# Which is greater? Alexander vs Genghis Khan



## heavy_rasengan (Feb 9, 2010)

I have done this thread here before but that was a very long time ago and I wish to bring it back. Both were exceptional leaders that made immense accomplishments. Alexander ventured across Asia and took almost all of the land he waged war in. His brilliant organization of the phalanxes lead to great victories. Also lets not forget that he accomplished all of this at a very young age. Genghis Khan is known for conquering the greatest amount land for any individual leader in history. Not only that but the empire that he created went on to become the largest contiguous empire in history. They both may have specific traits superior to each other but which is the greater leader *overall*?


----------



## Whiny cakes (Feb 9, 2010)

this is going to be a short answer but i believe Genghis is superior because he was just so brutal in his take overs, not to mention he used to herd goats efore his conquest.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Feb 9, 2010)

Draw Iskander, Khan and Napoleon are  the greatest conquerers in history. It would be insulting to say one is a better leader than the other.


----------



## ~Avant~ (Feb 9, 2010)

Alexander wins


----------



## Watchman (Feb 9, 2010)

heavy_rasengan said:


> I have done this thread here before but that was a very long time ago and I wish to bring it back. Both were exceptional leaders that made immense accomplishments. Alexander ventured across Asia and took almost all of the land he waged war in. His brilliant organization of the phalanxes lead to great victories. Also lets not forget that he accomplished all of this at a very young age. Genghis Khan is known for conquering the greatest amount land for any individual leader in history. Not only that but the empire that he created went on to become the largest contiguous empire in history. They both may have specific traits superior to each other but which is the greater leader *overall*?



I'd give my vote to Genghis. Conquered a great deal more territory than Alexander, defeated more powerful foes than Alexander with a vastly inferior material base than Alexander, and his empire didn't immediately break up after his death.

Plus unlike Alexander he didn't drink himself to death in his 30s - he was still riding around planning the conquest of Southern China in his 60s.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Feb 9, 2010)

Tranquil Fury said:


> Draw Iskander, Khan and Napoleon are  the greatest conquerers in history. It would be insulting to say one is a better leader than the other.



haha yes I agree with you on that but I still think Genghis Khan is the greatest in history. Those three along with Attila, Suleiman the Magnificent and Tamerlane are A class in my opinion. The highest. Julius Caesar, Hannibal, Saladin, Beyazid the thunderbolt, William, Justinian the great, cyrus the great etc all fall closely behind but not A class. The main reason I think Genghis Khan is greater is because he united Mongolia while Alexander ventured out with Philips armies. That is mainly why I see the Khan as greater but its not to take away from Alexanders greatness because he was extremely great.


----------



## Watchman (Feb 9, 2010)

heavy_rasengan said:


> haha yes I agree with you on that but I still think Genghis Khan is the greatest in history. Those three along with Attila, Suleiman the Magnificent and Tamerlane are A class in my opinion. The highest. Julius Caesar, Hannibal, Saladin, Beyazid the thunderbolt, William, Justinian the great, cyrus the great etc all fall closely behind but not A class. The main reason I think Genghis Khan is greater is because he united Mongolia while Alexander ventured out with Philips armies. That is mainly why I see the Khan as greater but its not to take away from Alexanders greatness because he was extremely great.



What exactly did Attila do to be put in your top tier of strategists?  Heck, I'd put Cyrus above Attila, Suleiman and Tamerlane any day. (and which William are you talking about? There are many {and I see a horrendous lack of Frederick II of Prussia, Arthur Wellesley, Babur and Bismarck there [amongst others]})


----------



## paulatreides0 (Feb 9, 2010)

Watchman said:


> I'd give my vote to Genghis. Conquered a great deal more territory than Alexander, defeated more powerful foes than Alexander with a vastly inferior material base than Alexander, and his empire didn't immediately break up after his death.
> 
> Plus unlike Alexander he didn't drink himself to death in his 30s - he was still riding around planning the conquest of Southern China in his 60s.



he did? since when is this accepted to be the cause of alexander's death?

and while Alexander didn't conquer as much land as kahn, he also didn't live as long. Alexander in his time alive had one of the most prolific conquerors to have ever lived and despite having a vastly smaller military, took out the greatest world power at the time...starting with only small group of small nations forming a small country that he had just recently finished bringing back together


----------



## Xaosin (Feb 9, 2010)

Genghis Khan did much more than conquer territory, he massacred his enemies both on the battlefield and in phycological warefare. He CRUSHED their spirits long before he ever crushed their armies and the majority of the time his opponents were so dissolved within that they gave up before even half of their army was destroyed.

Everything Alexander did was 50% skill and resources, 50% luck. Like the luck of every empire he went across being worse off in stragety and battle formations then he was. His opponents were bigger but weaker because of the divide, and his empire he formed was united and unified. His empire was pretty much the top of the world in logistics

I'd give it to the Khan man anyday.

Also his childhood back story (be it myth are not) beats Alexander in any sort of  Alexander had in his life.


----------



## paulatreides0 (Feb 9, 2010)

Tranquil Fury said:


> Draw Iskander, Khan and Napoleon are  the greatest conquerers in history. It would be insulting to say one is a better leader than the other.


and you dont count alexander??



♥TheBearjew♥ said:


> Genghis Khan did much more than conquer territory, he massacred his enemies both on the battlefield and in phycological warefare. He CRUSHED their spirits long before he ever crushed their armies and the majority of the time his opponents were so dissolved within that they gave up before even half of their army was destroyed.
> 
> Everything Alexander did was 50% skill and resources, 50% luck. Like the luck of every empire he went across being worse off in stragety and battle formations then he was. His opponents were bigger but weaker because of the divide, and his empire he formed was united and unified. His empire was pretty much the top of the world in logistics
> 
> ...



but that was also part of Alexander's appeal. he was able to make people follow him more willingly because he didn't massacre or humiliate them. he took over them with strategy and then he took over the people's hearts and made them loyal to him in full

the only reason I really see his empire falling apart is because it wasn't structured to survive without him and he hadn't set out a real, definite form of inheritence...although, to be fair, Alexander didn't exactly expect his death for a long time, IIRC


----------



## Chaosgod777 (Feb 9, 2010)

i give my vote to Khan for badass and conquering more territory with his gar


----------



## Xaosin (Feb 9, 2010)

paulatreides0 said:


> and you dont count alexander??
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Conquering through fear and genocide>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Conquering through approval and acceptance.


----------



## Jon Snow (Feb 9, 2010)

Xerxes and his crew killed the 300 Spartans
Alexander hunted Xerxes down

The end


----------



## Watchman (Feb 9, 2010)

paulatreides0 said:


> he did? since when is this accepted to be the cause of alexander's death?



I exaggerated a little. He died of a fever, but would have survived had he not weakened his immune system through near-constant orgies and drinking parties.



> and while Alexander didn't conquer as much land as kahn, he also didn't live as long. Alexander in his time alive had one of the most prolific conquerors to have ever lived and despite having a vastly smaller military, took out the greatest world power at the time...starting with only small group of small nations forming a small country that he had just recently finished bringing back together



This is true, but the Achaemenid Empire was on its last legs - Alexander's victory against them, whilst still impressive, isn't really comparable to Genghis annihilating the Jin Dynasty of Northern China and then the Khwarezmid Sultunate, both of whom were far more militarised and centralised states than the Achaemenids and were still fairly robust.

