Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
kannin

History Debate!

138 posts in this topic

i say alexandre the great, for his tactics

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Genghis Khan no debate :tsu:

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hannibal, for being the only one to cross the Alps into Rome with an army and for the Battle of Cannae.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Genghis Khan no debate :tsu:

do explain? there were many just as great as he was

Hannibal, for being the only one to cross the Alps into Rome with an army and for the Battle of Cannae.

good one! alex for the taking of babylon for the cake!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

do explain? there were many just as great as he was

good one! alex for the taking of babylon for the cake!

Simply because he took over the most land and in the quickest amount of time in all of history! and unlike alexander and most conquers khan is a true rags to riches story. He was part of one of the lowest tribes, and he got exiled. Then slowly took over and united.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IGNORANCE--causing stupid decisions, idiotic wars, bad elections, uncontrolled disease. numbed brains and a placid, credulous populace. Let's hear it for ignorance, conquering nations from the inside out since the Day of Creation. Selah.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simply because he took over the most land and in the quickest amount of time in all of history! and unlike alexander and most conquers khan is a true rags to riches story. He was part of one of the lowest tribes, and he got exiled. Then slowly took over and united.

yeah but you cant always use the sob story the "robin hood effect" there were lots of figures like that, in my personal opinion it doesnt give them anything different over the others, look at napolean short man with a gimp arm

IGNORANCE--causing stupid decisions, idiotic wars, bad elections, uncontrolled disease. numbed brains and a placid, credulous populace. Let's hear it for ignorance, conquering nations from the inside out since the Day of Creation. Selah.

jeez dude you okay?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

yeah but you cant always use the sob story the "robin hood effect" there were lots of figures like that, in my personal opinion it doesnt give them anything different over the others, look at napolean short man with a gimp arm

Well if taking over the most land in the quickest time and rags to richest dosent work for you then i guess i can add more lol. He is the reason for a vast spread of knowledge because of his control of Asia and middel east he controled the silk road making it stable spreading everything across the world. He allowed freedom of religon in his empire which is almost unheard of at that time.

vastly threatened the roman empire.

Not to mention getting all the tribes of mongol to somehow work together and all the kingdoms he conquered is very immpresive.

Edited by spartan max2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IGNORANCE--causing stupid decisions, idiotic wars, bad elections, uncontrolled disease. numbed brains and a placid, credulous populace. Let's hear it for ignorance, conquering nations from the inside out since the Day of Creation. Selah.

I think Fear could be partners with ignorance :tu:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yellow Fever. It conquered the French in Haiti and prevented napoleon from establishing a New World Empire.

Yellow Fever. It conquered the French in Haiti and prevented napoleon from establishing a New World Empire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

vastly threatened the roman empire.

So, tell me. How did someone in the 12th and 13th Century threaten an empire that ended in the 5th Century? (Or did you mean the Byzantine or Holy Roman Empire, which were different polities?)

--Jaylemurph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, tell me. How did someone in the 12th and 13th Century threaten an empire that ended in the 5th Century? (Or did you mean the Byzantine or Holy Roman Empire, which were different polities?)

--Jaylemurph

Smart ass.... But fair point :tu: lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah but you cant always use the sob story the "robin hood effect" there were lots of figures like that, in my personal opinion it doesnt give them anything different over the others, look at napolean short man with a gimp arm

jeez dude you okay?

Never better, Kannin!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alex the great conquerd much of the known world at the time spreading greek philosophy far into distant empires also built many beautiful greek out posts.

In my opinion the greek army of tgat time would merc the mongols

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, tell me. How did someone in the 12th and 13th Century threaten an empire that ended in the 5th Century? (Or did you mean the Byzantine or Holy Roman Empire, which were different polities?)

--Jaylemurph

Attila the Hun better fit that time in history, but he is not my first choice. Spartan's timeline might be off, but his choice is good. Genghis Khan could have conquered both Asia and Europe had it not been for intervening fate. The Golden Horde was unstoppable. Their tactics and weapons were unmatched by the best military of the era. They conquered millions of people in a wide swath of countries. They were stopped by bodies of water, which was why Japan wasn't conquered, but they likely had captured experts who could have solved that problem. They used their prisoners for their benefit, some of whom were the best engineers at the time. The French and the Germans might have spoken Mongolian if Genghis Khan marched across western Europe. They would have faced a force with no real opposition that used the best military technology of the day. It was partly comprised of captured eastern Europeans, the ones that weren't killed, murdered, enslaved, etc.. The British Isles would have been Europe's last hope.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Attila the Hun better fit that time in history, but he is not my first choice. Spartan's timeline might be off, but his choice is good. Genghis Khan could have conquered both Asia and Europe had it not been for intervening fate. The Golden Horde was unstoppable. Their tactics and weapons were unmatched by the best military of the era. They conquered millions of people in a wide swath of countries. They were stopped by bodies of water, which was why Japan wasn't conquered, but they likely had captured experts who could have solved that problem. They used their prisoners for their benefit, some of whom were the best engineers at the time. The French and the Germans might have spoken Mongolian if Genghis Khan marched across western Europe. They would have faced a force with no real opposition that used the best military technology of the day. It was partly comprised of captured eastern Europeans, the ones that weren't killed, murdered, enslaved, etc.. The British Isles would have been Europe's last hope.

