# Alexander the great vs Oda Nobunaga



## Bender (Oct 9, 2011)

Both are renown for being the greatest conqueror/unifier's of their respective countries and have an interesting background as well as history with said countries. 

Alexander the great





VS.

Oda Nobunaga



Between these two who :

1. The bigger badass?
2. The more jerkass boss?
3. Had the coolest victories?
4. Was more messed up in the head?
5. Had the best portrayal in modern media work of fictions? 
6. Looked the coolest in these works of fiction?
7. Who do you like overall (Refer to poll)


----------



## Serp (Oct 9, 2011)

Him in all apart from 2.


----------



## Solrac (Oct 9, 2011)

When it comes to historical warriors, I almost always side with Alexander the Great. The greek/macedonian conqueror himself is too awesome and epic most of the time!


----------



## biar (Oct 9, 2011)

Alexander's conquest was far bigger than those of Oda Nobunaga's. Not to mention that Nobunaga didn't even manage to unite the whole Japan. He has never defeated Takeda Shingen or Uesege Kenshin but some weak Daimyos.


----------



## DemongGodOfChaos (Oct 10, 2011)

^^^



GG Alexander.


----------



## Kirito (Oct 10, 2011)

Genghis Khan solos these bitches.


----------



## Solrac (Oct 10, 2011)

Kirito said:


> Genghis Khan solos these bitches.



And Sun Tzu comes and beats them all down!


----------



## Pikmin Guru (Oct 10, 2011)

Asassin said:


> And Sun Tzu comes and beats them all down!



Except Vlad the Impaler


----------



## Solrac (Oct 10, 2011)

Pikmin Guru said:


> Except Vlad the Impaler



Woah... didn't see that one coming. And I disagree... Vlad would be the one to have the stake up his ass this time, just cause Sun Tzu says so!

But since we're all eventually bringing in the atrocity that is DW in here anyway... we might as well head for the manholes.


----------



## Lord Raizen (Oct 10, 2011)

Black Titan said:


> 1. The bigger badass?
> 2. The more jerkass boss?
> 3. Had the coolest victories?
> 4. Was more messed up in the head?
> ...



1. Nobunaga.

2. Nobunaga.

3. Alexander.

4. Toss up.

5. Nobunaga. Samurai Deeper Kyo and Sengoku Basara say hi.

6. See above.

7. See above.

I'll grant that Alexander had superior military achievement and supposedly the superior tactical mind, however he is no where near as hardcore as Nobunaga be it in life or fiction.


----------



## GoneDumbSEED (Oct 10, 2011)

Asassin said:


> Woah... didn't see that one coming. And I disagree... Vlad would be the one to have the stake up his ass this time, just cause Sun Tzu says so!



If there was one individual who exercised Sun-Tzu's tactics continuously and flawlessly, it was, ironically, Genghis Khan.

- Tak


----------



## Pikmin Guru (Oct 10, 2011)

Asassin said:


> Woah... didn't see that one coming. And I disagree... Vlad would be the one to have the stake up his ass this time, just cause Sun Tzu says so!
> 
> But since we're all eventually bringing in the atrocity that is DW in here anyway... we might as well head for the manholes.



I was just kidding, sheesh. 

Based off what I know, Alexander is the best. But I don't know much about this topic, so Imma leave now


----------



## Solrac (Oct 10, 2011)

damn... i should have been the one to use this comeback "The Sun Tzu that Vlad thought he killed was just an ordinary chinese infantry men baiting the Romanian whereas off the screen, Sun Tzu came out of nowhere and sliced Vlad's head off with a Jian from the back, Navy Seal style, and then put his head on a pike!"...

and yes Alexander the Great kicks all asses! Come at me.


----------



## Megaharrison (Oct 10, 2011)

Lol, Nobunaga was a local warlord who could never dream of conquering and establishing a transnational Empire over the course of a few years nor innovating military tactics like Alexander did. No contest in terms of skill or achievements. Weeaboo goggles can be powerful though.


----------



## Calamity (Oct 11, 2011)

Alexander in all except 2 and 5.


----------



## Havoc (Oct 11, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


> Lol, Nobunaga was a local warlord who could never dream of conquering and establishing a transnational Empire over the course of a few years nor innovating military tactics like Alexander did. No contest in terms of skill or achievements. Weeaboo goggles can be powerful though.


Powerful indeed.


----------



## Kind of a big deal (Oct 11, 2011)

Doesn't matter how hard, or how often, Vlad is defeated, he always comes back, from the grave if he has to.

Alexander the Great stomps _any_ guy from Japan, any period. 

In fact I would say that although Genghis Khan's empire was larger, Alexander had more... potential. When it comes to world domination, he had more long-term vision of what to do with the world, in my opinion.


----------



## GoneDumbSEED (Oct 11, 2011)

Kind of a big deal said:


> In fact I would say that although Genghis Khan's empire was larger, Alexander had more... potential. When it comes to world domination, *he had more long-term vision of what to do with the world*, in my opinion.



