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?

I shudder to think that someone would use mercury as a drug for pleasure


I knew that it was used for awhile because some people thought it would cure some kind of pox or something (std i think, maybe not though...)

but I would never imagine recreational mercury use

I suppose enough drugs could make anyone want to conquer france

It was a long time ago. There was probably a lot of drug use..mercury wasn't reguatled...

Well who wants France of all places in the first place?

Ah, Macbeth. The absolute highlight of Junior year.

quote:

Originally posted by ampmaster:
Bah Bonaparte despite not being short as many people believe was a loser, the man couldn't even hold on to france for any long period of time nor is the amount of territory he conquerd impressive, nor were his tactics impressive Ghengis Khan owns your soul!

I'm sure you couldn't hold on to France as long as he did if the rest of Europe created an alliance agianst you.

Napoleons only real faults were his constant nationalism-is-great message and his ambition that lead to constant war (like in Macbeth)

quote:

Originally posted by Brehon:
Where are the conquestadores? Or are we only dealing with specifics...

And anyway, why not Elizabeth the First? I demand she be put on the list!

LTR's right. She conquered nothing. Great leader, not so much a conqueror.

You can count conquistadors if they conquered land and kept it. (Most did not.)

Bah Bonaparte despite not being short as many people believe was a loser, the man couldn't even hold on to france for any long period of time nor is the amount of territory he conquerd impressive, nor were his tactics impressive Ghengis Khan owns your soul!

quote:

Originally posted by Brehon:
Where are the conquestadores? Or are we only dealing with specifics...

And anyway, why not Elizabeth the First? I demand she be put on the list!

As much as I am a fan of Elizabeth I, she didn't conquere anything.


I choose Napoleon as the greatest.

Where are the conquestadores? Or are we only dealing with specifics...

And anyway, why not Elizabeth the First? I demand she be put on the list!

Napoleon wasn't psycho...he really didn't do all that many "crazy" things especially in comparison to many others. He was extremely well educated.


And by the way you guys, I hope you know that Napoleon was only 5'2 in FRENCH feet. Which, since at the time French feet were larger units of measurement, correspondeds to 5'6.5" feet today. However since the metric system was introduced after his lifetime, and since his nickname was "le petit corporal" (which is an idiom, it doesn't actually mean "the little corporal" but is a term of friendship), and since most people that heard of him didn't ever actually see him, the misconception that he was really short became a popular foreign myth and a joke to explain why he conquered various places. He really was not that short, especially when you consider that other people were shorter at that time too. So all the stories about him being completely driven and obsessed by his stature complex are kinda ridiculous.

i think this is a hard poll to choose and answer for because of the differences in the times they lived. but i would say Ghengis Khan,

His Empire, was vast, his tactics were fierce, and his policies though barbaric , helped instill the fear in his enemies that probably contributed to alot of his victories. i also love how intelligent he really was. there is an incident in which he told a village that he would not destroy them if they gave the mongols so many of certain types of animals. so much cotton and oil. when they recieved the tribute he tied the cotton to the animals soaked it in oil and lit the cotton setting the animals free on the village and in turn catching everything on fire, so technically he did not destroy the city thier own animals did.

quote:

Lol, I wasn't accusing you, I was correcting amp's spelling.

But now that you mention it...

Hey...I'm committing mutany, I think I just might go AWOL(We can take Napoleans sports car for a drive...just kick the musty french lady out)

you spelled the word wrong Euterpe a miltary trial is a Court Martial(martial is military/fighting thus a military court) a Marshal is a rank in some militarys, also a clothing store in the US