Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Wars and ConflictsΒ  permalink

Wich one of the three world conquers where the best warrior ??

• Message 1.Β 

  Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Saturday, 18th April 2009

  There is in the history three persons that can be counted as world conquers.
  
  Alexander the great
  Genghis khan
  Tamerlane
  
  Wich one do you rate the higest and why.
  
  Hasse

  Link to this forum: Wich one of the three world conquers where the best warrior ??

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by hambi22 (U2309395) on Saturday, 18th April 2009

  Hi Hasse
  
  I think that Alexander the Great was the greatest warior.
  He had been winnig the batles because his genues tactic.
  Whereas Genghis khan more result of his good army, I know he was the was he had build it.
  
  Who is Tamerlane?
  
  best regards
  Hambi
  
  

  Link to this forum: Wich one of the three world conquers where the best warrior ??

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Saturday, 18th April 2009

  Hi Hambi
  
  You as a check probably know Tamerlane by the name Timur Lenk the last of the three,his capital was Samarkand.
  
  I grant you that Alexander was a brilliant tactic and strategic general,but his instrument the Macedonian army was created by his father Philip and the general Parmeon.
  
  The Mongol army was the creation of Ghengis he started as a small chieftan.The Mongols before Ghengis was divided in small clans that often made wars between themself.They fought whitout the organisation and disipline that would became the trademark of the Mongolian expansion.
  
  Your friend
  Hasse

  Link to this forum: Wich one of the three world conquers where the best warrior ??

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 18th April 2009

  Since the question was so general I would choose hands down Alexander: he did what he did in much less time despite having infantry army and not horses that could move up to 4 times faster than foot soldiers (i.e. in a fantasy analogy, had Alexander had a horse-based army he would had done it in 1-3 years, not 30 years like Jenkis Han!!!). But it is not so much his military achievements but his vision of a new world something that Jenkis Han did not (and could not) develop lacking Alexander's education and culture and overall depth. Alexander's Empire was fragmented right over his death bed unlike Jenkis Han's but also unlike Jenkis Han's it left a much bigger stamp on the world than Jenkis Han's (that also had huge impact on the course of history of course). And that was thanks to Alexander.
  
  As personal achievements however I would choose Jenkis Han. Alexander had the chance to suceed a larger than life father king Philip who had prepared it all for him and being followed by Philip's generals, tacticians like Parmenion not to mention the full range of Macedonian generals and officers, the dream team of ancient world (Krateros, Ptolemaios, Philotas, Seleukos etc.). In fact in the question "could there be anyone else do what Alexander did?" the answer is "No, of course, no-one else but then there is Alexander's father, Philip". Well yes Philip had he been alive could had done it.
  
  Jenkis Han indeed had started from very humble begginings and nothing in the start of his life or his tribe's apparent fate could predict that he was born for great things - instead he took his fate in his hands, joined the bands together progressively, organised the army, chose the best besides him even from low ranks of society and from adversaries and build in a pyramid like progression his Empire.
  
  Thus as an overall achiever Alexander stands above Jenkis and as a personal achiever "from-start-to-end" Jenkis stands above Alexader.

  Link to this forum: Wich one of the three world conquers where the best warrior ??

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Thursday, 30th April 2009

  Jenkis Han indeed had started from very humble begginings and nothing in the start of his life or his tribe's apparent fate could predict that he was born for great things - instead he took his fate in his hands, joined the bands together progressively, organised the army, chose the best besides him even from low ranks of society and from adversaries and build in a pyramid like progression his Empire.Β 
  
  
  I think I'd have to agree - though I much prefer Alexander as a person.
  
  Note also that Jengiz' achievements were far longer-lasting. Iirc, the last remnant of the Mongol Empire was the Khanate of the Crimea, which lasted until 1774 when Catherine the Great conquered it. That's almost six centuries after Jengiz' death. Not quite a Thousand Years Reich, but close. By contrast, the last fragment of Alexander's Empire, Ptolemaic Egypt, lasted only half as long.
  

  Link to this forum: Wich one of the three world conquers where the best warrior ??

