# Humanities & Anthropology > History & Civilisations >  Greatest Military Conqueror In History

## Silverbackman

Who do you think is the greatest military conqueror in history? I would have to say Genghis Khan. His tactics and ability to conquer largesforces with such a limited amount of soldiers are a few reasons. He also started what would become the largest land empire in history.

----------


## SortOf

Other: Adolf Hitler

----------


## Mycernius

> Other: Adolf Hitler


I doubt that very much. Within a decade his army had conquered then lost Europe. That does not make a good military commander. He overstretched his army, especially in Russia, which led to the eventual retreat from there. As the war progressed Hitler got more and more involved with military operations. This shows, as they started to lose more battles. In the beginning Hitler left the battles to very able generals. He, himself was not a very good military stratagist. But when a megolmaniac starts to say do this or die, people have a tendency to either do it or assassinate him. Assassination didn't work so it left them with the other route to follow.
Stalin, on the other hand went the other way. Full control of the army at the beginning of WW2, but eventually let his generals get on with the job. When he did that the fight turned to the USSRs favour. 
I suggest you read a proper history book before making such general statements.

----------


## moffeltoff

> I doubt that very much. Within a decade his army had conquered then lost Europe. That does not make a good military commander. He overstretched his army, especially in Russia, which led to the eventual retreat from there.


So did Napoleon.
Julius Ceaser only conquered Gaul (France/Belgium) ,which isnt that big a deal.
Alexander the great wassnt really a good strategist he only inspired his men through personal courage he was more of a fighter than a commander.

----------


## Carlson

> I doubt that very much. Within a decade his army had conquered then lost Europe. That does not make a good military commander. He overstretched his army, especially in Russia, which led to the eventual retreat from there. As the war progressed Hitler got more and more involved with military operations. This shows, as they started to lose more battles. In the beginning Hitler left the battles to very able generals. He, himself was not a very good military stratagist. But when a megolmaniac starts to say do this or die, people have a tendency to either do it or assassinate him. Assassination didn't work so it left them with the other route to follow.
> Stalin, on the other hand went the other way. Full control of the army at the beginning of WW2, but eventually let his generals get on with the job. When he did that the fight turned to the USSRs favour. 
> I suggest you read a proper history book before making such general statements.


he sure gave it a try didnt he...

what about right now?

ole G.W.

----------


## No-name

If you are looking for great generals of WWII, You should look at the winners, not the loser. Zhukov, Eisenhower, Nimitz and MacArthur stand out.

However to quote Yoda, "Wars not make one great."

----------


## Mycernius

> So did Napoleon.


But Napoleon did command his men from the front line. I think that is what a good military commander should do. They can survey the battle and can decide on what move to make depending on what the enemy does. Rather like a large chess board really. All of the people that Zuriel mentioned all commanded their men at the front line. It takes a good commander to alter his battle plans to take in how the other side is fighting. William the Conquerer did it at Hastings. To draw the English out he feigned a retreat. If he hadn't he would have lost. What also helps his recognising the over confidence of the enemy and using it to your advantage such as Hannibal at Cannae. Or being charismatic enough to inspire your men, such as Henry V at Agincourt.

----------


## Silverbackman

> Other: Adolf Hitler


Adolf Hitler was never on the battlefeild with his troops and thus does not qualify. However if you know the famous nazi general(s) that took over these countries then they can be close to the top.

----------


## Zauriel

I have voted for Genghis Khan, not only because he founded one of the largest world empires in history, which lasted for quite several centuries, but also because of his ruthlessness, his military strategy, unique perspective on loyalty and the warrior virtues he possessed as well. He understood exactly, what is treason and what is honor and loyalty. 


I think that William the Conqueror may the greatest conqueror next to Genghis Khan and Tamerlane. His invasion of Britain could be considered as the most successful invasion of Britain by a foreign force. All kings of England number themselves from the ascension of the Norman kings. His invasion of England gave the rule of England to his Norman descendants, whom in turn united Britain under one crown with their eventual invasion of Wales and Scotland. 

He created a centralized feudal government, something unique in Europe at the time. He made sure there were fewer nobles in England than in any other nation. This made the central government stronger so when the nobles rebeled against him (several times), the government survived these situations in better shape than any other nation. 

He was greedy for money, and cruel by our modern standards but he laid the foundation for the economic and political success of England. Which, I might add, is one of the largest and long-lasting empires of the modern word.

