Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Genghis Khan and Alexander the Great...?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Genghis Khan and Alexander the Great...?
    Posted: 10-Jan-2010 at 12:09
How are they similar and how are they different? Give me as many facts as possible.
Back to Top
Grabben View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 26-Mar-2010
Location: Sweden
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3
  Quote Grabben Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Mar-2010 at 13:53
Genghis Khan is the father of  0,2% of the world population today and killed 40 million people as he conquered. he destroyed four of the strongest nations in Asia and is responsible for the fall of the persian culture (as one of the leading nations in technology and science back then). he conquered Asia (except India, Japan and Anatolia) and managed to keep it!

Alexander fought one corrupt major power and freed the persians from the stupidity of its stupid kings (well lets face it those last kings werent as just and awesome as the founders of achaemenids were) everything else you already know probably cause of how famous that guy is!

to me gengis khan is far better than Alexander. at brutality, at diplomacy, at justice and at ruling... 

only one asian king can beat Gengis khan and that is Cyrus the Great. Cyrus fought four major powers, INVENTED human rights and religious freedom. Cyrus grew to become the hero of all the ancient Greece (he was even Alexanders Hero) Cyrus didn't have a throne ready for him nor did he have a huge ass army ready for him to conquer the world with (neither did Genghis khan) while Alexander had already a throne to a country already powerful with an army trained as shit! 

Alexander is extremely overrated! Cyrus is overrated amongst Persians only (since they boast about him so much) and Genghis khan has yet to become overrated :D but other famous Asian conquerors are being less talked about or discussed like Nadir Shah the last conqueror of Asia also called the Asian Napoleon since he created the same situation Napoleon Created in Europe in Asia. to most of you its not a big deal but Russian, British, French, Ottoman, Chinese,  Indian and Mughal leaders all followed his actions since everyone was effected and relied on him!
i hope i answered your question but i do know that  i kinda went beyond the answer! :D
If we were to wake up some morning and find that everyone was the same race,
creed and color,we would find some other cause for prejudice by noon.
  - George Aiken
Back to Top
MitJD View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 21-Apr-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 12
  Quote MitJD Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Apr-2010 at 17:07
They are similar because both of these guys were very good leaders who usually won their battles and fought with brutality. To me, Genghis Khan fought with more brutality with Alexander, actually stating that he is God's Scourge, and if people hadn't made such sin then he wouldn't have been sent to punish them. Alexander never lost a battle, and controlled all of Greece and i believe he was the Pharoh of Egypt. He died of a sickness, but it was possible that he could've lost his next battle because his men didn't want to go on because thousands were lost in the Susa desert and they were tired. The armies ahead had elephants. So Alexander would probably have been stopped. Now if you're wondering who is better, I'm not for sure.
Back to Top
rapala View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 07-Oct-2005
Location: Finland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 43
  Quote rapala Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-May-2010 at 00:49
Compared to Alexander the greats army, a mongol army consisted of only cavalry, the only good cavalry unit that Alexander had was companion cavalry his own bodyguard. Depends on the enviorment if its a large plain then i guess horse archers would have an advantage, small plains lots of forests then i guess Alexander (hard to maneuver in tight terrain for horse archers). The mongols didn't invade Novgorod for this reason, germany and france would be hard since the countries are heavily forested, for example in battle of Tours a infernior infantry based army beat a horse archer army.

Not only that Alexander was the first commander that won a battle against horse archers on large plains. But still it depends on the terrain if he is going to win or lose.

I don't think Genghis khan was anything close to a commander, all battles where fought by other commanders like Subotai and other. so this thread should be Subotai vs Alexander the great. One thing you guys are wrong is that you say brutality makes you better, huh i thought it was tactics and good soldiers, everyone can be brutal don't be stupid.


