Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > General History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

General History General History Forum - General history questions and discussions


View Poll Results: Alexander the Great vs Genghis Khan: Who was Greater?
Alexander III of Macedon 15 36.59%
Genghis Khan 26 63.41%
Voters: 41. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old July 4th, 2012, 08:52 AM   #1
Lecturer
 
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 331
Compare and Contrast: Alexander the Great vs Genghis Khan


Who was the greatest of the two and please explain why?
lokariototal is offline  
Remove Ads
Old July 4th, 2012, 08:59 AM   #2

spellbanisher's Avatar
Incorrigible Recluse
 
Joined: Mar 2011
From: The Celestial Plain
Posts: 4,130
Blog Entries: 21

Another one!

http://www.historum.com/asian-histor...ghis-khan.html

http://www.historum.com/speculative-...ghis-khan.html

http://www.historum.com/asian-histor...der-great.html

Okay, I'll play. Genghis Khan easily. His accomplishments are greater than Philips and Alexanders combined. Genghis rose up from obscurity (whereas Alexander inherited his army from Philip). He united the Mongol confederations (equivalent to Philips conquest of Greece). He conquered much of Eurasia (not quite equivalent to Alexander's conquests, but close), he defeated qualitatively equivalent and superior opponents (something Alexander never did), and finally, his empire lasted 150 years, whereas Alexander's empire crumbled almost immediately after his death. Not to mention, Temujin's libido is legendary, whereas Alexander didn't even sire one heir.

Last edited by spellbanisher; July 4th, 2012 at 09:11 AM.
spellbanisher is online now  
Old July 4th, 2012, 09:06 AM   #3

Guaporense's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,149
Blog Entries: 9

That's a difficult question. Since in one hand, Alexander conquered a larger proportion of a smaller amount of time. On the other hand, Alexander inherited his father's army, which was the best in the world at the time, and basically used it to conquer the known world. Khan was a self-made man, which means that he started from lower ground. Eventually, the Mongols conquered a larger proportion of the world's population than Alexander, but only 40-50 years after the death of Genghis Khan.
Guaporense is offline  
Old July 4th, 2012, 09:07 AM   #4
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: May 2012
From: Nonbeing which is to say everywhere
Posts: 3,729

Quote:
Originally Posted by spellbanisher View Post
Another one!

http://www.historum.com/asian-histor...ghis-khan.html

http://www.historum.com/speculative-...ghis-khan.html

http://www.historum.com/asian-histor...der-great.html

Okay, I'll play. Genghis Khan easily. His accomplishments are greater than Philips and Alexanders combined. Genghis rose up from obscurity (whereas Alexander inherited his army from Philip). He united the Mongol confederations (equivalent to Philips conquest of Greece). He conquered much of Eurasia (not quite equivalent to Alexander's conquests, but close), he defeated qualitatively equivalent and superior opponents (something Alexander never did), and finally, his empire lasted 170 years, whereas Alexander's empire crumbled almost immediately after his death. Not to mention, Temujin's libido is legendary, whereas Alexander didn't even sire one heir.
Alexander did in fact sire an heir.
Delenda est Roma is offline  
Old July 4th, 2012, 09:19 AM   #5

Guaporense's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,149
Blog Entries: 9

Quote:
Originally Posted by spellbanisher View Post
His accomplishments are greater than Philips and Alexanders combined.
Now, that something I can't agree since the only grounds which Genghis can be said to have been greater is on the matter of Alexander inheriting his father's empire. On all other matters:

1 - Alexander conquered a greater proportion of the world's population.
2 - Alexander conquered his empire on a shorter amount of time.
3 - Alexander's conquests had deep cultural/social/economic effects on the regions conquered. Genghis conquests, on the other hand, had limited "civilizational" effects, given that the Mongols were just a bunch of horse riding tribals.

Quote:
he defeated qualitatively equivalent and superior opponents (something Alexander never did),
I don't think so. Genghis defeated enemies which were qualitatively inferior to the Mongol hordes. In fact, both the armies of Macedon and the Mongol hordes were qualitatively superior to any other existing army in the world at their respective time frames.

So, in that regard, Alexander can be understood as superior because he conquered the whole of Persia, while Genghis conquered only the upper parts of China. Alexander took greater advantage of his military capabilities than Genghis did. In fact, we can even say that Genghis Khan was rather conservative, given that he could have done even more than he did with his hordes.