Most historians don't believe Alexander could have really expanded his empire much further - Arabia, perhaps, but he couldn't possibly conquer the Mauryans in India, and whilst it's possible he could have conquered Carthage, Hamilcar Barca was just as competent a strategist as he was, and the infrastructure of Alexander's Empire wouldn't have permitted any other large expansion.

Not to mention that Macedonian power at the beginning of Alexander's conquests, relative to Achaemenid power>>>Mongolian power at the beginning of Genghis' conquests relative to the power of the Jin Dynasty.



paulatreides0 said:


> and you dont count alexander??



He did, he just for some reason used the Persian spelling of his name, Iskander.


----------



## paulatreides0 (Feb 9, 2010)

♥TheBearjew♥ said:


> Conquering through fear and genocide>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Conquering through approval and acceptance.



depends. fear and genocide lead to the people hating you, and that means -loyalty. according to the law of morale, that means less efficient soldiers. men who fight of their own free will for their country are usually better than your average unpatriotic mook


----------



## Xaosin (Feb 9, 2010)

Jon Snow said:


> Xerxes and his crew killed the 300 Spartans
> Alexander hunted Xerxes down
> 
> The end



And?

This is RL we're talking about.

RL sparatans =/= Cinema spartans.


----------



## Crimson King (Feb 9, 2010)

Iskander recruits him to conquer the world


----------



## paulatreides0 (Feb 9, 2010)

♥TheBearjew♥ said:


> And?
> 
> This is RL we're talking about.
> 
> RL sparatans =/= Cinema spartans.



The Spartans are still some of the best warriors to have ever lived. They lived, breathed, slept, and were even born into war


----------



## Blackfeather Dragon (Feb 9, 2010)

paulatreides0 said:


> and you dont count alexander??
> 
> 
> 
> ...


but thats the problem through niceness heis empire only survived  until his dead, through fear khan got his territories loyal to him and his family for 400 hundred years i think 



Jon Snow said:


> Xerxes and his crew killed the 300 Spartans
> Alexander hunted Xerxes down
> 
> The end


actually the fact the *300* spartans were able to delay him for 3 days already put him to shame



Crimson King said:


> Iskander recruits him to conquer the world


i lol at that one nice joke


----------



## Akatora (Feb 9, 2010)

Blacksmith aka Tamujin later known as Genghis Khan takes this, largest empire ever created by a single man should say enough 

Alexander got points for daring with his elephapnts over the mountains plan


----------



## Watchman (Feb 9, 2010)

Akatora said:


> Blacksmith aka Tamujin later known as Genghis Khan takes this, largest empire ever created by a single man should say enough
> 
> *Alexander got points for daring with his elephapnts over the mountains plan*



You may be thinking of Hannibal, there.

Also, the British Empire was larger than the Mongol Empire.


----------



## Wang Yuanji (Feb 9, 2010)

Genghis Kahn based on  gay movie


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Feb 9, 2010)

in the long run...Alexander actions provoked..an exchange between east and west and a major growth in western civlization that brought us the romans

who shapeds the modern world

Khan..in the short run..did far more then alex could of ever dreamed of doing...

in the long run Khan contributions lead to things like paper money...a macro economy..and ideas like that which had little meaning..outside his empire for along time

but define much of the way modern super powers exist

Alex actions gave us Rome...

if Rome had been in this thread i'd of voted for it

but Khan was a man ahead of his era who's brutality and utterly monstrous tactics  lead to an exchange between many cultures the creations of idea we consider vital

and the reduction of the population burdens and other things that might of destroyed western civlization if not for Ghengis

he also sorta helped us out of the dark ages


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Feb 9, 2010)

Watchman said:


> What exactly did Attila do to be put in your top tier of strategists?  Heck, I'd put Cyrus above Attila, Suleiman and Tamerlane any day. (and which William are you talking about? There are many {and I see a horrendous lack of Frederick II of Prussia, Arthur Wellesley, Babur and Bismarck there [amongst others]})



Are you kidding me? Attila the Hun was an excellent leader...He completely ravaged both the Western Roman empire and the Eastern Roman empire. He took all the other barbarian states and unified them under his control and destroyed an enemy far more advanced and unified than his own...Attila the Hun was GREAT and both Suleiman the Magnificent AND Tamerlane are greater than Cyrus. Tamerlane was basically a mini Genghis Khan....He founded the Timur Dynasty at a time of extreme conflict and pressure and managed to completely destroy all opposing forces. His involvement in information warfare was IMMENSE. He brutalized opposing forces before even invading...Suleiman the Magnificent should be self explanatory if you had any knowledge of him at all. He lead the Ottoman Empire to its Zenith, simultaneously conquering Eastern Europe, the Middle-East and Africa...Not only that but his naval forces were unmatched. He contributed heavily to the protestant reformation so that there could be turmoil in Europe. Ever heard of the Battle of Mohacs?? He was up against 5 kingdoms not including the papal states and managed to utterly destroy them. Suleiman the Magnificent was an amazing and great leader. Also, I put "etc." because I could sit here and list numerous different amazing leaders but I did not want to.


----------



## Watchman (Feb 9, 2010)

heavy_rasengan said:


> Are you kidding me? Attila the Hun was an excellent leader...He completely ravaged both the Western Roman empire and the Eastern Roman empire. He took all the other barbarian states and unified them under his control and destroyed an enemy far more advanced and unified than his own...Attila the Hun was GREAT



The Roman Empire was in its death throes - overextended, suffering from political turmoil, power struggles between Roman nobles and the Foederatii and having been ravaged by various barbarian migrations across its borders long before Attila himself came on the scene. His victories were more attributable to political infighting and underestimation of him (i.e. the way Flavius Aetius was treated by his superiors at Rome - when he was allowed to decide things, he *defeated* Attila at the Catalaunian Plains)



> Suleiman the Magnificent should be self explanatory if you had any knowledge of him at all. He lead the Ottoman Empire to its Zenith, simultaneously conquering Eastern Europe, the Middle-East and Africa...Not only that but his naval forces were unmatched. He contributed heavily to the protestant reformation so that there could be turmoil in Europe. Ever heard of the Battle of Mohacs?? He was up against 5 kingdoms not including the papal states and managed to utterly destroy them. Suleiman the Magnificent was an amazing and great leader. Also, I put "etc." because I could sit here and list numerous different amazing leaders but I did not want to.



I am aware of what Suleiman the Magnificent accomplished, and he is certainly a fine leader, but I would not consider him superior to Cyrus. I'll elaborate further if we have a "Cyrus vs. Suleiman" thread, but don't want to get *too* off topic here.


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Feb 9, 2010)

heavy_rasengan said:


> snip



Atilla had more in common with Pablo escobar then he does with khan

for example if Pompei had been the guy going after him..it would have ended badly

if Flavius had no one to hold him back it would of ended quicker..


----------



## paulatreides0 (Feb 9, 2010)

Blackfeather Dragon said:


> but thats the problem through niceness heis empire only survived  until his dead, through fear khan got his territories loyal to him and his family for 400 hundred years i think
> 
> actually the fact the *300* spartans were able to delay him for 3 days already put him to shame
> 
> i lol at that one nice joke


1)through niceness the people became his loyal vassals. not to mention they loved him more than they had their original leaders in MANY places. the crumbling of his empire was really the fault of the idiots who took over for the most part. not to mention that alexander had a relatively sudden death IIRC

2) there was actually MUCH more than 300 spartans. spartans were in the minority there, there were, IIRC, thousands of soldiers from other places who fought and died there.....don't go on just movies..................

