FutureMedic
Active member
Romans.
Whoever the guy was who led the Goths in conquering Rome. Talk about an overwhelming defeat of an indomitable foe!! And to say it changed the world is an understatement.
Does the size of the force matter? What about a Battalion Commander, or even a Company Commander?
I personally think that a successful leader is one who commands his men with courage, inspires them to follow him through personality not by virtue of rank and who fought in difficult circumstances. Victorious or not.
But what I'm questioning is the factor that is actually used to decide the level of "success".
Genghis Khan. He conquered Asia (not just Persia and Alexander did) where Julius Caesar conquered France. Who hasn't?
I will go with the tried and true on this one and say that it is a toss up between Alexander the Great or Genghis Khan although I guess we have a choice of everyone up until WW1 so I may yet change my mind as the likes of Napoleon, Nelson and Wellington rated pretty well too.
So for Now Genghis Khan gets the nod.
Disclaimer:
*** Opinions subject to change once sobriety sets in ***
Young pony Alexander the Great has to rate right up there....
In terms of what he did in such a short time, it seems there was no equal, especially allowing for the small state he originated from and the slow pace of ancient history.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.