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Thursday, 2nd July 2009

  Nic and Mike
  
  My friends IΒ΄m ashamed that I havnt answered erlier,but my spare time seems actually more scarse after retirement.
  Before you notice is it midsummer and holliday are home for two days after some yatching and are heading fore Germany to meet the family.
  
  This is ofcourse a trick question since all three was to put it mildly sucessfull and fantastic generals and its hairsplitting who where the best.
  
  Have to agree with you that Ghengis was the most stout politician of those three the pax Mongolia was held for nearly two hundred years when the last two strong remants the white and golden horde was chrushed by Timur.
  
  Further more IΒ΄m not surprised that Nic your great patriot favours Alexander.
  
  On my list is Alexander third,those are the reasons.
  He did inherit a superb trained army after his father Philip probably the best Grecian style army that have existed.
  A type of army that times over times from Marathon and onwards shown to be more than a match for anything the Persians could muster.
  Xenofon had after the battle of Cynaxa 401 shown that even a rather small greek army. Having its officers killed by treason and stranded deep into Persian territory was unstopable by the Persians in its march home.
  So that Alexander was able to smash the Persians so easy is good generalship but not that astounding.Philip could probably have don it but would probably bee satisfied at that peace that Alexander against Parmerons wish put down.A peace that would have put Macedonia on the map as a lasting superpower.
  IMHO is Alexanders best movement on the battlefield against Porus at Hydaspes where he totaly hoodwinked a unknown enemy,a battle easily an par with Hannibals Cannae.
  Whitout the more or less mutiny by the army would Alexander put them into a wandering tribe chasing the sun.
  
  Second Ghengis as you said a realy good general starting from scratch with claim to leadership on a smal tribe.At his best as politican uniting the Mongolian tribes.Some of the most astounding Mongol victories was won with Ghengis absent.Leaving his empire still in expansionist state after his death.
  
  My vote goes for Timur.Starting as a smal Tartar vassal under the Mongols did he first break this yoke.
  He did later chrush the Afghans,The Chaliphate,the northern parts of India(with todays Pakistan),Iran,the Mongols of the Golden and white horde(taking Moscow),the Mamlucks of Egypt and the Osmans and some more,he even brushed the Europeans under the Johannerites(later knights of Malta) aside with ease.
  His empire didnt last after his death but his son Shah Rukh and his son Ulugh Beg held the central parts togheter and their grandchildren move south creating the Mogul empire.
  
  The canates of Khasan and Crimera are by the way Tartars and not Mongols aka after Timur not Ghengis.
  
  Your friend
  Hasse

  Link to this forum: Wich one of the three world conquers where the best warrior ??

  Report message6

• Message 7

  , in reply to message 6.

  Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 4th July 2009

  Intersting Hasse. I went mostly for Jenkis because he was the first Mongol to do such (taking Attila who really did not do that much - back then Easter, Central even Roman western Europe was no big deal and had not much of a population). When Tamerlane rose to power much of Asia was already in ashes and there were no real power apart the... Seljuks (who were trying for 300 years then to get in the Byzantine Empire not achieving a breakthrough even in spite of its dissolution due to the Latin conquest!). This is mainly the reason that I place Jenkis above Tamerlane.
  
  Also on the view that Greek armies were anyway superior to Persians, for me (imagine I am Greek) I am not so clear on that. Greeks did not win on every case but only when they had a better leadership - in Marathon they had Miltiades, in Salamina Themistocles, in Plataies Pausanias and in "the descend of the 10,000" they had Xenophone, all of them arguably great military leaders, certainly not the average ones. Had Greeks been led by the likes of those guys that led the Athenian army in Sicily they would be slaughtered. Alexander was of course lucky to have had the best army in his times (and in all ancient world - one of the three best prior to gunpowder alongside Byzantines and Mongols) and more than lucky to have had a dream-team of generals, ready-gift from his father - but then perhaps that is also a great achievement of his, how he held power and led these larger-than-life egos that were the likes of Ptolemaios, Seleukos, Crateros, Pausanias, Filotas and so on... Only his father could do so, anyone else - including Jenkis Han would not be able (Jenkis would have to kill all of them, not just a few but then he would have remained with few good officers). Alexander's leadership takes another light under that angle.

  Link to this forum: Wich one of the three world conquers where the best warrior ??

  Report message7

Back to top