Edited by rapala - 15-May-2010 at 00:50
Back to Top
Shield-of-Dardania View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar
Suspended

Joined: 23-Mar-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 357
  Quote Shield-of-Dardania Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-May-2010 at 02:57
Alexander simply defeated an old king of a decayed ancient empire, and he was glorified for centuries. But if you look back, his own empire collapsed in short order. He didn't even manage to set up a proper succession mechanism which could have secured the rule of his own dynasty for a while.
 
His own army even refused to heed his command to proceed to fight against the northern Indian kingdom of Magadha, because their 600,00-man, 9,000-elephant army would have beaten Alexander's puny Greco-Macedonian army - cavalry, phalanx and all - to a pulp in the hot, thickly wooded Indian jungle.
 
Yes, I have to agree with Grabben. Alexander is extremely, extremely overrated.


Edited by Shield-of-Dardania - 18-May-2010 at 03:00
History makes everything. Everything is history in the making.
Back to Top
Gun Powder Ma View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 02-Sep-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 200
  Quote Gun Powder Ma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Jun-2010 at 10:30
Alexander not only led the longest continuous and most successful campaign in history, he was not only one of the very few general ever unbeaten in the field, but he was also one of the bravest and best soldiers in his army who personally led assaults and was among the first to climb enemy battlements. But even more, he had a deep interest for science, showed a profound understanding of administrative matters and, above all, he had a political vision of a Greek-Persian merger.

By contrast, that murderous Mongolian cattle drover was not to be seen anywhere near the front when push comes to shove. 
Back to Top
DreamWeaver View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel

Suspended

Joined: 02-May-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 555
  Quote DreamWeaver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Jun-2010 at 17:20
Will this slowly descend into a discussion of the 'Eastern' wayof war vs. the 'Western' way of war?
Back to Top
Gun Powder Ma View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 02-Sep-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 200
  Quote Gun Powder Ma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Jun-2010 at 02:46
Do you suggest that 'fighting' from the rear is typically of oriental war leaders? ;-)
Back to Top
DreamWeaver View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel

Suspended

Joined: 02-May-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 555
  Quote DreamWeaver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Jun-2010 at 04:29
Focus upon the bravery and charisma of the individual and fighting from the front is perhaps a very western notion. An Idealised one no less, stop to think of all those commanders who took such a stance in th west, all very dashing and romantic. In the East the focus is has often tended to go in the opposite direction, Chinese commanders have a responsibility to command and navigate the flow of battle to victory, not neccessary to fight directly.

Its not that one is not neccessarily better than the other, rather that one must bear it in mind when comparing Alexander to Genghis.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jul-2010 at 22:03
Would not the difference between Alexander and Genghis Khan be that Alexander came from a long established civilization and had culture and education.  These are the benefits of culture built by 
agrarian people.  

Genghis Khan came from a harsh climate where people lived by hunting, not agriculture.  His people were nomadic and this way of life does not encourage the development of culture.   He was not much better than an animal.  He would have continued to kill everyone and raze the land to return it to grazing land for his horses, if the Chinaman he carried with him, had not convinced him to leave people alone if they paid a tribute.  The man from China could write, so we do have a written account of Khan's history.  For sure he did not have the culture that Alexander had.  
Back to Top
devis View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 27-Jan-2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1
  Quote devis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Jan-2011 at 06:09

A military genius, ambitious, ruthless and cruel to his adversaries, could Genghis Khan have founded a religion and leave his ambition of conquering the world to his 16 million descendents. Just thinking!

Back to Top
Aeem View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 09-Feb-2011
Location: France
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 9
  Quote Aeem Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Feb-2011 at 17:31
Today Genghis Khan is seen like a heros in Mongolia because he is considered same the founder of the country bu in the rest of the Asia he is considered same a bloody conqueror.
 
Alexander the Great is as for him considered same a great conqueror and his life have influenced the destiny of Caesar or Pompée.
 
But this two character don't are very comparables because the territory of Ghengis Khan is stayed in the time not the one of Alexander.
 
 
Impossible n'est pas Français - Napoléon Bonaparte
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4620
  Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Feb-2011 at 19:31
Yes the great Khan is limited by our modern chronology to only one period of time!

