My mistake, I thought he might have made it to Eastern or Central Europe.
Who is the GOAT conqueror? Alex or Genghis?
- Thread starter Matty da Ranga
- Start date
My mistake, I thought he might have made it to Eastern or Central Europe.
D
Deleted member 110072
Guest
The Persian empire wasn't exactly unorganised but Alexander's conquest did mean a lot of Greek culture was spread into that part of the world and lasted well beyond the Diadochi's kingdoms. Theres a reason the early Islamic empire became such a centre of mathematics building on the holdover Greek knowledge.
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 64,262
- Reaction score
- 60,847
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 62,264
- Reaction score
- 4,469
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2011
- Messages
- 28,205
- Reaction score
- 23
Alexander though fought in lots of his battles. Genghis did not. He may have been involved in some fighting when he younger, but as a conqueror, I dont think he ever fought.
Alex only had to beat one already large empire, and yeh did an excursion in the Ganges River Valley. Genghis though took a lot Steppe land without fighting. He offered the nomad tribes peace and prosperity, and a lot of tribes just elected to join him.
Genghis sons and general's did most of the work. Alex was simply more badass though. Alex is one if not the GOAT warrior in real life.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2014
- Messages
- 11,638
- Reaction score
- 7,520
Kahn
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2011
- Messages
- 28,205
- Reaction score
- 23
Actually I dont believe Genghis was around by the time the Mongols went to Europe. Genghis could not take Southern China no matter how hard he tried.
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2011
- Messages
- 28,205
- Reaction score
- 23
Sad that show ended on a cliff hanger. If people want another season of Sense 8, surely they can muster up another season for Marco Polo.
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2011
- Messages
- 28,205
- Reaction score
- 23
Uzbekistan is still pretty indo Euro. Kazahkstan I believe was like that before Genghis. The Mongols were not the first nomads to carve out an empire in Central Asian Steppes. The Gokturks, and Khazars were there before, and there was others before them.
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2012
- Messages
- 19,762
- Reaction score
- 5
lol this is the biggest fallacy in all of history. The Mongols brought a period of unprecedented peace through the Silk Road and finally bridged commerce between the East and West. What nations did Alexander build? He tried to plunder greater civilizations- The Persians and Indians.
The Mongols were arguably the most diverse and tolerant empire of ancient times. They generally absorbed the religions and customs of those they conquered and often converted to them (his progeny in Central Asia converted to Islam while others to Christianity). It was only when Baghdad refused their mercy that the Mongols unleased their full might upon the region, from which Islam has still not recovered from.
The Roman Catholic church would not be the superpower it later became if not for them crushing center of civilization.
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2012
- Messages
- 19,762
- Reaction score
- 5
have you seen the Russian movie about Genghis's origin? It's really accurate to historical record, though whether that record is accurate to reality is another question.
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2011
- Messages
- 28,205
- Reaction score
- 23
Yeh I saw it that is great movie. I think Jamukha is the last time Genghis personally involved in fighting. And it is not for much turf either. It is more about combining tribes.
And they were suppose to make a sequel too.
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2012
- Messages
- 19,762
- Reaction score
- 5
Plus at the time, the rest of the world was a shithole. Genghis really only cared about taking China because it was by far the wealthiest nation.
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2014
- Messages
- 13,722
- Reaction score
- 1,426
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2005
- Messages
- 50,660
- Reaction score
- 10,708
well for sure but part of what made them great was that they adopted technology from the great civilizations to become extremely adept at siege warfare.
If they ever had a true achilles heel it seems like it was more heat and jungles
Jigga please. 100 years of peace after 100 years of chaos and genocide.
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2003
- Messages
- 15,863
- Reaction score
- 74
This is all kinds of right, right here.
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2009
- Messages
- 14,935
- Reaction score
- 190
They did just fine vs fortified castles man
At the time they had some of the finest siege engineers and equipment in history
They sacked huge stone fortifications all over asia and m.e
To awnser the t.s question its clearly gengis .
Alexander was awesome but built on the sucess of his dad (whod be known himself as one of historys great leaders if his son hadnt outshone him so bad) gengis by contrast built himself up from nothing!
