Pages: 1 2

 

Poll

Who was/were the best conqueror/s?

Genghis Khan24%24% - 17
Alexander The Great24%24% - 17
The Romans22%22% - 16
The Arabs1%1% - 1
The British15%15% - 11
The Spanish2%2% - 2
The French1%1% - 1
Other, please do tell......7%7% - 5
Total: 70
2006-06-27 18:07:09
Vampira_NB
Trying is the first step to failing
+76|6903|Canada Eh?

mcminty wrote:

I'd say Hernán(do) Cortés and his conquistadors.



...spanish.
All he did was slaughter the Incans.

hence the nickname: Cortés the Butcher

I vote the British, they had soooo much land, and they had most of North America for a while before the US won their independance.

Us Canadians are still technically part of the British commonwealth
2006-06-27 18:14:54
Ilocano
buuuurrrrrrppppp.......
+341|6896

Vampira_NB wrote:

mcminty wrote:

I'd say Hernán(do) Cortés and his conquistadors.



...spanish.
All he did was slaughter the Incans.

hence the nickname: Cortés the Butcher
Actualy, it was Pizarro who conquered the Incans.  Cortez conquered the Aztecs.

Last edited by Ilocano (2006-06-27 18:23:36)

2006-06-27 19:58:01
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6919|Tampa Bay Florida
Don't really know if they were the greatest, but if Hitler had given Rommel all he needed in North Africa, you could be sure Rommel would've gotten at least to the Mid-East and it's massive oil..
2006-06-28 01:49:22
xXSarnathXx
Decepticons forever!
+25|6837|Sweden
Karl XII former king of Sweden.

even tho Sweden is a relatively small country (population wise) back in the days they owned the Russians and took over all of northern Europe with their "Karoliner" warriors.

I think that was quite a feat, now it wasnt just Karl's glory there were other kings before him involved just cant remember who ^^ was a long time since my swedish history lessons
2006-06-28 03:15:48
MorbidFetus
Member
+76|6780|Ohio
The real question is whether the Romans would have been anywhere as advanced if the Greek and Etruscans did not come before them.

On a side note, I'd have to say Hannibal was my favorite conqueror.

http://www.cominganarchy.com/archives/2 … conquerors

Last edited by MorbidFetus (2006-06-28 03:34:03)

2006-06-28 03:20:58
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6784
This isn't about who was the best RULER but rather the best CONQUEROR, which is why I went for Alexander the Great...
2006-06-28 03:26:58
c0ldfyr3
Member
+23|6896|Ireland
Duh; Attila The Hun !
2006-06-28 03:27:50
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|7001|PNW

I voted for Genghis, though my hat goes off to the Romans too.
2006-06-28 03:38:07
Jepeto87
Member
+38|6914|Dublin

MorbidFetus wrote:

I'd have to say Hannibal was my favorite conqueror.
How did he not come up befor this! I completely forgot +1 for you!

Hannibal was a great general/conquerer ever, google the battle of Cannae its the bloodiest battle ever (in a single day) and it was in 216 or 214 BC!
2006-06-28 03:40:56
=OBS= EstebanRey
Member
+256|6779|Oxford, England, UK, EU, Earth

-=]DeatH1337[=- wrote:

LMFAO why did you put the French in the poll ?
A lot of Canada, most of North Africa, try putting "French Territories" into Google and you'll how big their (former) Empire is/was........
2006-06-29 14:53:58
-=]DeatH1337[=-
Member
+51|6863|England
Wow, some ppl take this shit too seriously, neg me all you want. You really think i give a f**k ?
2006-06-29 18:38:22
oug
Calmer than you are.
+380|6748|Πάϊ
Alexander the Great was Greek. Macedonia is just a part of Greece which has always been inhabited by greeks. Calling him macedonian and not greek would be like calling someone a londoner instead of english. As for the so called state of macedonia, it is normally called Skopje. They only recently changed their name to macedonia, cause otherwise who would give a fuck about them.

Oh and my vote goes to Al cause he did what he did with much less army and resources compared to his pole rivals, so strategically speaking he is #1.

Genghis -kickass- Khann should be ruled out: he was the son of the Devil
ƒ³
2006-06-29 19:02:56
PekkaA
Member
+36|6893|Finland

Ilocano wrote:

Read up on how the US acquired Hawaii and the Philippines and tell me that they are not conquerors.
I wouldn't be so proud about couple of tiny islands in a pacific...even though Bush family seem to have ambitions to be next Genghis Khan, sadly.

I'd say Alexander. Because he represented western civilization. Call me racist but I mongols are butt ugly.
2006-06-29 19:05:02
PekkaA
Member
+36|6893|Finland

PekkaA wrote:

Ilocano wrote:

Read up on how the US acquired Hawaii and the Philippines and tell me that they are not conquerors.
I wouldn't be so proud about couple of tiny islands in a pacific...even though Bush family seem to have ambitions to be next Genghis Khan, sadly.

I'd say Alexander. Because he represented western civilization and some kind of "culture". Call me racist but I think mongols are butt ugly.

Last edited by PekkaA (2006-06-29 19:06:57)

2006-06-29 21:15:24
kr@cker
Bringin' Sexy Back!
+581|6778|Southeastern USA
in terms of total contribution to the evolution of human society, technologies, tactics, theories, politics, art, trade, finance, expanse of realm, architecture, education, no one has done more than the Roman empire, the only groups they had trouble with were on the very fringes of their empire who's uprising co-incided with political unrest in the city of rome itself Rome, and it was eventually this civil unrest from within (and maybe something to do with the lead kettles used to make wine and their plumbing systems) that eventually stopped the Romans

sure, you can find some one that did this thing or that thing better, but you can't find one that did so much in total
2006-06-29 21:18:22
kr@cker
Bringin' Sexy Back!
+581|6778|Southeastern USA

Jepeto87 wrote:

MorbidFetus wrote:

I'd have to say Hannibal was my favorite conqueror.
How did he not come up befor this! I completely forgot +1 for you!

Hannibal was a great general/conquerer ever, google the battle of Cannae its the bloodiest battle ever (in a single day) and it was in 216 or 214 BC!
there seems to be some criss-crossing between individual rulers and entire civilizations, I'm going to stick with just entire civilizations for now
2006-06-30 09:47:09
Ilocano
buuuurrrrrrppppp.......
+341|6896

PekkaA wrote:

PekkaA wrote:

Ilocano wrote:

Read up on how the US acquired Hawaii and the Philippines and tell me that they are not conquerors.
I wouldn't be so proud about couple of tiny islands in a pacific...even though Bush family seem to have ambitions to be next Genghis Khan, sadly.

I'd say Alexander. Because he represented western civilization and some kind of "culture". Call me racist but I think mongols are butt ugly.
In truth, all my rant about the US is in light of current events, aka, the US is involved with many international conflicts in the last few decades.  Conquering is not the current term, but the US sure does have a way of instilling their "civilization".

But back on topic, Genghis Khan has my vote now.

Last edited by Ilocano (2006-06-30 09:48:00)

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard