What makes a good legendary conqueror? - Page 2




 
--
 
June 9th, 2005  
Darcia
 
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.
June 9th, 2005  
vargsriket
 
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.
June 9th, 2005  
Bory
 
 
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.
--
June 10th, 2005  
str8 thug
 
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 I saw that stuff on a documentary by the way.
June 17th, 2005  
ghost457
 
 
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.
June 17th, 2005  
bulldogg
 
 
Has no one seen "I'm gonna git you sucka"... ya gotta have theme music.

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 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.
June 17th, 2005  
Bory
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghost457
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.
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.