3)you have proven yet again you know nothing......



The Immortal WatchDog said:


> in the long run...Alexander actions provoked..an exchange between east and west and a major growth in western civlization that brought us the romans
> 
> who shapeds the modern world
> 
> ...


again, give the guy his credit. in his time conquering he made of the largest empires in the history (not the largest grant you, but one of them), and he probably has one of the, if not the highest land conquered-to-time conquering ratios.

he didn't take much time to rule his empire, but while he was alive it ran smoothly, unfortunately he had a relatively sudden death. he didn't live to be old and plan his sucession, and the lack of sucession was what killed his empire


----------



## Akatora (Feb 9, 2010)

Watchman said:


> You may be thinking of Hannibal, there.
> 
> Also, the British Empire was larger than the Mongol Empire.




True was thinking Hannibal, been to long since I last heard anything about Alexander it was him that was from Moldovia right? or was that hanibal?


I just remember that the movie Alexander was disappointing  


And take a look at what i wrote again I wrote largest empire formed by 1 man, the birth empire didn't grow from nothing to 25% of the world under 1 man's rule ;-)


----------



## Watchman (Feb 9, 2010)

Paul, I don't think anyone here is downplaying Alexander - he had some phenomenal achievements. It's just that Genghis did pretty much everything he did on a larger scale.

Alexander took on an empire that was considered at the time the epitome of empires in the region - Genghis did so *twice*, both in China and Persia (and arguably a third time with the Kara-Khitai as a central asian power dominating the Silk Road).

Alexander conquered the odds fighting an empire of immense power and size - Genghis fought did so *twice* (and Jebe + Subotai also completely wrecked Georgia and many of the Russian duchies on a *scouting mission*) etc.


----------



## paulatreides0 (Feb 9, 2010)

Watchman said:


> Paul, I don't think anyone here is downplaying Alexander - he had some phenomenal achievements. It's just that Genghis did pretty much everything he did on a larger scale.
> 
> Alexander took on an empire that was considered at the time the epitome of empires in the region - Genghis did so *twice*, both in China and Persia (and arguably a third time with the Kara-Khitai as a central asian power dominating the Silk Road).
> 
> Alexander conquered the odds fighting an empire of immense power and size - Genghis fought did so *twice* (and Jebe + Subotai also completely wrecked Georgia and many of the Russian duchies on a *scouting mission*) etc.


yeah, but to be fair, Kahn DID live twice as long


----------



## Watchman (Feb 9, 2010)

paulatreides0 said:


> yeah, but to be fair, Kahn DID live twice as long



Yes, but he only spent 21 years campaigning after finally uniting the Mongol tribes - only 8 years more than Alexander had.


----------



## flying shadow (Feb 9, 2010)

Genghis Khan wins in brutality; also i simply prefer him over alexander (not that he wast great though). apparently i am not the only one who feals this way. i mean alexander was just a selfish conqueror who conquered for what reason? seriously what was his reasoning?



ps video coming soon


----------



## BAD BD (Feb 9, 2010)

Alexander wins on account of being Aristotle's student.


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Feb 9, 2010)

flying shadow said:


> Genghis Khan wins in brutality; also i simply prefer him over alexander (not that he wast great though). apparently i am not the only one who feals this way. i mean alexander was just a selfish conqueror who conquered for what reason? seriously what was his reasoning?



.............khan had the same motivations...


----------



## Azure Flame Fright (Feb 9, 2010)

flying shadow said:


> Genghis Khan wins in brutality; also i simply prefer him over alexander (not that he wast great though). apparently i am not the only one who feals this way. i mean alexander was just a selfish conqueror who conquered for what reason? seriously what was his reasoning?
> 
> 
> 
> ps video coming soon



I thought you never went to school?

Where does your education on this matter come from?


----------



## flying shadow (Feb 9, 2010)

The Immortal WatchDog said:


> .............khan had the same motivations...



i thought the chinese empire at the time was invading Genghis's land of mongolia? or was it the other way around? wasnt Genghis just defending his people?

i went to school, and somhow barely managed to graduate over a year ago despite an incredible record of absentiasm


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Feb 9, 2010)

flying shadow said:


> i thought the chinese empire at the time was invading Genghis's land of mongolia? or was it the other way around? wasnt Genghis just defending his people?



not at all i don't think Khan decided to unite his people and make the planet his bitch

he promptly did so..and i don't any mongol army had any reason to do what it did

especially that "ride threw eastern Europe" which culminated in the curb-stomping and annihilation of like twelve small kingdoms...for no real reason what so ever 

i mean khan just seemed to believe his people had a divine right to rule the world 

so did alex..


----------



## Watchman (Feb 9, 2010)

Flying Shadow, are you _seriously_ coming into this thread to debate a subject you have no real knowledge of?


----------



## flying shadow (Feb 9, 2010)

Watchman said:


> Flying Shadow, are you _seriously_ coming into this thread to debate a subject you have no real knowledge of?



i have some knowledge that just needs to be refreshed. i am simply stating that i believe Ghengis khan was more justified that Alexander (although khans means of victory were indeed brutal)

Alexander shoud have stood in Greece and had no reason to conquerr the woeld. Genghis was simple defending himself and his people against an icomming threat (the chinese empire at the time), and got a little brutal and carried away in the process


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Feb 9, 2010)

flying shadow said:


> Alexander shoud have stood in Greece and had no reason to conquerr the woeld. Genghis was simple defending himself and his people against an icomming threat (the chinese empire at the time), and got a little brutal and carried away in the process



...you have no idea what your talking about

khan..was almost as bad as hitler..and claimed almost as many lives as the second world war

his motivations where just as bad..as alexanders


----------



## flying shadow (Feb 9, 2010)

The Immortal WatchDog said:


> ...you have no idea what your talking about
> 
> khan..was almost as bad as hitler..and claimed almost as many lives as the second world war
> 
> his motivations where just as bad..as alexanders



still, the chinese empire threatened to invade mongolia. therefor Khan had an actuall reason to be ruthless and go on a killing spree; alexander would have been just fine in Greece (did the Persians ever threaten them?)


----------



## Glued (Feb 9, 2010)

"I am the punishment of God...If you had not committed great sins, God would not have sent a punishment like me upon you."

Also

“The greatest happiness is to scatter your enemy, to drive him before you, to see his cities reduced to ashes, to see those who love him shrouded in tears, and to gather into your bosom his wives and daughters.”

Ghengis Khan would have made an awesome saturday morning cartoon villain


----------



## Watchman (Feb 9, 2010)

flying shadow said:


> *still, the chinese empire threatened to invade mongolia*. therefor Khan had an actuall reason to be ruthless and go on a killing spree; alexander would have been just fine in Greece (*did the Persians ever threaten them?*)



Get out of the thread. Now. You are horribly wrong on both counts, stop embarassing yourself.


----------



## flying shadow (Feb 9, 2010)

both Khan and alexander got carried away in their conquest's, but at least Khan started out as defending his people from the chinese empire.

i dont remember the persians threatening them, but i do recall the chinese threatening to invage mongolia. 

and show some courteousy


----------



## paulatreides0 (Feb 9, 2010)

Watchman said:


> Yes, but he only spent 21 years campaigning after finally uniting the Mongol tribes - only 8 years more than Alexander had.