But, what if that time is not correct?

Can any of you show me any "court-room proof" that his identity and his time are correct?

I really doubt that any of you could present any evidence that would be allowed in a court of the USA, whereby, it would be admitted as evidence!

If you think that you have "real evidence" then please present it here?

I promise that I will not bite, etc.!

If you actually make the effort to persuade me that you have "real" evidence, then you will have to eliminate "third party evidence", or "Ancedotal" evidence, etc.!

If you can avoid the above (traps?) then let me know!

Regards,
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Feb-2011 at 04:09
Both opened up cultural and trade connections between Europe and Asia through their conquests. Both shifted the balance of power through their unexpected arrival on the scene and their defeats of major powers...

The biggest difference probably lies in the fact that Alexander's legacy turned out to be more lasting and profound. Through his conquest of Persia he shifted the balance of power in the Mediterranean region for the next 1.000 years in favour of European cultures, i.e. the Greeks and Romans. Though the Greek Golden Age preceded Alexander the Great, his conquests ensured that Greek culture spread even further and reached even greater heights. Through his conquests, Greek culture and language was adopted throughout the eastern Mediterranean, which lasted until the 7th-8th century AD after the Arab conquests. The founding of Alexandria was also an important part in the cultural and scientific landscape of the ancient Mediterranean.

Genghis Khan and his successors OTOH severely stunted the growth of other empires like China, the Ottomans, etc, but these powers recovered after the Mongols left or their hold on power fell apart. There were no other players around to take advantage of the situation and replace them. Genghis Khan did leave an interesting legacy through the vivid writings of Marco Polo, whose travelogue was an inspiration for later European explorers like Christopher Columbus.

It would be very hard, though, to make the case that Marco Polo's writings in any way were the driving force behind these explorations. The underlying geopolitical motives were far more relevant (Muslim conquest of Constantinople, liberation of Portugal and Spain, etc) and there were other stories like the 12th century legend of Prester John, who was supposed to rule a powerful and prosperous Christian kingdom somewhere in Asia, which some even went out to locate. But Gengis Khan through the writings of Marco Polo nevertheless made people in Europe more aware of far away cultures in Asia.



Edited by abvgd - 18-Feb-2011 at 19:44
Back to Top
Husky77 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 29-Mar-2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1
  Quote Husky77 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Mar-2011 at 00:53
The last few comments are very stereotypical and euro centric points of views. They clearly do not know Chinngis khan at all. Alexander is overrated, he freed the persians? he murdered millions and burned down great libraries. He even killed his generals because of his paranoia. This was shown on History Channel's "ancients behaving bad." Saying Chinggis khan is culture less is saying Mongolians are culture less, this is both racist and ignorant. Chinggis khan was successful because of his culture and nomadic lifestyle. He did kill just as all the other conquerers have. No one can name any other conquerers who have not slaughtered. It is part of conquest.

Chinggis khan built his empire based on a tribal council since Mongolians believed that absolute power corrupts absolutely and all khan's powers must be kept in check. Unlike Alexander who ignored the senate and ruled absolutely. This is one reason why other Mongols thought of Kublai Khan as a inferior khan because he adopted the Chinese way of ruling absolutely. 

Chinggis khan introduced universal paper money and monetary systems within his empire and introduced the phags-pa in China. Look it up. He also conquered with less than a million troops and had to built his empire out of nothing whereas Alexander inherited his empire and had much larger army than Chinggis khan's empire but his empire was only quarter of what Chinggis khan conquered. 

Also saying Alexander's empire lasted longer than Chinggis khan's is incorrect. The Golden Horde lasted officially until 1504, but they resurfaced and took eastern europe and parts of Russia again until they were finally defeated in 1783. So in conclusion the Mongol empire lasted from 1203-1783 which is a lot longer than Alexender's since his empire collapsed almost right after he died. 