Quote:
and finally, his empire lasted 170 years, whereas Alexander's empire crumbled almost immediately after his death.
That's incorrect. The Mongol Empire was only unified for a small fraction of these 170 years, most of the time it was divided into several polities. The same can be said of Alexander's empire, which lasted 300 years (> 170 years), from 330 BC to 30 BC.

Quote:
Not to mention, Temujin's libido is legendary, whereas Alexander didn't even sire one heir.
Alexander libido even transcended genders!

Alexander had several children actually. Some bibliography on the subject:

pothos.org - Children of Alexander III the Great

That's at least 5 confirmed children by the age of 32.
Guaporense is offline  
Old July 4th, 2012, 09:22 AM   #6
Suspended until June 18th, 2015
 
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 2,728

I'm always appalled by distortions!

Quote:
Originally Posted by spellbanisher View Post
Genghis Khan easily.................
He conquered much of Eurasia (not quite equivalent to Alexander's conquests, but close), he defeated qualitatively equivalent and superior opponents (something Alexander never did),
Alexander always won in his battles superior forces whether that was at Granicus, Issus, Gaugamela or Hydaspes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by spellbanisher View Post
and finally, his empire lasted 170 years, whereas Alexander's empire crumbled almost immediately after his death.
His empire was divided after his death basicaly in four kingdoms or empires that lasted 300 years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by spellbanisher View Post
Not to mention, Temujin's libido is legendary, whereas Alexander didn't even sire one heir.
Alexander had three children by two wifes and one girlfriend.
falcon is offline  
Old July 4th, 2012, 09:22 AM   #7

Guaporense's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,149
Blog Entries: 9

I would vote Alexander because of his deep impact on the history of western civilization. Alexander's conquests resulted into the foundation of hundreds of Greek cities all over the middle east up to India. Which resulted in a great geographical expansion of western culture, perhaps the first time in history where we could say that a single culture became dominant among the cultures in the Central World System.

While the historical impact of the Mongols was perhaps limited: they conquered central Eurasia, and then, well, little changed: they only changed the ruling dynasties on top of existing states.
Guaporense is offline  
Old July 4th, 2012, 09:25 AM   #8

Guaporense's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,149
Blog Entries: 9

Quote:
Originally Posted by falcon View Post
Alexander always won in his battles superior forces whether that was at Granicus, Issus, Gaugamela or Hydaspes.
I would actually disagree here. I am going which Hans Delbruck here. Alexander's army was actually gigantic if compared to other ancient armies, at 50,000 men strong. They were outnumbered probably only in a single battle: Gaugamela and at most in two battles: Issus and Gaugamela.

Quote:
Alexander had three children by two wifes and one girlfriend.
5 confirmed children, actually.
Guaporense is offline  
Old July 4th, 2012, 09:35 AM   #9
Suspended until June 18th, 2015
 
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 2,728

I think Guaporence gave all the right answers!
The only thing I would have to add is that according to my sources, Statira his second wife was pregnant when she was killed by Roxane.
falcon is offline  
Old July 4th, 2012, 09:38 AM   #10

Hresvelgr's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: New Hampshire
Posts: 1,025
Blog Entries: 1

The reason people assume Alex had no children IIRC is because most of them got shanked early on. In any case, while both Alexander and Genghis were bloodthirsty conquerors, Alex gave a little more to the world and took away less, whereas Genghis just destroyed everything and his heirs committed one of the worst acts against knowledge in history when they razed Baghdad, which was worse than the time Alexander razed Persepolis. At least Persepolis didn't have the accumulated scientific knowledge of an entire civilization in its golden age along with knowledge from the rest of the world as well. Hell, Alexander created a place like Baghdad. And he spared Babylon, which is nice. So, much as I might not like Alexander, he's better than Genghis.
Hresvelgr is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > General History

Tags
alexander, genghis, greater, khan


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Who was more impressive man: Alexander the Great or Genghis Khan? Lithium Asian History 13 April 10th, 2012 04:26 PM
Comparing Genghis Khan to Alexander the Great..? TruthSeeker1 Asian History 96 February 6th, 2012 01:18 AM
Timur, Genghis Khan, Alexander Fabre General History 7 August 12th, 2011 11:33 AM
Compare/Contrast Franco and Mussolini joedango History Help 1 April 26th, 2011 05:48 PM
Genghis Khan and Alexander are the last Shanks War and Military History 2 March 12th, 2009 06:45 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.