----------


## Maciamo

I chose Napoleon because the number of people and troops involved was so much greater than during the Antiquity, and society much more complex. There wasn't any big conqueror after Napoleon. Hitler won easily because of better technology (tanks, planes...), and mostly due to the unwillingness of fed-up-with-wars Europeans to fight back, so soon after WWI. Napoleon was truly a military genius though.

----------


## Zauriel

> I chose Napoleon because the number of people and troops involved was so much greater than during the Antiquity, and society much more complex. There wasn't any big conqueror after Napoleon. Hitler won easily because of better technology (tanks, planes...), and mostly due to the unwillingness of fed-up-with-wars Europeans to fight back, so soon after WWI. Napoleon was truly a military genius though.


A military genius? Hardly, a military genius much less a conqueror. First of all, he made several tactical mistakes especially the fiasco of invading Russia that led to his defeats. 
Besides, for me, any conqueror who failed to build a long lasting empire cannot be a conqueror. In addition, to be called a conqueror, you MUST be able to keep what you took. Napoleon (and Hitler) didn't. Furthermore, the title 'conqueror' also means 'victorious'. He was defeated by an overwhelming force of Austrian, English, Prussian and Swedish troops and was exiled to Elba (and then to Saint Helena). Why should one who was exiled (and died while in exile) carry the title of 'conqueror'?
In fact, Napoleon outlived his already crumbled empire. If Napoleon is a conqueror, so is Alaric the Visigoth, who never bothered to rule Rome after he sacked it.

----------


## mygger

I would chose Hannibal

----------


## Ua'Ronain

My personal favorite would be Alexander the Great, but it made we wonder about the spanish conquistadors who conquered much of central and south america. I know they did not face a tech savvy enemy but they were indeed vastly outnumbered.

----------


## rms2

I voted for Alexander the Great. Not only was he an absolutely brilliant tactician, he was also a marvellous military engineer and city planner.

He died too young (possibly poisoned by his own inner circle), otherwise he might have marched to the Pacific.

----------


## iann_allein

Napoleon Bonaparte died in British prison. 
the greatest military conqueror in history!!? l0l


Genghis Khan 0r Alexander The Great

----------


## ^ lynx ^

I voted for Genghis Khan. 

Big LOL at Bonaparte aswell.

----------


## Aristander

It's a toss up between Alexander and Genghis. Both of them conquered huge amounts of territory and both of the empires they built had a great effect on portions of the Earth they covered.

----------


## bud

they are all tyrants if you ask me. nothing great about them!

----------


## loco_aullador

I agree with bud. Any serious history student or reader wont wonder who's the greatest military conqueror. Theres not greatness in any military matter.

----------


## Regulus

I would have to go with Alexander being the greatest.

----------


## toophat82

I would go with Alexander the Great also! Just the fact that by the age of 22 he had already conquered Greece before moving on to minor parts of Asia is amazing. He achieved alot at a very young age and in a small period of time where there might be some others that may have achieved more but they were also much older and and took or had more time to do so.

----------


## albanopolis

To me the greatest conquerer was G.W. Bush. He new exactly what he wanted in Iraq. Alexander was an adventurier that build an empire that collapsed the next day after was build.

----------


## American Idiot

The Black death is the greatest conquerer in European history, IMO.

----------


## LeBrok

> The Black death is the greatest conquerer in European history, IMO.


Nay. Christians conquered 100% of European population at one point.

----------


## American Idiot

> Nay. Christians conquered 100% of European population at one point.


 and their reign has lasted much longer, also.

----------


## Goga

Alexander The Great or we Kurds (Medes) call him Îskenderê Mezin (mezin means great/big in Kurdish). He defeated the Aryans in Persia and Bactria & Sogdia (Southcentral Asia) when Aryans were still a huge superpower.

----------


## toyomotor

> Who do you think is the greatest military conqueror in history? I would have to say Genghis Khan. His tactics and ability to conquer largesforces with such a limited amount of soldiers are a few reasons. He also started what would become the largest land empire in history.


I agree. But don't forget that he had armies of hundreds of thousands raiding in different parts of Europe and Asia simultaneously. Had it not been for the ritual return of all of his troops to the homeland upon the death of a khan, and if his successors had maintained his vision, I see no reason why the Mongols could not have conquered the entire known world. Genghis, Mongke and Kublai were responsible for the Mongols ruling the greatest part of Europe, Arabia and South East Asia. Who at that period could have stopped them?

----------

