quote:

Originally posted by northstar316:

quote:

Though I do admit the library of Alexandria would be impressive if we could find the thing.

I should hope so.

It's gone. Whatever was there, those millions of amazing scrolls by inventors, were destroyed. In different ages, though. Most of it was destroyed during the burning of the pagan temples in the 4th century. Other parts were destroyed later, some destroyed by Caesar. We'll never see it.

If you're going to judge a conqueror by what he ruled, well then Khan gets it hands-down. Alexander did set up some great cities, founded institutions, but once he came back from the failed India campaign, he died. He never really got to govern. I mean, the bulk of his empire where he came from was ruled by Antipater and Cassander. (Which SHOULD'VE been Olympias but Alexander didn't want her near politics.)

*Shrugs.* I'm just more an Alexander the Great fan.

Yup just about the kumish is a very serious weapon

I'm not saying others didn't do alot or glorifiying what the mongols did but they did leave a legacy

quote:

Though I do admit the library of Alexandria would be impressive if we could find the thing.

I should hope so.

quote:

besides military wise the mongols have left a legacy that the US uses today "manuver warfare" as we know it was first used extensivley by Ghengis Khan. Though

So, to the Greeks: realism in painting and sculputer. advances in ship building and sailing, perfection of post-and-lintel architecture, coin money, aqueducts, a phonetic alphebet, long-distance trade, delicate pottery, the phalanx (they could kill a lot of people really fast,) the klismos, perfection of realistic mosaics...
and to the Mongols- cavalry manuvers (they could kill a lot of people really fast) and kumish (IT could kill a lot of people really fast)

true but he never ruled his mighty empire and as soon as word got back they empire of alexander collapsed. besides military wise the mongols have left a legacy that the US uses today "manuver warfare" as we know it was first used extensivley by Ghengis Khan. Though I do admit the library of Alexandria would be impressive if we could find the thing.

But shouldn't the accomplishments of a conquerer be not just the size of his (or her) domain, but of the cultural and technical creations? Alexander founded up to thirty cities, such as Sassinia, Ctesiphon, and Alexandria, and his empire began the early stages of the Silk Road. He and his desendents created one of the world's most enduring cultural traditions-The Hellenistic Synthesis. A bunch of drunken mongols in a tent drinking kumish pales in comparison to Ptomemian Alexandria, with it's harbor, palaces, temples, the Pharos, and the Library.

Ahhh ohkay never mind my brain is stupid this morning

When I said "Khan" I was talking about the "Khanites" and "Khans" of the mongols, the kingdoms and rulers respectively.

quote:

the Khans

The Mongols North not the Khans and the did have a long reign even if it eventually collapsed for those very reasons and what you describe is the eternal fate of the nobel and brilliant to be slaughtered by the armed and dumb. Ghengis was still one of the greatest conquerers of all time though even if he did not exactly improve the lands he dominated.

quote:

Ghengis Khan

the Khans had to be some of the worst rulers on the planet. They are the only world-dominating culture on the planet that has given nothing to the pot of world civilization. Everywhere they went, they spread discord and internal stagnation. The Rus was entering into a period of renewed brilliance in which it was going to become the center of metropolitan christian civilization until the Mongols came along, removed it from the west, and the subsequent renniassance, and actually injected a taint of brutalism that was unknown beforehand. They also sent the south, regions under the guidance of the Caliphs, into an era of inner turmoil, which is still reigning today. Vivat Rex Genghis

Good Point ICE

Alexander did a lot more than just gain territory. I don't know much about Khan...but Alexander was pretty good at making the places he conquered better and opening up trade/cultural/intellectual barriers over his entire empire.

However...Napolean also enacted many positive reforms and probably faced a greater challenge in taking over Europe. He was facing organized, "civilized" opponents. And then almost managed to come back and do it again.

quote:

Originally posted by carpetrug01:
(0) donald trump

YEAAA

You Need A History Class Really Bad

well, alexander the great simply pisses me off, i hate napoleon, and dont know genghis tamerlane and atilla, so i just chose the closest to the time period... which happens to be in ours. You see what im saying?

funny now rouse we meant ancient conquerors silly madchen you have the brains of fliedermaus somedays you really do.

(0) donald trump

Thing about al in india is they had cavalry too and they used war elephants which could cause a hell of a lot more damage then a bunch of guys on horseback

On Ghengis: quick fact: Ghengis Khan is not a name it's a title it means "Great Leader" Ghengis's real name is belived to be Temuchen

yes the armored cavalry of europe whould have been a challenge but any tech advantage would have leveled out eventually Ghengis's superior tactics would have won through from him as the Tech advantage was lost.

I hadn't even thought of that. European calvary would've been quite the challenge for Khan.

Alexander on the other hand...if he had just rested, and gone back to Macedon to work out the problems with Olympias and Antipater, things would've gone so much better for him. He could've traveled south, conquered much of Africa that was known, rested, then traveled East toward India.

The Indians would've fought like hell..but with enough calvary, Alexander could've taken them.

I think the Khan would not have had as much success as he had else where just because of the way europeans fought with their fortifications and heavly armored cavalry Ghengis's light horsemen would have had serious trouble. Some regions though would have fallen before the Mongols like wheat before a reaper

True. I agree that Genghis Khan had a much more successful post-mortem rule...but I think Alexander was still the world's greatest conqueror. If Alexander hadn't died, his empire could've easily have out-expanded Genghis Khan's. He would've expanded into Africa, then with that support, tried again to go out East, I'd imagine.

If he hadn't died before reaching Europe, do you think Khan would've conquered them, as well? Or as India was Alexander's near kryptonite, Europe would've been Khan's?