Alexander died about 8 months after finally conquering the Persian Empire IIRC, by that point he was raping everything that came across him

Depending on the story, some historians say he got to India but died trying to conquer it (got arrowed and caught pneumonia because of the wound and died). Once Persia was gone though, Alexander just stomped anything he came across pretty much. At least, that's what I remember



flying shadow said:


> *Genghis Khan wins in brutality*; also i simply prefer him over alexander (not that he wast great though). apparently i am not the only one who feals this way. i mean *alexander was just a selfish conqueror who conquered for what reason? seriously what was his reasoning*?


contradiction much? you just said Kahn was a worse person, but.....he was a better person??



flying shadow said:


> i am simply stating that i believe Ghengis khan was more justified that Alexander (although khans means of victory were indeed brutal)
> 
> *Alexander shoud have stood in Greece and had no reason to conquerr the woeld.* Genghis was simple defending himself and his people against an icomming threat (the chinese empire at the time), and got a little brutal and carried away in the process


nor did kahn. alexander's greece had been harassed by Persia multiple times as well, so I don't see your point. Not to mention that back then the Chinese Empire didn't expand too much outside of the mainland IIRC



The Immortal WatchDog said:


> ...you have no idea what your talking about
> 
> khan..was almost as bad as hitler..and claimed almost as many lives as the second world war
> 
> his motivations where just as bad..as alexanders



worst imho, alexander wasn't as crazy as Kahn. And Alexander could at least plead self defense since they had a grudge against the Persians. The Mongolians were barbarians

not to say alexander is more justified, but at least he was a better person in what he did


----------



## Watchman (Feb 9, 2010)

flying shadow said:


> both Khan and alexander got carried away in their conquest's, but at least Khan started out as defending his people from the chinese empire.



He was not defending his people from either of the Chinese Empires at the time, because they didn't _care_ about Mongolia - the Jin and Song dynasties were busy skirmishing with each other, and the Xi Xia (so much as they could be called an "empire" didn't have the ability to invade Mongolia at all.



> i dont remember the persians threatening them



You have got to be kidding me if you don't have any knowledge of the Persians threatening Greece and Macedonia.



> , but i do recall the chinese threatening to invage mongolia.



Where? Can you provide any source to back this up?



> and show some courteousy



I did show courtesy at first, but when you persist in posting nonsense then I will correct you, and I have no obligation to be nice when doing so. Go to another forum if you want people to be tolerant about your idiocy.

EDIT: @Paul, I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say in response to my post. Could you please elaborate the point you're trying to make?


----------



## paulatreides0 (Feb 9, 2010)

flying shadow said:


> still, the chinese empire threatened to invade mongolia. therefor Khan had an actuall reason to be ruthless and go on a killing spree; alexander would have been just fine in Greece (*did the Persians ever threaten them?*)


read about the 300 Spartans...or just watch 300.....

oh, and not to mention one or two other invasions before that AND burning Athens to the ground. yup, they definitely did NOTHING to Greece at ALL)

And IIRC, the old Chinese Empire didn't conquer too much, it wasn't their way, or am I wrong? Not too much of a major on Asian History....



flying shadow said:


> both Khan and alexander got carried away in their conquest's,* but at least Khan started out as defending his people from the chinese empire*.
> 
> i* dont remember the persians threatening them*, but i do recall the chinese threatening to invage mongolia.
> 
> and show some courteousy


-point at above post-

and no, Alexander didn't get carried away. he was kind to the people he conquered, and allowed them to keep their cultures and such, their cultures even assimilated many times (-glances at Egypt-)...So pretty much, if you compare the two, Kahn was an asshole compared to Alexander....


----------



## Zoidberg (Feb 9, 2010)

Watchman said:


> Paul, I don't think anyone here is downplaying Alexander - he had some phenomenal achievements. It's just that Genghis did pretty much everything he did on a larger scale.
> 
> Alexander took on an empire that was considered at the time the epitome of empires in the region - Genghis did so *twice*, both in China and Persia (and arguably a third time with the Kara-Khitai as a central asian power dominating the Silk Road).
> 
> Alexander conquered the odds fighting an empire of immense power and size - Genghis fought did so *twice* (and Jebe + Subotai also completely wrecked Georgia and many of the Russian duchies on a *scouting mission*) etc.



And let's not forget that by the time of the Khan's death he was preparing to finish off what remained of China, as well as the fact that they were about to attack *VIENNA*.

And that's not even counting the ramifications of their actions. Genghis Khan made the silk road safe for travel for the first time in centuries, prompting European interests in the goods of the orient, which eventually lead to the age of exploration. Moreover, Genghis Khan was arguably a better statesman, as despite the brutality the Mongols did he established a meritocracy and created an era of stability for the region he conquered, even after his death.

By contrast Alexander's empire fell apart into warring kingdoms just like they did before


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Feb 9, 2010)

flying shadow said:


> still, the chinese empire threatened to invade mongolia. therefor Khan had an actuall reason to be ruthless and go on a killing spree; alexander would have been just fine in Greece (did the Persians ever threaten them?)



...you have absolutely no idea what your talking about do you?

1, China never threatened Khan in any capacity your thinking of the ancestors of the Huns..and even then they started shit with China China historically rarely started shit with any one it could barely even control itself much less other territories

2, I cannot believe you seriously asked me this, they spent the better part of three centuries having off and on wars with greece


----------



## Glued (Feb 9, 2010)

Porus of India gave Alexander a good fight, but lost. Alexander than gave Porus a larger kingdom.

As a South Asian, I find that Alexander at least had honor. He showed a hundred times more respect than the British did to India.

I even read a story where a woman pushed one of his own men down a well to protect her children. Alexander gave her his respect

When did Khan ever display chivalry


----------



## Watchman (Feb 9, 2010)

Zoidberg said:


> And let's not forget that by the time of the Khan's death he was preparing to finish off what remained of China, as well as the fact that they were about to attack *VIENNA*.
> 
> And that's not even counting the ramifications of their actions. Genghis Khan made the silk road safe for travel for the first time in centuries, prompting European interests in the goods of the orient, which eventually lead to the age of exploration. Moreover, Genghis Khan was arguably a better statesman, as despite the brutality the Mongols did he established a meritocracy and created an era of stability for the region he conquered, even after his death.
> 
> By contrast Alexander's empire fell apart into warring kingdoms just like they did before



Indeed.



Ben Grimm said:


> Porus of India gave Alexander a good fight, but lost. Alexander than gave Porus a larger kingdom.
> 
> As a South Asian, I find that Alexander at least had honor.
> 
> ...



Actually, women were quite important in Mongol civilization, and generally had more power than their equivalents in China and Persia.


----------



## paulatreides0 (Feb 9, 2010)

Watchman said:


> He was not defending his people from either of the Chinese Empires at the time, because they didn't _care_ about Mongolia - the Jin and Song dynasties were busy skirmishing with each other, and the Xi Xia (so much as they could be called an "empire" didn't have the ability to invade Mongolia at all.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



agreed




Watchman said:


> EDIT: @Paul, I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say in response to my post. Could you please elaborate the point you're trying to make?


my bad, i was using some info i remember from a few years ago, but apparently, its been overturned recently, haha, sorry about that

regardless, alexander did make it to India, (unfortunately his army mutinied and he wasn't able to go any further), and after taking over Persia, save some confrontations in India, Alexander pretty much completely dominated most of his adversaries

then again, the Mongolians used a type of ancient Blitzkrieg, they specialized on speed in combat and such. Alexander's empire, however, moved more slowly because it was made of more specialized divisions compared to a hun army who excelled at multi tasking in many ways....

although, imho, alexander remains one of the, if not the best strategist in history, and he ties with Kahn for first in terms of conqueror

sorry again about the mistake


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Feb 9, 2010)

Ben Grimm said:


> When did Khan ever display chivalry



never unless you count drinking tea on a pyramid of skulls made out of women and children

chivalrous


----------



## Zoidberg (Feb 9, 2010)

Watchman said:


> Actually, women were quite important in Mongol civilization, and generally had more power than their equivalents in China and Persia.