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2005
- Messages
- 11,779
- Reaction score
- 18,618
Khan. Due to:
-The sheer scale of his empire. At the height of the Mongol conquests, they had conquered China (although it's final completion would come after Genghis death); most of the middle east, were one of the few armies to pacify Afghanistan; had just one of his generals with what was really just a large recon force, skirted the Black Sea and smashed the major militaries of Russia; and struck deep into Europe. If the Mongols had decided to concentrate westward, it's unlikely they would have been stopped until they reached the Atlantic.
-Genghis came from nothing. Sure his dad was the leader of a rather sizable clan, but he was murdered early in Genghis' life and the family was cast out, with Genghis himself even becoming a slave. From this, the guy rose to unite the Mongols, and take the largest territory the world has ever seen by a conqueror.
Alexander, by contrast, was pretty much born into the perfect position for a would be conqueror. Not that this should take away from his genius as one of the greatest military minds of all time. But Alexander was born into a household that had almost conquered mainland Greece by the time he was old enough to take charge of the cavalry at the battle of Chaeronea. He inherits a first rate army that had been primed and ready to invade the Persian empire for the previous 2-3 years. Every logistical piece was in place and ready to go by the time Philip died and Alexander took the throne. He couldn't have asked for a better set up.
The only place where I would rank Alexander above Genghis was in the quality of the opposition. Sure, both fought all types of opposing armies and forces, and the mongols likely more. But where the Mongols had the most advantage, was essentially in technology. Being natural riders from the steppe, the armies of China, the Middle east, and Europe simply had no answer for the kind of cavalry tactics that the Mongols used. So you could argue that Genghis had a natural advantage there.
Conversely, Alexander had some of those advantages, in the sense that the Persian infantry were grossly inferior to the Macedonian phalanx. But Alexander still won most of his battles through the use of cavalry, that he personaly led and were often outnumbered. You could make the argument that the Macedonians were often fighting opponents with equal technology, and thus, had a more even fight.
-The sheer scale of his empire. At the height of the Mongol conquests, they had conquered China (although it's final completion would come after Genghis death); most of the middle east, were one of the few armies to pacify Afghanistan; had just one of his generals with what was really just a large recon force, skirted the Black Sea and smashed the major militaries of Russia; and struck deep into Europe. If the Mongols had decided to concentrate westward, it's unlikely they would have been stopped until they reached the Atlantic.
-Genghis came from nothing. Sure his dad was the leader of a rather sizable clan, but he was murdered early in Genghis' life and the family was cast out, with Genghis himself even becoming a slave. From this, the guy rose to unite the Mongols, and take the largest territory the world has ever seen by a conqueror.
Alexander, by contrast, was pretty much born into the perfect position for a would be conqueror. Not that this should take away from his genius as one of the greatest military minds of all time. But Alexander was born into a household that had almost conquered mainland Greece by the time he was old enough to take charge of the cavalry at the battle of Chaeronea. He inherits a first rate army that had been primed and ready to invade the Persian empire for the previous 2-3 years. Every logistical piece was in place and ready to go by the time Philip died and Alexander took the throne. He couldn't have asked for a better set up.
The only place where I would rank Alexander above Genghis was in the quality of the opposition. Sure, both fought all types of opposing armies and forces, and the mongols likely more. But where the Mongols had the most advantage, was essentially in technology. Being natural riders from the steppe, the armies of China, the Middle east, and Europe simply had no answer for the kind of cavalry tactics that the Mongols used. So you could argue that Genghis had a natural advantage there.
Conversely, Alexander had some of those advantages, in the sense that the Persian infantry were grossly inferior to the Macedonian phalanx. But Alexander still won most of his battles through the use of cavalry, that he personaly led and were often outnumbered. You could make the argument that the Macedonians were often fighting opponents with equal technology, and thus, had a more even fight.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2010
- Messages
- 35,524
- Reaction score
- 5,004
Quality of territories conquered goes to Alexander. Quantity undoubtedly goes to Genghis. Mostly wasteland and non-arable land. Like comparing an athlete and an obese guy.
