Coeur de Leon

Hey folks, the title pretty much sums it up...what are your thoughts?

My definitions for bandit and conqueror (may be different than yours; as these are not straight out of the dictionary)

Conqueror- one who takes territory through use of military force, usually overcoming determined resistance

Bandit- one who plunders and takes land, but faces little true opposition

Zeno

Both. As usual with conquerers. One doesn't make it to the top by friendly asking all others to move aside. Well if they do, it's called democracy, i believe.

sylla1

Why couldn't he have been both?

On the first one, I can't imagine who may dispute that he conquered several nations and territories.

On the second, it would probably be an understatement for the ruler of such a powerful empire.
And of course, he was as much a "bandit" as any other commander or chieftain of the time, even the Roman themselves (naturally favored by the Roman sources)

Coeur de Leon

I'll agree with that, the reason I suggested this thread was because I saw one exactly like it in a different forum and wanted to see what the audience here would think.

Jake10

He was both, but I would lean more towards raider than anything else. He was happy to collect tribute in exchange for leaving areas alone, and after conquering he was not much of a ruler for anything other than taking what he wanted. Even with the case of the Romans, he sought to tailor his empire based on theirs, but he didn't get very far, and his failure to ensure proper succession made his empire short lived.