Yes, but overall the Mongols were still ruthless against their enemies, but I always thought it was for pragmatic reasons.


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Feb 9, 2010)

Zoidberg said:


> Yes, but overall the Mongols were still ruthless against their enemies, but I always thought it was for pragmatic reasons.



they were a minority within every single territory they conquered

they had to be vicious or start bringing in outsiders into the "mongol" tribes

not justifying anything mind you but there it iz


----------



## paulatreides0 (Feb 9, 2010)

Zoidberg said:


> And that's not even counting the ramifications of their actions. Genghis Khan made the silk road safe for travel for the first time in centuries, prompting European interests in the goods of the orient, which eventually lead to the age of exploration. Moreover, Genghis Khan was arguably a better statesman, as despite the brutality the Mongols did he established a meritocracy and created an era of stability for the region he conquered, even after his death.
> 
> By contrast Alexander's empire fell apart into warring kingdoms just like they did before


alexander did many of those things for the lands he conquered as well. he brought his conquered lands prosperity and modernity.

however, while his empire _did_ crumble, it was mainly because there was no form of succession. according to the account of his last days, pretty much about as soon as alexander knew he was about to die, he was (in one way or another) bat shit insane. so he wasn't exactly able to plan it out. I blame the crumble on his relatively sudden death, but if he had survived longer or been able to plan the inheritance, it probably would have gone better



Ben Grimm said:


> Porus of India gave Alexander a good fight, but lost. Alexander than gave Porus a larger kingdom.
> 
> As a South Asian, I find that Alexander at least had honor. He showed a hundred times more respect than the British did to India.
> 
> ...


that was alexander's greatest gift probably. the people he conquered LOVED him. he conquered egypt and they drooled over him and signed up for him as did many of the places he conquered. his diplomacy made him efficient in that sense

also, about Porus, alexander didn't care much if you fought against him. he was like many US Allied generals in WWII, he'd fight you and as long as you could admit you'd lost in the end, he wouldn't mind and he'd even _help_ you in many cases



Watchman said:


> Actually, women were quite important in Mongol civilization, and generally had more power than their equivalents in China and Persia.


he was talking not about as a conqueror. he wasnt being literal. Kahn was brutal and ruthless, and he didn't show much kindness unless you completely vowed before him and his people, alexander on the other hand was more accepting


----------



## paulatreides0 (Feb 9, 2010)

Zoidberg said:


> Yes, but overall the Mongols were still ruthless against their enemies, but I always thought it was for pragmatic reasons.





The Immortal WatchDog said:


> they were a minority within every single territory they conquered
> 
> they had to be vicious or start bringing in outsiders into the "mongol" tribes
> 
> not justifying anything mind you but there it iz



they did it for shock&awe, to instill fear in their enemies so they could be destroyed more easily. the mongols were a relatively small tribe of people, so tactics like that were necessary, however, as you could probably tell, not many liked them for it.


----------



## Watchman (Feb 9, 2010)

Zoidberg said:


> Yes, but overall the Mongols were still ruthless against their enemies, but I always thought it was for pragmatic reasons.



No doubt - if you scaled population and technology up, the Mongols would quite likely have caused the largest genocide in the world, but there's no doubt that utterly annihilating a large city and making a mountain out of the skulls of its inhabitants does *wonders* for getting everyone scared shitless and not willing to fight you.

Though there were exceptions with regards to the "pragmatic" side of that - the sacking of Baghdad was utterly unnecessary, and one of the biggest reasons for the stall of Islamic development (basically the equivalent of Paris and Rome _combined_ in terms of scientific advancement in the Islamic world got crushed), and it was destroyed basically because the Mongols were bored.

Not to mention there's the "Genghis Khan's initial plan for world conquest" - flattening the cities of the world and turning the land into pastures for his herds of animals, before someone introduced him to the concept of taxes. 

EDIT: Yeah, I realised I missed the point of Ben Grimm's post. It's true that the Mongols were in no way as chivalrous as the Macedonians.


----------



## flying shadow (Feb 9, 2010)

Alexander still conquered for his own ego. and were the monguls really that bad? from their perspective the chinese were bad. there is no such thing as definitive 'good and bad", as they are based on perspective

other than that i am done here, as i admit my knowledge in this field is allitle rusty




ps video coming soon


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Feb 9, 2010)

flying shadow said:


> Alexander still conquered for his own ego. and were the monguls really that bad? from their perspective the chinese were bad. there is no such thing as definitive 'good and bad", as they are based on perspective]



it took HITLER and WW2 to beat mongol body count and atrocities


flying shadow said:


> you tell me



like watchmen said

they created an Islamic dark ages that they might of never recovered from

for basically shits and giggles

alex comes off like fucking bill clinton or something by comparison


----------



## Zoidberg (Feb 9, 2010)

paulatreides0 said:


> alexander did many of those things for the lands he conquered as well. he brought his conquered lands prosperity and modernity.




Not that much, most of what they did was bring Greek culture outside of Greece.Persian technology was just as sophisticated as Greek tech(except for their metal works I believe). Unfortunately said prosperity was moot right after the death of Alexander. Ironically his strong personality was one of the few things that kept his empire together, and with that gone his empire went with him.

Baghdad was part of Kwarazm right Watchman? I'm pretty sure if it was that huge insult to the Khan was the cause of Baghdad's fall. If it wasn't then it's not a big loss for the Mongols as they had Chinese tech with them. For the Islamic world on the other hand...


----------



## Glued (Feb 9, 2010)

paulatreides0 said:


> that was alexander's greatest gift probably. the people he conquered LOVED him. he conquered egypt and they drooled over him and signed up for him as did many of the places he conquered. his diplomacy made him efficient in that sense
> 
> also, about Porus, alexander didn't care much if you fought against him. he was like many US Allied generals in WWII, he'd fight you and as long as you could admit you'd lost in the end, he wouldn't mind and he'd even _help_ you in many cases



Alexander showed Porus an enormous amount of respect.

Before the battle Porus said that he would meet Alexander on the Battlefield.

 Porus came out of that battle with multiple arrow wounds. Porus even lost some of his sons.

After the battle Alexander asked Porus how he wanted to be treated.

Porus said, "Treat me as a king ought."


----------



## paulatreides0 (Feb 9, 2010)

flying shadow said:


> Alexander still conquered for his own ego. and were the monguls really that bad? from their perspective the chinese were bad. there is no such thing as definitive 'good and bad", as they are based on perspective
> 
> other than that i am done here, as i admit my knowledge in this field is allitle rusty
> 
> ...


as did kahn...even more so.....

and look at everything's that been posted. saying kahn is a good guy is like saying Stalin, Hitler, and Torquemada were saints. good and bad ARE objective, however, I doubt causing dark ages, genocide, and wiping cities "just for ze lulz" is good in anyone's book.....



