What makes a good legendary conqueror?

WarMachine

WarMachine

Active member
Throughout history you've had generals and rulers outdo each other in terms of how much territory they've controlled within their lifetimes. But what makes them so much better than their contemporaries and others of similar upbringing throughout history?

I say that a triumphant conqueror needs to have a military mind of unique intuitiveness, the use of skilled troops, a nation willing to support him throughout his conquests, and weaker neighbors to dominate don't hurt either.

What are your guys opinions about it?
 
A legendary conquerer improves the lives of those people in conquered territories beyond what was possible under their old leadership.
 
IMO a legendary conquerer needs to obviously have a great military mind, be a risk taker and innovator, see the bigger picture. He must be 'one of the men' yet apart from them at the same time.

As well as this though he needs to have the personal qualities that inspire his men to follow him to any end. When he talks to his men he needs to have that special quality that each man believes that the General or Leader is speaking to him and him alone. He needs to have that special smile that promises 'follow me and win glory' Alexander the Great had this, Shogun Tokugawa had this, Napoleon had this, Heinz Guderian had this.

Although the latter is not thought of as a great conquerer as he was working for Adolf Hitler, Guderian had all the qualities of a great general and his men loved him for it. I liken him to another great general, Subotai the Valiant, who was the greatest of all the Mongol Generals. Like Guderian, Subotai was subordinate to Ogedai Khan but Subotai, like Guderian after him, was the man, or one of the foremost, who won his leader the great victories that made him infamous.
 
a great conqueror must be a brilliant military mind as well as an awesome politician. he must have, and retain, the support of the people of his home country before he can conquer the world. he must be loved by his troops so much that they be willing to lay their lives down for him at the drop of a dime. once he conquers the land he must then make it better than it was before. he must unite the peoples of his homeland and the peoples of the lands he has conquered.

unification is probably the greatest sign of a great conqueror.
 
"Whispering Death" has it right, a great conqueror is a winner and has to control the history books. If you control that you control time... ;)
 
You're men have to want to follow you all the way to hell if need be. And you have to do something signifigant enough to be remebered.
 
Good Legendary Conqueror

This is a toughone to call because to be legendary makes for a sense of disbelief or of disproportion in the making of one's history. It is not enough to conquer great stretches of land, I believe the first quality that must go into this must be a worthy opponant and of course the second is actually conquering-thus Hannibal the great General falls a little(?) short here because he failed to conquer his prime opponant-Rome-and not necessarily because of the circumstances apparantly faced only one first rate military mind-Scipio Africanus and lost to him. Since I'm assuming that "good" in this context is not based on moral qualities, then names like Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar would leap to mind. Napoleon and Hitler would in the end seem more like losers because they failed to conquer all-although Napoleon after 1805 almost seemed to have won all but like Hitler later failed to finish Britain and invaded Russia. General Guderian fits the category of a great General, not a great conqueror, the differences are to great to compare- he fought and won for Hitler-Alexander, Caesar and Napoleon fought for themselves. The Duke of Wellington would thus be a better fit in this that Guderian because I believe him to be a superior general than Guderian but he was not a conqueror in the sense of the other three. In the matter ot the opposition one is reminded that the boxer Muhammed Ali is remembered more for his epic fights with Joe Frazier than almost anything else, like Alexander vs Darius or Caesar vs Pompey the Great-epic stuggles (the rope-a-dope against Foreman- is this Wellington vs Napoleon forces in itsuse of defensive mastery?). Napoleon often faced worthy opponants also but its the final battles that always seem to be the defining point-you can look to the battle of Eylau as the turning point in his fortunes despite many later successes. Okay, that's enough of me at this point. Am I on the right track? Best JWC
 
Not really a conquerer but the Greatest British Leader of all time, Winston Churchill, his speeches really did boost morale, people would come away from the radio after one and think that we could do it. He was a great figurehead and the way we treated him after the war was shameful.
 
A great conquerer must of course have success. They must also have the ability to send thousands of men to thier deaths without a second thought, the ability to strike fear in all that come thier way. They ability to have the people follow them to thier death.
 
