. Unless it's Amanda Huginkiss. [:D]

Dan