Andrew Nad The khan

[kenny]

Anfrew HailI know I keep mentioning the khan. Yesterday I watched on the history programe about an American expedition trying to find his body.The guy made a huge error with a statement that the Khan never lost a battle he quoted. Juleus Caesar and Alexander The Great couldnt say that that they had plenty defeats.Anyway that aside. The Khan really has to be taken seriosly as the second place ruler of all time. And if i were npot so biased with Alexander even the first.THe Khans empire was 3 times bigger than Alexanders and much bigger than the Roman empire and lasted over 150 years. The guy never lost a battle.He live to over 60 years and had longer but his record speaks for itself. And the numbers at his call was huge over 25000 horsemen.Measure for measure I take Alexander to crush the Monghuls but against so many attacking from all sides with those deadly archers I am not so sure.Alexander wouldnt be able to use his cavarly at all they would be swamped out in the open against such hoards. It would have to be an infantry holkding action and to bring the riders down on mass.I also like his attitude and also reading about his ruthless policy.it served well and yielded huge rewards.Kenny

[Efstathios]

Well,a very large part of Khan's conquers was uninhabitted (did i spell this correctly?I mean without population).To be more precise a large area that had nothing of interest,maybe only small tribes.A very large part of Asia was like this,with deserts,steppes and mountains and some tribes along. This is one of the reasons that Alexander did not march north of the Persian empire,meaning in Russia,Siberia and Mongolia.How could he be interested in tribes in the deserts and mountains when he had conquered the wealthy Persian empire,and had the vision to move on to India and the ocean?

Of course the reason why Alexander did not move farther into India and China is firstly because they did not have knowledge of those places and the distances and secondly because he was not ruthless in order to "make" the army follow him. Genghins Khan on the contrary was ruthless.30 million people were slaughered during his campaigns and his reign and of course he did not have the army complaining and wining about going back. Plus Genghins Khan started from Mongolia so in order to proceed with his campaign the first places that he conquered were those that were near Mongolia,aka Siberia,Russia e.t.c.He did not conquer India.Of course his empire was still huge if we only count China and the middle east. Anyway,the point is that geographicly Khan conquered a larger area than Alexander,but i do not think there is a comparisson.Different eras,different civilizations e.t.c.And of course if Alexander was ruthless as Khan was he may have conquered the whole known world,we do not know that.But again,different cultures e.t.c.The mongols followed Khan as sheep follow the seppard,The Macedonians were different in that matter... We also cannot know what would have happened in a hypothetical battle between Alexander and the Khan.Alexander managed to overcome many difficult situations.He managed to defeat armies that fought very differently than the Persians and the greeks did.We cannot know.

[beausefaless]

Deleted

[beausefaless]

Deleted

[kenny]

Hail GuysI hear what you say and stand reasured our guy would out think this guy. However it has to ge also taken into consideration that the Khan was no brass monkey.He was also a military genius of stature also with the ability to read a battle cause ruse and counter attack. He was no Custer nor an overpaid enept comisioned British comander. I see and understand the tactcics Alexander would use with the traps etc.I do not think the Khan was a silly Roman general falling for Hannibals tricks.So without doubt in my mind the Khan comes second a very close second.RegardsKenny

[iranianguy]

Oh yea the Mongols were really brutal people man. I read in a book they tied people to a board and chopped em to bits while they were still alive. In the same book i read that they made huge towers out of human skulls(offcourse they arnt standing now but thats pretty discusting).And as far as Alexander being the greatist King ever i disagree. I belive Cyrus the Great was probly the greatist king ever because of his leaniancy twords people of other culutures and relions(like freeing the Jews after he captured Babylon and funding there rebuilding of there temple). Also for his jenious in battle(when he conqured Babylon he diverted a river that runs through the city and his men entered at night a seiged the palace by doing this he spared countless lives from being killed in battle on both sides)