Back to Top
ETL_Guy View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 09-Mar-2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 15
  Quote ETL_Guy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Mar-2011 at 10:44
Both leaders were successful as conquerors.  Alexander was probably the better leader by western standards, by also being a brave individual warrior who led by example.  He came from an educated society and was personally taught by Aristotle.  He acquired the best military technology of the time from ancient Greece, Persia, and Egypt and used it.  Genghis was an illiterate nomadic leader without any high education.  However he was a charismatic leader and had the Mongol tribes at his disposal, superior horseback archers, at a time and place where horseback archery was the dominant technology on the open battlefield.  He also acquired military technology from China and other conquered nations.

It would appear that Genghis conquered more nations, and had a longer and more profound impact on the nations he conquered, a greater legacy overall.  Descendants (real or claimed) of Genghis went on to be great conquerors in their own right, ex. Kublai Khan, Timur the Lame, and Mongols of the Golden Horde were the forefathers of the Mughals, Tartars, Manchu, etc. who all conquered vast territories and ruled them for centuries.  Alexander as an individual leader and Macedonia as a nation did not leave the same widespread or lasting legacy as Genghis and Mongols, so I would say that Genghis wins as greatest conqueror when measured by his legacy and that of his nation.
Back to Top
TheKhan01 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 22-Feb-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1
  Quote TheKhan01 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Feb-2012 at 21:36
I think your stupid, because you obviously haven't done much research on Genghis Khan. Genghis Khan stopped leading battles when he was in his 60s, but still was able to lead a nation. His nation also lasted so hes better leader in that matter. But your right that his generals lead many battles, and they were brilliant too, probably better than Alex himself.
But Genghis Khan would destroy Alex, because of better weaponry, Better technology, and better leadership. GK wasn't some rebel from the plains leading a horde. He lead the best trained army in the land. He wrote there laws,  gave the Mongols a written language. He was also often out-numbered by his enemy.
Alex was also far too rash, and that's why he almost died twice in battle. The Mongols would not make the mistake of letting him get away. You thought the Indians were bad to Alex. The Mongols innovated terror, Genghis Khan doesn't need brutality to win a battle he will just wait for either Alex to make the mistake or Alex's troops run in fear
Back to Top
Nick1986 View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Mighty Slayer of Trolls

Joined: 22-Mar-2011
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7940
  Quote Nick1986 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Feb-2012 at 21:43
There's no need to be rude Khan. Even if the other person's talking complete garbage, you can't call them stupid unless you provide links proving they are wrong
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!
Back to Top
tushar10 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 23-Sep-2012
Location: Unknown
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3
  Quote tushar10 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Sep-2012 at 15:05
Greatest extent: 
Mongol Empire: 24 million km2 
Macedonian Empire: 5.2 million km2 

To the guys who are shouting technologies and sht!Genghis didn’t even know bombs,catapults and other shts existed until he conquered china(the main weapons of the mongols were bows/arrows,swords).And some guys are saying shts about alex being outnumbered:in the final battle genghis’s army had 100,000 men and china had 450,000 men and genghis still won.He was a Master strategist a real genius even against the kwarism empire he raped!and to the guys that are saying that alex is smarter then think again genghis CREATED biological warfare!Genghis Even scolded his son once cuz he lost 5,000 of the ~14,000 men when he won against 32,000 kwarism soldiers.And genghis’s earlylife was sht!He was abandoned by his tribe and gone through many hardships.he was NOT born in a fancy house with everything in it like alex!


Also, Gengis created a legacy-  1 in every 16 people will have genghis's DNA

Genghis started with nothing and ended up with more
Back to Top
tushar10 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 23-Sep-2012
Location: Unknown
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3
  Quote tushar10 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Sep-2012 at 15:09
Oh btw i forgot to mention in that 100 000(Genghis) vs. 450 000(China), Genghis happened to break through the great wall of china as well

To those who think it wasnt genghis conquering,
Kublai only brought the Empire to it’s height. Genghis still did most of the conquest that made it possible for him.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.068 seconds.