What makes a good legendary conqueror?

March 24th, 2005  

Topic: What makes a good legendary conqueror?

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?
March 24th, 2005  
A Can of Man
A legendary conquerer improves the lives of those people in conquered territories beyond what was possible under their old leadership.
March 24th, 2005  
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.
March 24th, 2005  
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.
March 24th, 2005  
Whispering Death

History is written by the winners.
March 25th, 2005  
Charisma, if you can inspire your troops and win their trust you`ll do well.
March 25th, 2005  
"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...
May 7th, 2005  
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.
May 7th, 2005  
melkor the first

Topic: 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
June 8th, 2005  
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.