...I'm not disagreeing, really, with his argument. I think it's persuasive. It just had a little discontinuity that needed to be addressed. :)

--Jaylemurph

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Attila the Hun better fit that time in history, but he is not my first choice. Spartan's timeline might be off, but his choice is good. Genghis Khan could have conquered both Asia and Europe had it not been for intervening fate. The Golden Horde was unstoppable. Their tactics and weapons were unmatched by the best military of the era. They conquered millions of people in a wide swath of countries. They were stopped by bodies of water, which was why Japan wasn't conquered, but they likely had captured experts who could have solved that problem. They used their prisoners for their benefit, some of whom were the best engineers at the time. The French and the Germans might have spoken Mongolian if Genghis Khan marched across western Europe. They would have faced a force with no real opposition that used the best military technology of the day. It was partly comprised of captured eastern Europeans, the ones that weren't killed, murdered, enslaved, etc.. The British Isles would have been Europe's last hope.

Interesting point

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alexandre took the plains of gaugamela with 47000 men against 200000 blade chariot baring persians and was named king of asia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He erected schools and many citys, he was a pharao of egypt a king of asia and greece, I doubt the mongols could handle the phalanx either

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ill say on a final note alex was a better tactician, yes khan might have gained more than alex from a worse start but khan relied on large numbers were as alex used percise tactics to take down far superior forces, bith khan and alex had there troops best suited for the terrain they faught on

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Charlemagne.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Ill say on a final note alex was a better tactician, yes khan might have gained more than alex from a worse start but khan relied on large numbers were as alex used percise tactics to take down far superior forces, bith khan and alex had there troops best suited for the terrain they faught on

The idea that Khan just used vast numbers is kinda a misconception

Disclamier the bottom you about to see has been copied and pasted

Genghis Khan. He always confronted far larger armies. (Remember, Mongolia is a sparsely-populated country, only 3 million people today ...and Genghis could only take those that farms could spare.) He had many original tecniques, such as using his foes larger enemies against them - by terrorizing the countryside, forcing people into overcrowded cities where food would run out quickly in a siege. Or, having each soldier set up 3 or 4 campfires, to give the impression of larger numbers. Or, using the actual bodies of killed oponents in military construction...He didn't care how he won, so long as he won.

Alexander? Won a lot, but lousy tactician. If you check, each of his major victories has a similar plan: His second, Parmenion, would force the foe backwards, and hold them off until Alex could go around the left flank of his foe with his cavalry, to surround them. Anyone who was keeping track of this pattern, during his campaign, would have been able to defeat him.

Edited by spartan max2
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and an interesting fact about him that most people do not relize is that he abolished torture in his empire

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the OP can be seen in different ways. Though as it has the word "conqueror", then for amount of land conquered, then it must be Genghis Khan. Though Alexander, in my opinion, was a better general and had greater difficulties in achieving his conquests. Genghis used a type of horse warfare unknown in Europe that could not at first be countered. The armies of Kievan Rus that fell at the battle of Kalka River were hardly different to any European army at that time. Ghengis only failed to get to Western Europe because of unimaginable sacrifice of Slavs, mostly Poles after Kalka River disaster, and Hungarians in "soaking up" the tidal wave. As far as Europe goes, it was not so difficult for Ghengis to cross thousands of miles from Mongolia with hardly any population or high degree of military power. He then had one major victory, Kalka, and was then stopped. Alexander had to fight similar level of civilisation and fighting ability to his own, all the way from Macedon to India. He had no easy tasks, everything was difficult for him. I put Alexander at the top because he had a harder task.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the OP can be seen in different ways. Though as it has the word "conqueror", then for amount of land conquered, then it must be Genghis Khan. Though Alexander, in my opinion, was a better general and had greater difficulties in achieving his conquests. Genghis used a type of horse warfare unknown in Europe that could not at first be countered. The armies of Kievan Rus that fell at the battle of Kalka River were hardly different to any European army at that time. Ghengis only failed to get to Western Europe because of unimaginable sacrifice of Slavs, mostly Poles after Kalka River disaster, and Hungarians in "soaking up" the tidal wave. As far as Europe goes, it was not so difficult for Ghengis to cross thousands of miles from Mongolia with hardly any population or high degree of military power. He then had one major victory, Kalka, and was then stopped. Alexander had to fight similar level of civilisation and fighting ability to his own, all the way from Macedon to India. He had no easy tasks, everything was difficult for him. I put Alexander at the top because he had a harder task.

Indeed , I dont agree with spartan on alex being a lowsy tactitian he had low jumbers against huge numbers u have tp be tactical in that sense

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.