The most powerful man ever.

正在查看此主题的用户

Kalnia 说:
Genghis Khan, with his brouthers Khachiun and Khasar.

Had 120,000 people killed for merely resisting him in one day. And the way he had his empire was a pretty useful one. The Mongolians never wanted to settle, so kept on the move. If a nation rebelled, it was flattenned when they returned. Any armed group large enough to oppose him, Genghis Khan flattened. A Chinese historian remarked you could ride form sun up to sun down to moon up to moon down in Genghis's empire without fear of being robbed, as all the fighting men were either with Genghis or dead by Genghis. The fact that fear kept an entire empire in check effectively without constant reinforcement is impressive, even if it did only last for a lifetime.

Thats who I was about to say.
 
He hardly was at the height of power before WWII. I'd sooner say Hitler (before Stalingrad) but then I'm still not sure if he's the most powerful ever.
 
I'd say the Roman emperors, Julius Caesar at the head. Though the great Roman Empire was built by many different rulers over many centuries, all the rulers had something in common. Roman blood. It's that lineage that drove them to conquer. So you could say that even though the rulers had different looks and personalities, inside they were like one man, the conqueror and emperor, the man who symbolizes roman power. That man was the most powerful, changing the know world for centuries, bending his empire to his will, fighting tens of thousands of battles, until finally laying to rest in the 15th century.

Also about Alexander. Even though his empire was larger than Rome (I still doubt that), it was quite empty, since large masses of his empire were almost completly unpopulated, except for the nomads. He only ruled those lands in name, never set foot there and neither did his army, because there was only sand and stones there.

Something that had a huge impact on history was gunpowder. There's a large possibility that if gunpowder had never been invented, we'd be still living in the middle ages, changed to unknown. The possibilities of what could've happened are endless.
 
Meh, Julius Caesar was a brilliant politician, but he wasn't an exceptional general.  Fought by the book.  Augustus was a more powerful man than him, I'd say.
 
FrisianDude 说:
He hardly was at the height of power before WWII. I'd sooner say Hitler (before Stalingrad) but then I'm still not sure if he's the most powerful ever.

STOP MAKING MY POSTS REDUNDENT!
 
Scientia Excelsa 说:
Meh, Julius Caesar was a brilliant politician, but he wasn't an exceptional general.  Fought by the book.  Augustus was a more powerful man than him, I'd say.

Excuse me, are you calling a man considered one of the greatest tacticians and strategists of all time a mediocre general?
 
An4Sh 说:
Scientia Excelsa 说:
Meh, Julius Caesar was a brilliant politician, but he wasn't an exceptional general.  Fought by the book.  Augustus was a more powerful man than him, I'd say.

Excuse me, are you calling a man considered one of the greatest tacticians and strategists of all time a mediocre general?
I'd have to agree with Excelsa.  Caesar was a amazingly talented politician, a brilliant, charasmatic general who got the best out of men, a thoughtful, far-seeing and gifted strategician.  But as far as a general on the battlefield, he was very average.  Nothing particularly great about him there.  I'd say that as a battlefield general, Marc Antony was much better and was definitely one of the best battlefield generals of the late Republic/early Empire.

As for most powerful person, that I think is impossible to determine, although I'd put my money on Temudjin (aka Ghengis Khan).  And I'd put Alexander the Great in at second.  The question wasn't asking who had the most land and whatnot, but who was the most powerful individual.  Given the criteria in the OP, to me, it's definitely those two.

Kvedulf
 
I'd rate the tactical prowess of Caesar quite highly, the really bad generals are long before that.
 
Amagic 说:
So you could say that even though the rulers had different looks and personalities, inside they were like one man, the conqueror and emperor, the man who symbolizes roman power.
Yeah you could, if you didn't want to make any sense. Nero hardly symbolised roman power, he was a crazy ****with hated by everyone. Hadrian wasn't a conqueror, he built walls everywhere.
 
Hulagu khan conquered west asia, burned baghdad and deafeted the hashashins.
Napoleon Obviously. Babur, Temur lenk, Takeda shingen, i could make a longer list with Mohamed and Jesus in it as well. IDK
 
Not sure about Jesus.  Sure he changed the world, but on a personal scale, he himself didn't have that much power during his life.  Secular power.  Don't want to start a religious flamewar here so we won't talk about divine power.  I don't know enough about Mohammad to comment but I think he'd have more power than jesus.  Not as much as some of the other people mentioned here, but he seems to be a good example.

Kvedulf
 
True about jesus, I was raised a muslim, and didn't wanna anger christians by just saying mohamed. Btw it's because mohamaed spread his religion were as jesus only began it. Also I forgot I would put Shingen over iyeyasu tokugawa because Shingen was a master tactician lost only one battle in his lifetime as opposed to tokugawa who maipulated his vassals and enemies.
 
shrankalin 说:
Attila  the Hun, he was pretty powerfull, and he killed his brother for full control over the Huns, and he took out alot of the roman empire and sacked almost all their cities except rome. Atilla was the best in my mind
Ghengis Khan is that and more ^^
 
There have been great arguments in this thread, but I find this
Hmm... I think ill go with Trogdor the burninator.
to be the most interesting of them all.  :grin:
 
后退
顶部 底部