- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Was Alex the Great the greatest conqueror in history?
Posted on 5/5/26 at 2:25 pm to Bert Macklin FBI
Posted on 5/5/26 at 2:25 pm to Bert Macklin FBI
quote:
How does this not align with what I said?
Inherited his army=Nepo Baby
The conquering was all him =Took the roster and went on championship run.
Fair enough, but continually improved and enlarged that roster with each conquest. And the military acumen was incredible. So he was a brilliant nepo baby that took a strong, regional family business and built it to #1 on the S&P 500 after his dad died. In a relatively very short timeframe.
Posted on 5/5/26 at 2:27 pm to TigerIron
quote:No, I wouldn't call him the 'creator' of them as they all came into being by each other's power, and Subutai kept conquering for two Khans long after Genghis died, so you're defeating your own point about the empire expanding after death. He did not already have a large empire that the generals signed up for, or whatever picture you have in your head. Subutai met him before he was even called GK.
Subutei conquered on his own more territory than Alexander, and Genghis Khan was his boss and the creator and organizer of the nation that produced the army Subutei led, as well as several other armies.
quote:Not nearly as much as Alexander's.
And its military strategies are also taught in military schools
quote:means defeater of other peoples, imo. There is no time requirement, especially when you die at 32.
greatest conqueror
quote:It's definitely you.
if anyone is jacking off to YouTube
quote:Again, so did his generals, They all came up together.
again, Genghis Khan started from zero
Genghis Khan would have been nothing without his generals. Alexander was the primary general and he's the only one suggested in this thread who can say he led from the front.
quote::whatyearisitgif:
my guy
Posted on 5/6/26 at 4:33 pm to blueboy
quote:
West Point, for example, specifically teaches his hammer and anvil tactic
It seems to me that if you able to implement this tactic on the battlefield, you probably have superior resources.
quote:
as his points for adapting to different terrains and how to endure prolonged campaigns.
Yeah, right.
Posted on 5/6/26 at 5:42 pm to Globetrotter747
Cyrus the Great doesn’t get enough credit as a straight-up conqueror because people usually focus on his “good ruler” reputation instead of the fact he built one of the first real mega-empires. The guy rolled through the Medes, Lydia, and Babylon like it was nothing and stitched together a massive chunk of the ancient world in a pretty short span of time.
Compared to names like Alexander the Great or Genghis Khan, he should be in the same conversation for pure expansion and efficiency.
Compared to names like Alexander the Great or Genghis Khan, he should be in the same conversation for pure expansion and efficiency.
Posted on 5/6/26 at 5:48 pm to Lou
quote:
no one wrote about Alexander the Great until hundreds of years after his death, so as far as we know he didn't even exist.
This might be the dumbest post I've ever seen on here.
Posted on 5/6/26 at 7:55 pm to THRILLHO
quote:
Plus Alexander started off in a much more powerful position than Genghis.
Understatement of the year! Genghis started with nothing! Alexander started with the greatest army the world had ever seen.
Popular
Back to top

0