Zoidberg said:


> Not that much, most of what they did was bring Greek culture outside of Greece.Persian technology was just as sophisticated as Greek tech(except for their metal works I believe). Unfortunately said prosperity was moot right after the death of Alexander. Ironically his strong personality was one of the few things that kept his empire together, and with that gone his empire went with him.



true enough, they blended cultures, however he also did much for his own people. he built roads, towns, wells, the like. he established trading routes across the empire that introduced things foreign to both sides and meshed them.

and again, while i agree everything went to shit after he died, I DO believe that his sudden death and lack of sucessor is to blame for the most part. after all, it was the generals who broke into bickering and civil wars. tbh, with a competent sucessor it might have lasted MUCH longer


----------



## paulatreides0 (Feb 9, 2010)

Ben Grimm said:


> Alexander showed Porus an enormous amount of respect.
> 
> Before the battle Porus said that he would meet Alexander on the Battlefield.
> 
> ...



hey, i'm not arguing, i'm agreeing. alexander was noble as hell, and it was part of why he was so goddamn appealing as a conqueror.

he even planned to do the thing with the emperor of persia (cant remember his name atm) and pretty much the exact same thing that happened with Porus happened with the Persian Emperor's daughters. while it would have been customary to force them into marrying a greek, he allowed them free will IIRC, he was VERY good to the people he conquered, especially the leaders of the people (except the pricky leaders, they he was...less kind to....)


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Feb 9, 2010)

Watchman said:


> The Roman Empire was in its death throes - overextended, suffering from political turmoil, power struggles between Roman nobles and the Foederatii and having been ravaged by various barbarian migrations across its borders long before Attila himself came on the scene. His victories were more attributable to political infighting and underestimation of him (i.e. the way Flavius Aetius was treated by his superiors at Rome - when he was allowed to decide things, he *defeated* Attila at the Catalaunian Plains)



Rome's political turmoil was of no matter when considering the amount of forces they could muster. Attila to lead an army of nomadic barbarians and challenge Rome is a feat in itself. He laid waste to BOTH the Western Roman empire and the Eastern Roman Empire. Cyrus the Great was an excellent leader but there is not much to gauge his power with considering his enemies at the time were fairly weak and disoriented. I could go on but you are right, this has nothing to do with the topic so I will just leave it at this.





> I am aware of what Suleiman the Magnificent accomplished, and he is certainly a fine leader, but I would not consider him superior to Cyrus. I'll elaborate further if we have a "Cyrus vs. Suleiman" thread, but don't want to get *too* off topic here.



Agreed I don't want to get off topic either but what do you think of Tamerlane? Do you really think that he is less great than Cyrus?


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Feb 9, 2010)

@Paul
Alexander did die at a younger age but we must also consider that Genghis Khan not only lead and conquered but also unified Mongolia. For someone to unify a region of barbarians by himself and take over such an expansive amount of land is extraordinary. Also, we must consider that unlike Alexander, Genghis Khan had MANY challenging contenders to deal with. All Alexander needed to do was defeat Persia and takes its remnants and in fact that is mostly what he did. This is not at all to downplay Alexander as a great leader.


----------



## paulatreides0 (Feb 9, 2010)

heavy_rasengan said:


> @Paul
> Alexander did die at a younger age but we must also consider *that Genghis Khan not only lead and conquered but also unified Mongolia*. For someone to unify a region of barbarians by himself and take over such an expansive amount of land is extraordinary. Also, we must consider that unlike Alexander, *Genghis Khan had MANY challenging contenders to deal with*. All Alexander needed to do was defeat Persia and takes its remnants and in fact that is mostly what he did. This is not at all to downplay Alexander as a great leader.



you mean like alexander had to do? he had to restructure greece and reconquer parts of it, because many would not see him as phillip's successor? cause he did that as well


----------



## Glued (Feb 9, 2010)

When it comes to wartime leaders, I throw my lot in with Hannibal Barca of Carthage. Pure genius and sheer boldness. He may not have created an empire, and he failed in his objective to destroy Rome, but the legions he destroyed and his resourcefulness was nothing short of legendary. If only he had more men and resources.

The dude was crazy enough to take elephants over the Alps.


----------



## pikachuwei (Feb 10, 2010)

Genghis Khan whips.


----------



## Jekidoruy (Feb 10, 2010)

Genghis Khan. I mean even my quote comes from khan. Heck he and the Mongols had a wall built to keep them out of china. So id have to say khan


----------



## Watchman (Feb 10, 2010)

Zoidberg said:


> Not that much, most of what they did was bring Greek culture outside of Greece.Persian technology was just as sophisticated as Greek tech(except for their metal works I believe). Unfortunately said prosperity was moot right after the death of Alexander. Ironically his strong personality was one of the few things that kept his empire together, and with that gone his empire went with him.
> 
> Baghdad was part of Kwarazm right Watchman? I'm pretty sure if it was that huge insult to the Khan was the cause of Baghdad's fall. If it wasn't then it's not a big loss for the Mongols as they had Chinese tech with them. For the Islamic world on the other hand...



IIRC, Baghdad belonged to the Abbasids, not the Khwarezm, but I'll have to double check that. And I'm not sure it was the insult (I assume) you're thinking of - the execution of the mongol merchants - it was just a case of the Caliph of Baghdad doing some macho posturing, so the Mongols responding by destroying his city.



Ben Grimm said:


> When it comes to wartime leaders, I throw my lot in with Hannibal Barca of Carthage. Pure genius and sheer boldness. He may not have created an empire, and he failed in his objective to destroy Rome, but the legions he destroyed and his resourcefulness was nothing short of legendary. If only he had more men and resources.
> 
> The dude was crazy enough to take elephants over the Alps.



Hannibal Barca was a great *tactical* leader, but I don't think he was great as a strategist. As one of his subordinates said, Hannibal knew how to win a victory, but not how to use it, and in the end, Scipio Africanus figured out his tactics and defeated him at Zama.


----------



## Gig (Feb 10, 2010)

Jekidoruy said:


> Genghis Khan. I mean even my quote comes from khan. Heck he and the Mongols had a wall built to keep them out of china. So id have to say khan



The Mongols went around the wall since the Chinese had left a convenient gap on the seacoast


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Feb 10, 2010)

paulatreides0 said:


> you mean like alexander had to do? he had to restructure greece and reconquer parts of it, because many would not see him as phillip's successor? cause he did that as well



Quelling rebellions does not count. Philip of Macedonia *united* Greece, Alexander just took his armies across Asia. Actually he left Greece very quickly after he became the leader and never returned...Greece as a unified body is not credited to Alexander, its credited to Philip. Also, he only had one contender...Persia who at the time was very weak and disorganized. Persia conquered much of Asia and Alexander defeating him absorbed the remnants of what was left behind.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Feb 10, 2010)

Watchman said:


> IIRC, Baghdad belonged to the Abbasids, not the Khwarezm, but I'll have to double check that. And I'm not sure it was the insult (I assume) you're thinking of - the execution of the mongol merchants - it was just a case of the Caliph of Baghdad doing some macho posturing, so the Mongols responding by destroying his city.



Yep, it was the Abbasids. How ironic that they destroyed such a great Islamic stronghold and converted to Islam soon afterwards I bet kublai khan really really regretted that.




> Hannibal Barca was a great *tactical* leader, but I don't think he was great as a strategist. As one of his subordinates said, Hannibal knew how to win a victory, but not how to use it, and in the end, Scipio Africanus figured out his tactics and defeated him at Zama.



