Why doesn't the poll include President George W. Bush for invading and overthrowing the repressive governments of both Afghanistan and Iraq. Thoughts?

quote:

Tamerlane.

Who is this?

well i love france

quote:

Another reason to admire him, is his approach to keeping control over conquered land. His method of assimilating his men into his new territory meant that he wasnt a foreign tyrant. He was accepted by the conquered lands

You'll notice though that his empire barely lasted beyond his death, so it may have looked good during his life but as soon as he passed it broke down in to either a quick vanishing act from the area in question from imperial rolls or an subcommander's attempt at taking what was left of the empire (not much).

So Alexander lacked staying power as well as legacy in comparison to many of the world's great warriors he really was "Alexander-The-Pretty-Good"

First off, how do you measure greatness? You can measure it in land conquered, achievements... I prefer to look at the person. My vote goes to Alexander. And not soley because of his achievements. His methods were quite unlike other great conquerors. The biggest stand out here was the fact that he fought alongside his men, rather than directed them from the rear. Another reason to admire him, is his approach to keeping control over conquered land. His method of assimilating his men into his new territory meant that he wasnt a foreign tyrant. He was accepted by the conquered lands, as he and his men married into their culture.

quote:

Just use wiki and find out what military leader managed to take control of the largest ammount of land

Then Ghenghis Khan takes it. He conquered all of Asia, including the nasty bits that chewed up Alexander and spit him out. He then headed west and conqured everything that way to the persian gulf and medd. He also had all of what is known as russia undercontrol and likely would have moved on europe had he felt like it.

He created the first international mail route, imported the modern idea of banks (as well as more mundane things like pants) and he just plain dominated.

quote:

Conquering implies taking possesion of land that is not yours through the use of force, there are no great conquerors.

I like this point...

However I have long been a fan of Napoleon.

Conquering implies taking possesion of land that is not yours through the use of force, there are no great conquerors.

Just use wiki and find out what military leader managed to take control of the largest ammount of land.

It's a toss up, but I voted Alexander.

Not only did he conquer nearly half of the known world, he was graceful about it. He made trade routes, which increased trade, which made the economies flourish in a lot of countries.

He also created a massive amount of cultural diffusion.

So basically, the world wouldn't be what it is today without him, as it wouldn't without any of these conquerers. They all have assets that they gave to the world.

I am seeing a lot of educated answers here...

People usually have decent supporting evidence...But truthfully I believe Alexander has the most votes because his story has been etched deeper into our minds and quite glamourized. A great man, indeed.But heres the real deal. Genghis Khan's empire was twice as large as Alexander the Great's at his time of death, and then his son, Ogedei, expanded it to the borders of Moscow, Russia!!!...So as a conquistador, he is checked off for me. Military wisdom, his ...understanding of traditional tactics being not only important in war brought him new innovations he was ready to accept from others. Other conquerors had pride management issues. Mongol archers by the way were skilled, so traditional warfare was also important. As for actually contributing to the modern world in one way or another. The Mongol empire united Asia like it had never been united before, and created the nation of MOngolia, the empire capital. Genghis Khan has my vote, he was brilliant, a person like that...As are all conquerors...but man, he was incredible.

This guy and this guy.

Although I agree and voted in favor of Alexander the Great as the greatest conqueror I don't know how well you can justify his success past his initial battles. He never transformed or instated any structure to the majority of what he conquered. He would roll in ensure that the people would be now known as greek or macedonian, grab a few to strengthen his forces and continue on. The natives' lives were no different beyond just being now known as macedonian. Do these sporatic and unorganized acquirements make him a conqueror. Let his triumphs over Persia define him not the length of land that he took over.

quote:

Jesus Christ
He concuered many things death, sin, sickness, demons, & the devil.

I think we're going historical here rather than religious. Having said that, I like geraldines post. Very Buddhist\Taoist.

Those who have conquered themselves

Alexander the Great is the world's greatest conqueror because not only did he conquered half of the world but he was also undefeated by any enemy. its not whether he is short or whatever the history of his life is, its about the word conquer. Alexander defeated the seemingly invincible persian army at that time led by Darius III. if ur going to talk about military tactics and intelligence, he is still the best guy there is because his mentor was Aristotle and the sarissa, 18 feet pike, they used to defeat the persian army was his idea. as quoted above, "you must serve no master but your ambition", he is the one with the greatest ambition of all the conquerors the world has met.i think he was just about 22-23 when he and his comrades defeated the persian army.not to mention that they are just about a fifth or a sixth of the total army of Darius. and he is probably the only conqueror who loved not only his comrades but also his enemies.

Jesus Christ
He concuered many things death, sin, sickness, demons, & the devil.

Napoleon gets my pick.

While he possessed no great understanding of the importance of naval affairs, he was a brilliant strategist and diplomatic warrior.

He had a hand in the overall defeat of the First and Second coalitions.

Napoleon smashed the Third and Fourth coalitions against him outright.

The Fifth coalition failed to hold Spain (granted, it was retaken)

Score one for the Allies on the Sixth Coalition. (General Winter takes the credit)

Score two for the Allies on the Seventh Coalition. (The Prussians came.)

Because of his political machinations (with much assistence from the World's most elite army) Napoleon was able to keep various strategic nations out of the conflict at periods.

As a testament to his talent, the only European nation ever to resist Napoleon for his entire tenure was Britain, and only because of something called the English Channel.

The Ch'in emperors. They quashed 6 of the 7 warring states in the Warring States period, the seventh being their own. They crushed them, even when the six other states signed a protection pact with each other. They also conquered a lot of other land to the west and north of China and I think they built the first Great Wall.

I believe Ghengis was the greatest conqeror he unlike Alexander, he was rejected from his native tribe and worked hard to wat he did, he even killed one of his own brothers for taking extra food, thats how harsh is growing up was and then he eventually conquered all that he did, plus he adopted his ennemies tactics and then improved them for his own use, its true he was considred barbaric but he gave cities a chance to surrender and if they didnt then well he killed most of them. And he would have had no problem with europe his military brilliance and adoption of opponents tactics would have overcome the europeans, they did not have that kind of depth for strategy

heh it's a poison right? what are all other drugs?