Top 10 Conquerers

1. Alexander the great
2. Khan
3. Augustus Ceaser
4. Napolean
5. Cyrus
6. Charlemegn (i know i miss spelled this)
7. Justian
8. Mehemed II
9. Oliver Cromwell
10. Lincoln

In my past life on the internet, I was the Raider Leader Gargantua.  Leader of The Khans.

Still am.  (Just have to res the website)

I appreciate all your comments on my great conquests :)  lol… you guys should see some of these screenshots.

@Gargantua:

In my past life on the internet, I was the Raider Leader Gargantua.  Leader of The Khans.

Still am.  (Just have to res the website)

I appreciate all your comments on my great conquests :)  lol… you guys should see some of these screenshots.

XD

1. Alexander The Great
2. Genghis Khan
3. Flavius Belisarius
4. Napleon
5. Julius Caesar
6. Gustavus Adolphus
7. Cyrus the Great
8. Hannibal Barca
9. King David
10. Robert E Lee

Two of my top conquerers foughts wars in which they had no chance to win.

@Gargantua:

In my past life on the internet, I was the Raider Leader Gargantua.  Leader of The Khans.

Still am.  (Just have to res the website)

I appreciate all your comments on my great conquests :)  lol… you guys should see some of these screenshots.

Your welcome. :-)

@ABWorsham:

Two of my top conquerers foughts wars in which they had no chance to win.

I like your list, AB - however, Lee is not a conqueror. However, he is definitely one of history’s top 10 commanders, in my opinion.

Conqueror - someone who invaded another country/nation and defeated them (Alexander is the classic textbook example).

Rommel is a gray area (France 1940) and Lee is not a conqueror, but they are some of history’s best leaders. I would rank Lee in the top 8, personally.

In best commanders I have:

1. Alexander The Great
2. Rommel
3. Khan
4. Patton
5. Lee
6. Augustus Ceaser
7. Cyrus
8. Charlmegn
9. Mehemed II
10. ?

Empireman, Hannibal belongs on your list.

I think Pyrrhus of Epirus should belong on these lists as well. Hannibal himself rated him the second best general in antiquity, behind Alexander…

@reloader-1:

@ABWorsham:

Two of my top conquerers foughts wars in which they had no chance to win.

I like your list, AB - however, Lee is not a conqueror. However, he is definitely one of history’s top 10 commanders, in my opinion.

Conqueror - someone who invaded another country/nation and defeated them (Alexander is the classic textbook example).

Rommel is a gray area (France 1940) and Lee is not a conqueror, but they are some of history’s best leaders. I would rank Lee in the top 8, personally.

I realize you point, and it crossed my mind. But as a Southern I had to add Lee to the list.

Every good list needs some controversy.

Oh I agree with you - Florida boy here, he is one of the top 5 Generals/Commanders/Leaders in history.

Just not a Conqueror. That is a completely different term.

People put Alexander over Khan?  Why is that?  I’d put Khan 1 and Alexander 2.

Just ask William Shatner who should be first.

Jermofoot, I believe Alexander is thought higher than Khan because he was a product western culture and had more of a lasting effect on the world. The west glorifies Alexander’s conquering the East, while cringing at the thought of eastern conquerers.

Temujin (Ghenghis Khan) > Alexander.

He started with few barbarians in Mongolia, He seized Chinese cities without knowing what warmachine where, he conquered today’s Russia and fought against technologically advanced troops (heavy knights and such), he founded the biggest empire of human history. (The Yuan Dinasty).

But the majority of Westerners won’t admit a Mongolian accomplished a lot more than Alexander.

(and it was at Khubilai Khan’s court that Marco Polo wrote the “Milione”)

Ghenghis failed to conquer the fact that he’s Mongolian, and history doesn’t care about what happend over there.

Alexander > Khan.

@Gargantua:

Ghenghis failed to conquer the fact that he’s Mongolian, and history doesn’t care about what happend over there.

Alexander > Khan.

Every month should be White History month!

WHITE POWER!

It’s like the end of “Scarface” only it never ends, it just gets better!

@reloader-1:

Empireman, Hannibal belongs on your list.

I think Pyrrhus of Epirus should belong on these lists as well. Hannibal himself rated him the second best general in antiquity, behind Alexander…

Well there are so many good ones.

If it’s about conquering, it has to come down to one of three things.

1.  Amount of land conquered
2.  Number of people conquered
3.  Number of people beat up in battle.

–

All this talk about generalship or whatever . . . it’s not about best general, it’s best conqueror.  If it’s best general, damn sure General George Washington should be on the list.

I believe most people understand the difference. If you notice, Robert E Lee is the last on my list, I placed him in the list out of my southern pride and to stir up some good discussion. I kicked off Darius I, to place Lee in the list.

By the way, this is a great subject.

@ABWorsham:

Jermofoot, I believe Alexander is thought higher than Khan because he was a product western culture and had more of a lasting effect on the world. The west glorifies Alexander’s conquering the East, while cringing at the thought of eastern conquerers.

I can accept that possibility.

But Khan’s influence was far more widespread.  One of the Wonders of the World was built simply to defend against another attack like he made.  His genes can be found in a measurable percent of the population. I think his tactics are also still taught in combat theory…at least I think I read that somewhere. Granted, once he was gone, the empire devolved into multiple kingdoms and such, but the same can be said for Alexander.

@Gargantua:

In my past life on the internet, I was the Raider Leader Gargantua.  Leader of The Khans.

Still am.  (Just have to res the website)

I appreciate all your comments on my great conquests :)  lol… you guys should see some of these screenshots.

could you yaknow post a few shots :-D