Yeah I agree with you on this one. I still don't understand, why didn't he take Rome instead of going around it!


----------



## paulatreides0 (Feb 10, 2010)

heavy_rasengan said:


> Quelling rebellions does not count. Philip of Macedonia *united* Greece, Alexander just took his armies across Asia. Actually he left Greece very quickly after he became the leader and never returned...Greece as a unified body is not credited to Alexander, its credited to Philip. Also, he only had one contender...Persia who at the time was very weak and disorganized. Persia conquered much of Asia and Alexander defeating him absorbed the remnants of what was left behind.



yeah, however, after philip's death not many credited alexander. alexander had to actually reconquer parts of greece.

oh yeah, and Persia, the single largest empire at the time and in full force, with its military at the level it was, with the largest military at the time, was definitely weak.......


----------



## Cypher0120 (Feb 10, 2010)

Genghis Khan is probably of the Berserker class, correct?


----------



## paulatreides0 (Feb 10, 2010)

Cypher0120 said:


> Genghis Khan is probably of the Berserker class, correct?



If he isn't, then what the fuck is?


----------



## Sasori (Feb 10, 2010)

Ryuu Tsuyoshi said:


> Genghis Kahn based on  gay movie


There were some nice tits in that movie.

That alone made it worth watching.



The Immortal WatchDog said:


> never unless you count drinking tea on a pyramid of skulls made out of women and children
> 
> chivalrous


I do that every sunday afternoon


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Feb 10, 2010)

paulatreides0 said:


> yeah, however, after philip's death not many credited alexander. alexander had to actually reconquer parts of greece.
> 
> oh yeah, and Persia, the single largest empire at the time and in full force, with its military at the level it was, with the largest military at the time, was definitely weak.......



Taking 3000 men and suppressing a few states such as Thessaly isn't that much of a feat. Also..many of them surrendered right away, the only one he actually had to suppress with real force was Thrace and it wasn't to the same degree as Philip did. Anyways my point is that suppressing revolts is not the same as unifying a region, it is obviously apparent that Philip had to a work immensely hard in unifying Greece. Now, combine Philip and Alexander together and put them on extreme steroids and you get Genghis Khan


----------



## Watchman (Feb 10, 2010)

paulatreides0 said:


> yeah, however, after philip's death not many credited alexander. alexander had to actually reconquer parts of greece.
> 
> oh yeah, and Persia, the single largest empire at the time and in full force, with its military at the level it was, with the largest military at the time, was definitely weak.......



Persia was actually pretty weak - it was still recovering from courtly intrigue and its armies were using tactics from at least a century prior and had the added bonus of being so varied in their makeup that organisation was a horrendous task - take the Austro-Hungarians as an example, with troops Austrians, Hungarians, Serbs, Croats, Greeks, Italians, Poles, Czechs and Slovaks (amongst others) all speaking different languages trying to be melded into one organised army. The Persians had to deal with Greeks, Persians, Medes, Lydians, Lycians, Phoenicians, Jews, Nabateans, Arabs, Egyptians, Indians, Parsae, Armenians, etc. all speaking different languages and fighting in different ways. That kind of army would be a nightmare to command today, and was far, far worse at the time.



Cypher0120 said:


> Genghis Khan is probably of the Berserker class, correct?



Could also be Rider or Archer.


----------



## paulatreides0 (Feb 10, 2010)

shit, accidentally deleted what I was about to post 

anyways, I'll restate it:

Regardless of the command and tactics, would you agree that Persia had an army that was far, far larger with many, many more resources than Alexanders? _That_ is what makes the country strong. Not to mention that the pool of potential soldiers that could be conscripted (forced into service) was _much_ larget as well due to the vastness of the empire.

Not to mention that they had the best of everything from each part of their empire. If the best archers were from one region, they took those archers and made them part of their military. If the best swordsman were from this region to the right, they'd take them and put them as swordsman in the military. While it would've been a nightmare to command, don't forget that the chain of command would have been broken several levels from top commander to squad leaders who could speak the language of the soldiers and his higher ups and could lead them effectively (more or less). And in exchange? You have the best of each kind of warrior from each and every part of your empire.

Now, the command, tactics and such, that just means the country has shit leaders (militarily) for the most part. While it _would_ factor into a war, in so far as just measuring the raw power of a country I believe it shouldn't count.


----------



## Watchman (Feb 10, 2010)

paulatreides0 said:


> shit, accidentally deleted what I was about to post
> 
> anyways, I'll restate it:
> 
> Regardless of the command and tactics, would you agree that Persia had an army that was far, far larger with many, many more resources than Alexanders? _That_ is what makes the country strong. Not to mention that the pool of potential soldiers that could be conscripted (forced into service) was _much_ larget as well due to the vastness of the empire



Undoubtedly.



> Not to mention that they had the best of everything from each part of their empire. If the best archers were from one region, they took those archers and made them part of their military. If the best swordsman were from this region to the right, they'd take them and put them as swordsman in the military. While it would've been a nightmare to command, don't forget that the chain of command would have been broken several levels from top commander to squad leaders who could speak the language of the soldiers and his higher ups and could lead them effectively (more or less). And in exchange? You have the best of each kind of warrior from each and every part of your empire.



Not always - Persian Great Kings almost always had to ensure they had a large loyalist presence in the regions of their Empire because if they did poorly in a war, then ambitious Satraps would rise up for independence/a bid at power, as happened during Alexander's campaigns when Bactria, Sogdiana and Arachosia rose up after the battle of Gaugemala.



> Now, the command, tactics and such, that just means the country has shit leaders (militarily) for the most part. While it _would_ factor into a war, in so far as just measuring the raw power of a country I believe it shouldn't count.



In terms of contemporaries, perhaps, but with hindsight it surely does - the same way that with hindsight, we can clearly say that Russia was not prepared for WW1 at all and were far weaker than they appeared on paper, though at the time the Germans were scared shitless of Russia, and their plans were "hold the line and hope we knock out France before Russia seriously attacks us".


----------



## paulatreides0 (Feb 10, 2010)

Watchman said:


> Not always - Persian Great Kings almost always had to ensure they had a large loyalist presence in the regions of their Empire because if they did poorly in a war, then ambitious Satraps would rise up for independence/a bid at power, as happened during Alexander's campaigns when Bactria, Sogdiana and Arachosia rose up after the battle of Gaugemala.


Absolutely, that much should be taken for granted.

However, I meant was that the command structure was set aside to be able to communicate with these men efficiently. I mean, the fact that the Persian Empire got as far and lasted as long as it did proves that the way its army did things had to be right in some way. This allowed the army to communicate with itself even if many of the mooks didn't speak the same language.

Most likely it was like this in some form or way:
-Mooks
-Commander who could communicate with upperechelon
-Commanders for Commanders (continues several times)
-Upper Echelon
Kinda like today with Sgts<<<Majors<<<Colonels<<<Generals<<<POTUS. The same thing. I don't know if I'm being clear enough, if so, please ask and I will clarify.



Watchman said:


> In terms of contemporaries, perhaps, but with hindsight it surely does - the same way that with hindsight, we can clearly say that Russia was not prepared for WW1 at all and were far weaker than they appeared on paper, though at the time the Germans were scared shitless of Russia, and their plans were "hold the line and hope we knock out France before Russia seriously attacks us".


I believe you misunderstood. I meant to take them apart from a moment. Even today strategy is _very_ important. If you have a good leader with 100 men versus a sucky leader with a 1000, the good leader will win 9/10.

