The world's history is full of very accomplished leaders who expanded their empires well beyond what anyone thought possible at the time. Though many (if not all) of their empires collapsed due to growing too large, they were still very impressive feats to manage to expand them as much as they did. This thread is for the discussion of which conqueror(s) you think were the most influential, the best at what they did, or simply the one you like the most for any reason

My first example being one of the most famous strategists of all time, Napoleon Bonaparte. Obtaining about 720,000 square miles through conquest, and his quick rise through the French military all the way to being Emperor made him a very notable leader in history. Not only did he crush almost every foe he came up against, he also made quite a few liberal reforms that helped pave the way for our beliefs today.

Next would be Attila the Hun. Taking about 1,450,000 square miles, he is by far on the greatest military leaders the world has ever known. He was actually given the title "Scourge of God" for his constant threat to and invasions of the Roman Empire. Attila is surrounded in quite a bit of mystery due to how his people did not keep records like we do presently, most of which were written in Greek or Latin by his enemies, though his conquests themselves are relatively well known / documented.

Third would have to be Alexander the Great. Conquering 2,180,000 square miles, he is in terms of raw land, the 2nd most accomplished conqueror in history. One of, if not the most recognized expander of empires, his military brilliance and resolve lead him from Greece all the way to India, only stopping at the behest of his own men. Tactics he created for war are still taught by military academies to this day, and that was nearly 2500 years ago.

Last would be Genghis Khan, a man we've all heard of at some point in life. Conquering a staggering 4,860,000 square miles, he can arguably be called the greatest conqueror the world has even given birth to. The Great Wall of China was built solely to try and keep this man and his armies out (if I remember correctly), which is nothing to laugh at. Also remembered for his brutality and efficiency in killing / pillaging, this man's accomplishments are something to be revered, the darkness of it put aside.

So what are your thoughts on the subject? Do you have a favorite for any reason? Who do you believe to be the "best" of them, and why?

Thank you for your time

I'd have to give it to Ghengis Khan. I'm not a fan of war, or anything, but the sheer amount of land Ghengis Khan controlled, to the efficiency of his tactics makes him one of my favorites. I once did a full length, 5 page report on him, not even for school, just for fun. XD

I always admired how much skill was involved in their combat training. Playing polo as a way to train horsemanship, and then specializing in horseback archery with bows that required the archer to pull about 160 lbs. or something ridiculous, for each shot. It's hard enough to ride a horse, or be a skilled archer, individually, but the Mongolians made it necessary. And it worked out great for them. With their superior hit-and-run skirmishes, sending a smaller force out in front, retreating, letting the enemy troops follow, right into their much larger ambush force. Even to the point where they wouldn't even need to fight, as entire villages knew they stood no chance, and just let them be conquered. Even the efficiency of their food, like kumis, made from fermented horse milk, it had a very low alcoholic content, that would be enough for morale, and it was packed with fats and proteins that kept the Mongolians well fed and gave them energy. Like an alcoholic energy bar. XD

Just everything Ghengis Khan did seemed to be efficient and brutal, and actually worked. Taking over everything he set his sights on. Until he passed away, and his sons tore each other apart, being greedy. But, as long as Ghengis Khan was living, he was unstoppable. And I loved that.

I would say Alexander The Great. He was a brilliant tactician as well as someone that could appreciate beauty and learning. I believe he conquered most of the known world at one point and Alexandria (named after him,of course) was a center of learning with tons of books and literature on almost any subject. Now one thing that most men will hate about him is that he made his men shave their beards regularly,so the enemy could not grip his beard and dispatch him.

Have you seen a by year simulation of the changing of Geography in Europe by State?
The Mongols took out literally everybody, it's a wonder they ever disappeared to begin with, they appeared like magic.
There is no real question who is the true conquerer, the Mongols did what Rome did but in a matter of a few years.

Alexander the Great was a freaking beast. He and Ghengis are definitely tied for the spot in my opinion. Ghengis Kahn controlled most of Asia!!! Both by horrible, bloody conquest, and by promising religious freedom, or people being too intimidated to fight! He was very innovative, and if he had warships...Maybe a lot more of the world would have been under his rule!