No offense, but he doesn't. He never did. Alexander proved to be such a political moron that most of his relatives were either exiled or executed almost immediately after his death. One of his most glaring mistakes was the failure of ever establishing a clear successor. It doesn't help that Alexander literally saw himself immortal. His mindset consisted of mostly _conquer, march, conquer, march_, which is hardly a _long-term vision_. 

And what potential did he have? While there is little argument against him as one of history's greatest generals/conquerors, records of him being _successful_ in the field of administrating the lands he conquered and/or as an able politician were scarce, if any existed at all. 

Moreover, Alexander's father, King Philip, was instrumental in eliminating the political enemies for his son. He also gave Alexander the very army the latter would later march into Persia with, including the tactics that brought his son victories. If anyone had potential, it was King Philip. A shame he died early, which his wife, Olympias, probably had much to do with. 

- Tak


----------



## Engix (Oct 11, 2011)

Kirito said:


> Genghis Khan solos these bitches.



This  the Alexander was preety bad ass being able to conquer that much of the world.


----------



## Kirito (Oct 11, 2011)

Alexander is a great conqueror sure, but when it came to managing the lands ... nah. The Khans though, they're another story.


----------



## Havoc (Oct 11, 2011)

Alexander didn't give a darn about managing lands.

Genghis Khan is a piece of shit.


----------



## Solrac (Oct 11, 2011)

Havoc said:


> Alexander didn't give a darn about managing lands.
> 
> Genghis Khan is a piece of shit.



FINALLY someone who argues for Alexander the Great against Genghis Khan. Well I respect Genghis and think he's pretty cool and badass (i'm asian btw), but I currently find myself much more interested and fascinated with Alexander himself.


----------



## zenieth (Oct 11, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


> Lol, Nobunaga was a local warlord who could never dream of conquering and establishing a transnational Empire over the course of a few years nor innovating military tactics like Alexander did. No contest in terms of skill or achievements. Weeaboo goggles can be powerful though.



No one is questioning Alexander's military prowess in comparison to Oda, he clearly stomps. But when it comes to romanticizing Alexander can't compare to Oda. If there's one thing Japan does well it's glorifying their ancestors.


----------



## Cygnus45 (Oct 12, 2011)

> Alexander didn't give a darn about managing lands



kinda defeats the purpose of conquering if everything falls apart as soon as you look the other way. 

it's _very_ significant to the debate at hand. I'll give Alex the edge over most of his rivals when it came to conquering, but there are people who were just as successful, if not better, and managed their empires 10x better.


----------



## Havoc (Oct 12, 2011)

Cygnus45 said:


> kinda defeats the purpose of conquering if everything falls apart as soon as you look the other way.
> 
> it's _very_ significant to the debate at hand. I'll give Alex the edge over most of his rivals when it came to conquering, but there are people who were just as successful, if not better, and managed their empires 10x better.


Not really.

Alexander was more concerned with conquest than governing.  

Anyway, name these people who conquered as much, or more than Alexander, and successfully ruled their empires "10x better".


----------



## GoneDumbSEED (Oct 12, 2011)

Havoc said:


> Alexander was more concerned with conquest than governing.



Which is no surprise why his empire fell apart so quickly. 



Havoc said:


> Anyway, name these people who conquered as much, or more than Alexander, and successfully ruled their empires "10x better".



Sure.

The Chinese Empire, the Roman Empire, and of course, as we mentioned in this thread, the Mongol Empire. 

- Tak


----------



## Bender (Oct 12, 2011)

GoneDumbSEED said:


> Which is no surprise why his empire fell apart so quickly.



It was also because he was an arrogant bastard. Also IIRC Alexander became ill and died pretty young.


----------



## GoneDumbSEED (Oct 12, 2011)

Black Titan said:


> It was also because he was an arrogant bastard. Also IIRC Alexander became ill and died pretty young.



In my previous post, I touched basis with the subject of him being arrogant. Of course, thinking himself immortal never did help. Without a clear line of successor, Alexander already planted the seeds of disaster. Moreover, his _empire_ was slowly tearing itself apart while he was still alive. His ever scheming mother certainly did more harm than good, while his _governors_ could never successfully pacify the land he conquered. The worst part, of course, aside from news in Macedonia, Alexander was virtually unaware of the tensions brewing in the territories he had conquered. 

If he had lived, perhaps the empire would last longer, provided he did not die from an assassination plot. Not that it'd survive _that much_ longer, imo. 

His father, King Philip, was far better as a politician than Alexander was. Again, let us not forget it was also King Philip who gave Alexander nearly everything he needed to conquer Persia, including a drawn out plan and the army itself. 

- Tak


----------



## Havoc (Oct 12, 2011)

GoneDumbSEED said:


> Which is no surprise why his empire fell apart so quickly.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Those aren't people, those are...empires.  Are you retarded?


----------



## GoneDumbSEED (Oct 12, 2011)

Havoc said:


> Those aren't people, those are...empires.  Are you retarded?



Right, because you know, empires are like grass, and they fucking grow by themselves through photosynthesis. 

Obviously someone built them, dumb shit.