However, what I meant was to push it aside for a moment. If you look at Persia without its commanders it was vastly more powerful than Alexander by leaps and bounds, and even with commanders it was more powerful than he was.

Do you see what I mean? I'm talking about RAW power. Man power, soldiers, funds, size, resources. Not leaders, but the military's size, supplies, and such.

Strategy/Tactics, however, is _very_ important. If proof is needed you only need to look at Alexander and what he did to Persia.

SIDENOTE: Also, to top it all off, the Persians also had the home field advantage, and while it is not too huge an advantage it just adds to its already huge pool of advantages.


----------



## Xaosin (Feb 10, 2010)

Despite the fact that I'm still vouching for Khan, I'd just like to point out that Alexander took out organized tactic armies.

Khan with the exception of certain parts of China which he took on one part at a time, took over other mongol tribes, including one run by his former partner/friend that was barely a match for him.

I'll let you judge which is more impressive.


----------



## Watchman (Feb 10, 2010)

paulatreides0 said:


> Absolutely, that much should be taken for granted.
> 
> However, I meant was that the command structure was set aside to be able to communicate with these men efficiently. I mean, the fact that the Persian Empire got as far and lasted as long as it did proves that the way its army did things had to be right in some way. This allowed the army to communicate with itself even if many of the mooks didn't speak the same language.
> 
> ...



It seems I did misunderstand some of your points, and you are correct with all of these, though I would still maintain that the Persian Empire at the time Alexander fought it was not as overwhelmingly powerful as many believed at the time.



♥TheBearjew♥ said:


> Despite the fact that I'm still vouching for Khan, I'd just like to point out that Alexander took out organized tactic armies.
> 
> Khan with the exception of certain parts of China which he took on one part at a time, took over other mongol tribes, including one run by his former partner/friend that was barely a match for him.
> 
> I'll let you judge which is more impressive.



Actually, Genghis Khan took out organized, professional armies quite often, in Xi Xia, Jin Dynasty China, the Khwarezmid Empire and the Khara-Khitai. His subordinates Jebe and Subotai also took on and defeated organized armies such as those of Georgia and the Russian duchies.


----------



## paulatreides0 (Feb 10, 2010)

Watchman said:


> It seems I did misunderstand some of your points, and you are correct with all of these, though *I would still maintain that the Persian Empire at the time Alexander fought it was not as overwhelmingly powerful as many believed at the time.*


Oh, quite certainly. The man who ruled over at the time was not too much of a leader to be quite honest, nothing compared to some of his predecessors.

However, it was still _vastly_ more powerful than Alexander's own. For certain a lot of the accounts of Alexander's fights are exaggerated (like in some skirmishes in which he took on a million men with only a fraction of those troops). 

However, it still stands that Persia was vastly larger, had more resources, and a much bigger pool to draw from. However, they lacked the _one_ thing that will ALWAYS be the most important in war: good strategists& tacticians. No commander could keep up with Alexander for very long from the Persian side (history showed that any who went up against him ended up losing), and that was their downfall. And no matter how big your army, if you can't coordinate them well, then you just have nice, big, targets, just ready to be plucked out one by one.



Watchman said:


> Actually, Genghis Khan took out organized, professional armies quite often, in Xi Xia, Jin Dynasty China, the Khwarezmid Empire and the Khara-Khitai. His subordinates Jebe and Subotai also took on and defeated organized armies such as those of Georgia and the Russian duchies.



Not to mention that he started all of this with just ONE tribe of nomadic barbarians. Alexander had had to reconquer parts of Greece, however, Kahn had to not only unite all the Mongolian tribes, but also they were not prepared from default like the Greeks were. The Greeks had forges, siege weapons, the works. The Mongolians?....Horses, a bow, a sword, and their leather armor.

Alexander leading Macedonia had started out with quite a bit, and he was able to bring those states still loyal to him to his side and use the military and tech left over from his father's rule to do so.

The Mongolians? Almost nothing. A horse, a bow, their leather armor that was really more to shield them from the weather, and the rest they got along the way really. By force.

EDITE:  are we the only ones left??


----------



## Sen (Feb 10, 2010)

I'd probably say Alexander because he probably would've taken over the world almost, quite amazing leader.  So was Genghis Khan but he seemed to rely a lot on his family and other generals more than I can remember with Alexander.


----------



## pikachuwei (Feb 10, 2010)

Soooo

Khan wins?


----------



## Watchman (Feb 11, 2010)

Sen said:


> I'd probably say Alexander because he probably would've taken over the world almost, quite amazing leader.  So was Genghis Khan but he seemed to rely a lot on his family and other generals more than I can remember with Alexander.



Actually, Alexander relied quite a lot on his companions - Hephaistion, Ptolemaios, Seleukos, etc. and was quite dominated by his mother Olympios. and Genghis Khan took over more of the world than he did.



pikachuwei said:


> Soooo
> 
> Khan wins?



Seems fairly conclusive to me.


----------



## paulatreides0 (Feb 11, 2010)

I agree


----------



## 893kira (Sep 6, 2010)

*Old school topic*

In strategy speaking Genghis Khan wins if you gonna ask me.
The phalanx formation of Philip and Alexander are useless against the Khan. Rome exploited there weakness and there weakness would be lack of maneuverability and lack of protection of the rear.
As we know Khan would attack his foes at least unexpected meaning at the rear or at the side of phalanx formation of Alexander.
Germans never invented the first blitzkrieg it was the Mongols.Mongols are  known for fast victory and they are undefeated in any land terrain.

Armament and technology we could say Khan's are superior cause of black powder and advance siege engine. Removing it to be fair for the Macedon. Macedon still don't have a chance. Mongols could be compare to a aircraft carrier carrying it's own missiles and aircraft fighter. Meaning Mongols have extra bow, sword and specially the horse. Mongols treats the horse as sacred killing there own horse for just a game would be execution. Meaning they got plenty of reserves. 

For soldiers would go to Khan. Khan's army consist also of different of nationality and even his elite soldiers are his former enemies and even his commanders. There loyalty are extraordinary they follow the last order of Khan by wiping out one of a kingdom in China and that kingdom could compare to a civilization. Compare to Alexander they are whining loser and they are ready to betray Alexander. Khan's soldier would survive any land terrain 
except for the sea.


There are many more to come that Genghis Khan would totally pawned Alexander.


----------



## Cypher0120 (Sep 6, 2010)

Why'd this topic get necroed?

Regardless, the Genghis Khan achievement on Blazblue is through clearing Legion Mode's Hard.

The Alexander the Great achievement is through clearing paltry Normal mode.

Obviously Genghis Khan wins. -_-


----------



## pikachuwei (Sep 6, 2010)

^i guess we could have an ancient persia vs china at time of genghis khan fight 

to see which empire was harder to beat for alexander and genghis

and to be fair, addressing one of flying shadow's (lol) points

the mongolians did have an ancient grudge with the chinese. They invaded Jin as a type of revenge, to get the "chinese boot off their throat"

like the other steppe people ever since China became unified around the Qin Dynasty they have been hunted like pests by the chinese. By the period of Han China the Emperors were sending out armies to kill the steppe people (Xiongnus, Xianbei, Khitan, all had long histories of conflict with china and all are possible ancestors of Genghis's hordes) so there would have been over a millennia of conflict between the steppe people and China. In comparision the 3 centuries of conflict between persia and greece is puny


----------