Alexander had the same sort of thing going on. But for some reason whenever ancient Europeans hit India, they chicken the heck out and run home...Most anticlimactic end to a mad grab world conquest. Credit for trying at least.

Ghengis Kahn. To be fair what I have learned from Ghengis Kahn came from watching the show Marco Polo. Ghengis desire to unite China and expand his reign definitely showed how skill he was not only controlling his army but, also his tactics/plans to carry these desires on. I really liked how he embraced other cultures and wanted to use those unique skills to further strengthen his command. I think he was a very wise, strong, and fair man to some extend. Definitely someone you should not have messed with. 

While I wouldn't say I particularly liked any of the conquerors mentioned or have a "favorite" one for that matter, I do think Genghis Khan is interesting because he was able to succeed where many of the other conquerors appeared to have failed: he actually managed to retain a significant portion of the territories he obtained. While many other conquerors simply took over the land and kept prisoners locked up until the conquerors lost the territories again, Genghis Khan actually had his people marry the people he conquered so that they would become loyal to him and so that the areas he controlled would not try to rebel against him. He appeared to have implemented systems for this on all levels so that even his armies would become so closely knit that they would fight together "as loyally as brothers" regardless of their kin groups or tribal origins. In essence, Genghis Khan found ways to unite people that transcended the boundaries of tribes, race, religion, etc., which is something that many of the other conquerors never attempted/thought to do or simply failed to achieve. Thus, even if one does not revere Genghis Khan for being a ruthless, efficient and successful conqueror, one should probably still consider studying the strategies he employed if only to learn how to break down barriers between people from various cultures and geographic locations.

Mynamescox44 : I don't know much about great conquerors, but it was probably either Cyrus the Great or Nebuchadnezzar. They both took over a pretty decent amount of land, but I really don't know who did it better.

EDIT: None of them of course were the greatest, but they are well known.

I think it boils down to what you consider the "greatest." It's definitely going to be either Genghis Khan or Alexander the Great, though. Like OP said, Genghis Khan has conquered more land than the others by far. The Mongol Empire was the second biggest empire of all time, and pretty much all of it was from Genghis Khan.

As for Alexander the Great, he is known for creating a Hellenistic culture. I think his conquering has brought the most development to countries. When he conquered countries, he spread their cultures and knowledge.

I wouldn't consider conquering as something that's great. If Hitler had been successful at taking over all of Europe, would that have made him the greatest of all time? These men are no better than him. They all have their corruption but we just don't have footage of their events and it isn't as recent so they don't seem as bad.

Davideo7 :

I don't know if anyone is saying "conquering" is good, in this case, it's like the question, "Who is the greatest Nazi of all?"

Obviously, Nazis are bad, but it's a question with an answer (and the answer to that question is Hitler).

When it comes to conquering, it's a very aggressive word to begin with, and we're taught that this automatically means bad. We can't tell how "evil" a conqueror was, because of a lack of knowledge. Rather, I think we should judge the "greatness" of conquerors by how much land they captured, in relation to the land that was available to conquer.

To make it clear, that would obviously be Genghis Khan, who by all accounts, was not a good person.

A "who" is rather hard to pinpoint since her/his conquests are usually part of a larger set of conquests to build an Empire. While Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan did conquer a lot of territory, their empires didn't last very long.

So as a whole, I would say that the Russian Empire. It's over four times the surface area of the Roman Empire and still is today a force to be reckoned with

I say that Genghis Khan was the best conqueror. If only he had further descendants that could rule as well as he did, the empire he created would have stayed alive longer than a hundred years.

Me. Civilization games flat out say that I'm the winner of all conquerors.

I'd say either Darius the Great or Julius Caesar. Darius the Great not only conquered a lot of land, but he could actually keep it going beyond his death. Same with Julius, he extended the empire and it continued long after his death. Getting a ton of land and money doesn't mean nothing if you lose it shortly afterwards.