Alexander Suvorov, probably the greatest Russian commander, the Generalissimo of the Russian Army. Started as a mere private in the army, with years recognized as a brilliant strategist and tactician, his soldiers loved him and followed him into fire and water. In his entire military career, spawning for over 55 years, was NEVER defeated. That's not something everyone can brag about.
 
The thing that I find makes a Ledgendary Conqurer, is that the land they conqur remains in their countries hands after there death.
Take Macedonia for Example, Philip II, liberated occupied Macedonia and all its neibours that posed a threat to Macedonia, then with a stable country/empire in the hands of his son Alexander III (The Great), Alexander was able to conquer everything between Macedonia and India. I don't consider Alexander a great conquere because his empire begun to fall to pieces withing years of his death.
 
Genghis Khan. That crazy dude started from a tribe... went and took china and pushed through persia etc etc, by the time of Genghis Khans death , his empire was like twice the size of the roman empire and 4 times the size of Alexanders...finally as for what makes a true conquerer...well after Genghis Khans death...his sons took over and they ended up DOUBLING the size of the empire, making it the largest empire ever. The point being a great conquerer must also breed great conquerers like Genghis Khan and his sons who "kept up the good work" so to speak :D I saw that stuff on a documentary by the way.
 
well, in my mind, a great conqueror must have faithful troops, and he must be successful, but he has to beat the best. Hitler took on France, he won. He took on small European countries, he won. He took on Britian, the USSR, and the grand ole' USA, and he lost. Alexander bested the Persians, the largest empire at the time, i do believe. He was great. Alexander the Great is the only good conqueror that i can speak about with certainty, so i wont go on from there. but you cant just conquer some pipsqueak little country and become a great conqueror, you must beat and then become the best.
 
Has no one seen "I'm gonna git you sucka"... ya gotta have theme music. :lol:

The spin doctor/historian is the one who can make or break any leader. I think it was Sam Donaldson back during BabyBush's first term that had the following conversation in the white house press room.

unknown: Wonder what he (GW) is going to say?
Sam: Depends whose hand is up his :cen: today.

The man with the pen can make you a despot or a benevolent leader, an outstanding military leader or an incompetent buffoon. Case in point WWII General Douglas MacArthur. My grandpa was a commo man that strung line from forward observers back to the arty. He earned four purple hearts and a bronze star, spent three years in the Pacific and was a professional private. He was disgusted by the histories and news that made the man out to be a hero and magnificent leader. The men in his unit used the name Dug Out Doug to express their opinion of the man. In fact my grandpa spent 28 days in the stockade for stringing up a sign once that said "Welcome Dug-Out Doug" to greet the commander upon his tour of a then safe battlezone in the Phillipines.

The pen IS mightier than the sword.
 
ghost457 said:
well, in my mind, a great conqueror must have faithful troops, and he must be successful, but he has to beat the best. Hitler took on France, he won. He took on small European countries, he won. He took on Britian, the USSR, and the grand ole' USA, and he lost. Alexander bested the Persians, the largest empire at the time, i do believe. He was great. Alexander the Great is the only good conqueror that i can speak about with certainty, so i wont go on from there. but you cant just conquer some pipsqueak little country and become a great conqueror, you must beat and then become the best.
Click to expand...

Alexander didn't have any loyal troops except the "Silver Shields" Hypapsits in the last years of his campaign. He progessivly lost respect from his troops, the further he pushed,
His "Orientalisation" of the Macdonian Army, making them appear more Asian, to appeal to the Persians and Indians, a complete 180 to what his father did, made them fierce Patriots, made them hate their enemies, and made them feel superior to all nationalities, except their own.
And Alexander was a violent alcoholic, had a foul temper, killed a Macedonian Nobleman named Cleitus in a drunken brawl with a spear, trialed and executed Philotas, the son of Alexanders Cavalry commander and several other officers for an alleged murder plot, and executed Callisthenes, nephew of Aristotle for consipracy purely for defing his "Orientalisation"
His men also considered him incompetent when more men died crossing the desert, returning from India, than died in battles against Darius and the Punjab put together.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top