Conquer Club

I have seen this debated on numerous other sites and forums, and I was wondering what you guys think. Also, please keep flaming out of this and actually debate. I am hoping for a good disscusion going. And PLEASE only intelligent answers.

Alexander

He conquered the second most amount of land(Genghis Khan) Has better quotes, and didnt invade the celtic tribes(home regions)

not a good reason but its my reason

Alexander. DUH. He conquered organized territory, not tribes.

i clicked wrong one lol. i meant to click julius- as he didnt just conquer land, he made living conditions better, he introduced baths and aquaducts and all sorts of things.

Alexander!

If he didn't die...

This should be between

Gordie Howe

Wayne Gretzky

Gretzky has the records, but Howe played a more physical game against tougher opponents (fewer teams, better players). So I say Howe.

Your mum. She was great.

Alexander, as he did much better then Caeser. I read that Alexander never lost a battle, which is an amazing feat considering how bug his empire became.

Alexander was the greater general. But Caesar would have to be the greater politician.

I agree with Chewy on this one. If I had to pick a general to win me a war, I'd go with Alexander. If I needed a dictator to get me through a war, I'd go with Caesar.

I'm not sure about the bug empire though . . .

Titanic wrote:Alexander, as he did much better then Caeser. I read that Alexander never lost a battle, which is an amazing feat considering how bug his empire became.

You have to understand, this is of old historical accounts which say that Alexander beat armies 10 time his size on a regular basis (defeating a million with 100,000), which is generally accepted as crap even given how bad the Persian infantry (excepting the immortals) were, as well as other accounts that show the persians deploying in formations that were frankly retarded.

I do however think that Alexander is greater than Caesar for making Greek the language you could get from iberia to arabia with at a time with no real communication.

The Romans in general did great, though even they I think were trumped by the Egyptians.

Anarchist wrote:Alexander

He conquered the second most amount of land(Genghis Khan) Has better quotes, and didnt invade the celtic tribes(home regions)

not a good reason but its my reason

And his empire lasted less than half a century.

Overall I'd have to say that Alexander was a better general, but that Caesar trumps him in every other form.

Well, besides the fact that he was a great field commander and conqueror, "The Great Caesar" or "Caesar the Great" just doesn't roll off the tongue as readily as "Alexander the Great."

alexander may have conquered vast amounts of territory in a short space of time, but he also lost it extremely quickly.

it should be a double system, alexander takes land and caesar keeps the empire running smoothly.

Alexander. He conquered vast amounts of land and he kept them through his lifetime. The reason he didnt hold it long was because after he died there wasnt anyone that could fill his shoes.

Ceaser was a good general but all he did was conquer some unruly tribes. Then he beat pompey when pompey made some retarded decisions.

Ceasar was a better politician though.

I vote Alexander

mr. incrediball wrote:alexander may have conquered vast amounts of territory in a short space of time, but he also lost it extremely quickly.

it should be a double system, alexander takes land and caesar keeps the empire running smoothly.

The reason he lost it all was because he never chose someone to follow him. At his deathbed all of his closest advisors and the leaders of the different part of his armies wanted to know who will rule after him, but he never said anything. They then all claimed their own areas, and went backto how they used to be before him. During his lifetime the empire existed and it was huge, and did not vanish.

Maybe if he chose a successor our lives will be different today...

Alexander was a drunk who killed himself by being ridiculously stupid. At the age of 30!
If you knew anything about Julius Ceasar at all, you would vote for him.

Minister Masket wrote:Alexander was a drunk who killed himself by being ridiculously stupid. At the age of 30!
If you knew anything about Julius Ceasar at all, you would vote for him.

didn't he die of a fever?

Iliad wrote:

Minister Masket wrote:Alexander was a drunk who killed himself by being ridiculously stupid. At the age of 30!
If you knew anything about Julius Ceasar at all, you would vote for him.

didn't he die of a fever?

Malaria. He also had a lot of good administrative plans. He just kicked the bucket before he could do any of them.

pancakemix wrote:

Iliad wrote:

Minister Masket wrote:Alexander was a drunk who killed himself by being ridiculously stupid. At the age of 30!
If you knew anything about Julius Ceasar at all, you would vote for him.

didn't he die of a fever?

Malaria. He also had a lot of good administrative plans. He just kicked the bucket before he could do any of them.

Exactly if he didn't die or if he appointed a successor it would've been much different.

Julius only conquered some tribes.

Iliad wrote:

pancakemix wrote:

Iliad wrote:

Minister Masket wrote:Alexander was a drunk who killed himself by being ridiculously stupid. At the age of 30!
If you knew anything about Julius Ceasar at all, you would vote for him.

didn't he die of a fever?

Malaria. He also had a lot of good administrative plans. He just kicked the bucket before he could do any of them.

Exactly if he didn't die or if he appointed a successor it would've been much different.

Julius only conquered some tribes.

And invaded England for the weekend. It is, however, a matter of opinion in some respects. As it was pointed out earlier, Julius WAS the better politician. But Alexander was the better conquerer. Which makes a man greater, his persuasiveness or his might?

Iliad wrote:

pancakemix wrote:

Iliad wrote:

Minister Masket wrote:Alexander was a drunk who killed himself by being ridiculously stupid. At the age of 30!
If you knew anything about Julius Ceasar at all, you would vote for him.

didn't he die of a fever?

Malaria. He also had a lot of good administrative plans. He just kicked the bucket before he could do any of them.

Exactly if he didn't die or if he appointed a successor it would've been much different.

Julius only conquered some tribes.

I wouldn't just call them tribes, though. The Gauls were quite civilized, they just weren't to the Romans.

chewyman wrote:Alexander was the greater general. But Caesar would have to be the greater politician.

augustus was a far better politician, he satisfied both plebs and elite, while taking power away from both of them, caesar only managed to satisfy the plebs, and then only with bread doles and games. Had Caesar actually been a good politician he probably wouldn't have been assassinated.

Jehan wrote:

chewyman wrote:Alexander was the greater general. But Caesar would have to be the greater politician.

Had Caesar actually been a good politician he probably wouldn't have been assassinated.

Really, cause last time I checked Lincoln was a good politician and he got assassinated. That statement doesn't hold water.