- Tak


----------



## Havoc (Oct 12, 2011)

You are obviously dense, so let me help you out.

Cygnus said:





Cygnus45 said:


> there are people who were just as successful, if not better, and managed their empires 10x better.



This points to singular individuals who can be used as a comparison to Alexander, Khan, for example.


Havoc said:


> Not really.
> 
> Alexander was more concerned with conquest than governing.
> 
> Anyway, name these people who conquered as much, or more than Alexander, and successfully ruled their empires "10x better".


I said name these individuals.



GoneDumbSEED said:


> Which is no surprise why his empire fell apart so quickly.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You went full retard.



Havoc said:


> Those aren't people, those are...empires.  Are you retarded?


I pointed it out.



GoneDumbSEED said:


> Right, because you know, empires are like grass, and they fucking grow by themselves through photosynthesis.
> 
> Obviously someone built them, dumb shit.
> 
> - Tak


Now back to the original question which you wrongfully answered.  What person(s) had a comparable or better conquest than Alexander while ruling their empire "10x better"?


----------



## Cygnus45 (Oct 12, 2011)

If it's people you want, Xhi uhang chi (unified china, built the great wall), Khalid ibn Walid persia, the middle east, egypt), Genghis Khan (all of asia) conquered comparable amount of territory and maintained it way better. Notice these people's lands didn't fucking fall apart during their lifetime or even a decade after they died (try hundreds of years).


----------



## Havoc (Oct 12, 2011)

Khan is the only one that conquered a comparable amount of land.

But he is a goat fucker and he fought other goat fuckers.  So it doesn't count.


----------



## Cygnus45 (Oct 12, 2011)

Havoc said:


> Khan is the only one that conquered a comparable amount of land.
> 
> But he is a goat fucker and he fought other goat fuckers.  So it doesn't count.



Okay so you've got nothing else relevant to say. gg.


----------



## Havoc (Oct 12, 2011)

Cygnus45 said:


> Okay so you've got nothing else relevant to say. gg.


Only that you said people, when there is only reason one person that is better.


----------



## Bender (Oct 12, 2011)

Havoc said:


> Khan is the only one that conquered a comparable amount of land.
> 
> But he is a goat fucker and he fought other goat fuckers.  So it doesn't count.


----------



## Raid3r2010 (Oct 12, 2011)

Alexander the great was the greatest conqueror the history had B.C,never heard of the other guy.

In the entire history few conquered as much as him,he could have the wholle world if he wasn't betrayed.



Pikmin Guru said:


> Except Vlad the Impaler



That merciless guy rulled my country a few centuries ago.


----------



## BurningSol (Oct 13, 2011)

Havoc said:


> Khan is the only one that conquered a comparable amount of land.
> 
> But he is a goat fucker and he fought other goat fuckers.  So it doesn't count.



Comparable? Genghis land occupation during his time was significantly larger then Alexanders.

Alexander conquered lands


Genghis Khan conquered lands


It's not even comparatively close when Alexanders conquered lands would need to be multiplied many times over to even rival that of Genghis says it completely.  

In terms of square miles, I believe Alexander conquered around 2million while Genghis was around 8million square miles or greater.  Basically 4 times the size.  The pictures display is more then enough, and its not even close.

Some may argue that Alexander could've conquered more had he not died.  While that may be true, Genghis resume of being successful throughout the era which he took the lead is more impressive because he did it through out the majority of his life time.  So I would easily favor Genghis actual record and evidence over Alexanders potential any day.

Military wise, Genghis was no slouch, and one of the most underrated values most people who are Pro-Alexander when trying to compare to Genghis.  Feign Retreat anyone?  I'm sure that doesn't need to be described, considering in one of his greatest battles, he lured an army in case for days before setting them up within an ambush.  

He also disciplined his soldiers in many facets in which he had them stay silent to conserve their battle cries until engagement started, which helped greatly in conserving a soldiers strength.  Where as in contrast you see multiple armies hollaring, shouting, having their adrenaline rushing at max prior to even the engagement start, in which they would've already exerted a great deal of their energy before the actual battle even started.

Genghis established a Meritocracy system in which status was given to individuals with merit, not due to royal blood, ethnicity or any of the likes.  Notice how in Alexanders era their was an obvious issue with "racism" if you will which plagued and had an obvious impact on his campaigns.  While the Meritocracy paid hugely for Genghis.

Not to mention Genghis gave freedom to his generals to be allowed to control their own armies without the absolute said authority of himself (Sun Tzu, you're always right!).

As the majority of what people said, not only was Genghis a Military genius (you can't conquer all that land if you didn't have strategy, or talent).  He was a political genius as well with his Meritocracy system, his expansions which allowed trade routes to open and flourish freely in which prior to him was not possible, and the obvious showcase that even after he died, not only did his territories flourish, but they expanded.

You could go on, however when I personally gauge Alexander to Genghis, the Mongol Emperor is above Alexander the Great.  

Btw, don't think I'm trying to downgrade Alexander the Great, but he was simply a great General, while Genghis Khan encompassed a greater overall package.


----------

