In world history, which great conquerors were great rulers too?

[Blue3]

History is full of conquerors, but most of them were not great rulers (if they even had much of a chance to rule).

Which ones were both?

[Blue3]

Could Mohamed be one of them?

Alexander died too early.

What about Genghis Khan? It seemed his focus was more on conquering, though I could be wrong.

[Kingpoleon]

Napoleon's regime was very adept at ruling.

[Antonio the Sixth]

August?

[Cassius]

August?

Augustus (assuming that's whom your referring to) wasn't really a grew conqueror per se - the majority of military exploits during his reign that resulted in territorial expansion, such as the formal annexation of Egypt and the establishment of provinces in Germania, were largely the result of heavy lifting done by subordinates such as Agrippa, Tiberius and Drusus, and of course, the conquest of Germania turned into a complete disaster in the long run. Augustus was more of a politician than a great general, although he still qualifies as one of the few good Roman emperors. One Roman emperor who actually did combine being a great conqueror and ruler was Trajan (and oddly enough he was probably the only one).

[PresidentSamTilden]

Could Mohamed be one of them?

Alexander died too early.

What about Genghis Khan? It seemed his focus was more on conquering, though I could be wrong.

Idk enough about Mohammed, but Genghis is an interesting case.

He was good ruler in that he was a unifier. He brought together disparate, warring mongol tribes. They were one of the poorest nations on earth at the time, and he enabled them a lot of wealth, respect, and prosperity. He also secured his succession, which could be tough to do for powerful nomadic empires. Take Attila for example, his whole empire collapsed shortly after his death.

But for the people he conquered, man, he was the worst. Look up the casualty totals for China and the Middle East - these areas were totally depopulated and destroyed. People of the time compared the Mongol army to natural disasters, and in many cases, they were far worse. You can make a solid argument that the Middle East has never fully recovered from the damage the Mongols did.   

So from a "nationalist" perspective, he was a great ruler. From a "global" perspective, he was a complete disaster. It all depends on how you look at it.

[Cory]

Could Mohamed be one of them?

Yeah, no.

Alexander died too early.

This.

Napoleon's regime was very adept at ruling.

This as well. I honestly think the world would be a better place today had he defeated Russia in 1812.

[Blue3]

Why not Mohammed? His religion basically included a political system along with it, and he reconciled the various Arab tribes, and set the foundation for the greater conquest.

[dead0man]

Could Mohamed be one of them?

Alexander died too early.

What about Genghis Khan? It seemed his focus was more on conquering, though I could be wrong.

Idk enough about Mohammed, but Genghis is an interesting case.

He was good ruler in that he was a unifier. He brought together disparate, warring mongol tribes. They were one of the poorest nations on earth at the time, and he enabled them a lot of wealth, respect, and prosperity. He also secured his succession, which could be tough to do for powerful nomadic empires. Take Attila for example, his whole empire collapsed shortly after his death.

But for the people he conquered, man, he was the worst. Look up the casualty totals for China and the Middle East - these areas were totally depopulated and destroyed. People of the time compared the Mongol army to natural disasters, and in many cases, they were far worse. You can make a solid argument that the Middle East has never fully recovered from the damage the Mongols did.   

So from a "nationalist" perspective, he was a great ruler. From a "global" perspective, he was a complete disaster. It all depends on how you look at it.

Genghis wasn't THAT bad if you capitulated to him quick enough and paid tribute or you survived fighting him and you had a talent he could use.

(I've been listening to Dan Carlin's series on the Khans while sleeping the last month or so, good stuff)

[Cory]

Why not Mohammed? His religion basically included a political system along with it, and he reconciled the various Arab tribes, and set the foundation for the greater conquest.

That's exactly why he was terrible. Are you trolling?

[Lumine]

I would leave Genghis Khan out. The reason why his empire was able to evolve in order to govern the conquered territories was, in my opnion, because of Yelü Chucai, who served as an advisor to both Gengis and Ogedei (and an informal Chancellor of sorts) and did a lot to organize the administration of the Empire and prevent China from being turned into a wasteland. You can argue Genghis (and Ogedei to a lesser extent) had a unique eye for talent in terms of finding and promoting subordinates, but I wouldn't call him a great ruler.

While my opinion on Julius Caesar has soured over the years, I think he does qualify for both great ruler and great conqueror. The man was basically able to put some order into the East in a single year after his escapade in Egypt, reorganized Gaul in a way that made it accept Roman rule without major revolts after 48 BC, passed significant common sense measures while Dictator, and was generally regarded as a good legislator, orator and politician overall.

Staying on ancient times, I also want to make a hypotethical case for Hannibal. While he doesn't qualify for great conqueror despite his legendary battlefield accomplishments, it seems his performance as Suffete was exemplary, reforming the Carthaginian economy so successfully Rome got paranoid in an instant. That, coupled with his performance basically ruling Hispania, his ocassional skill on diplomacy and his experiences with the Seleucids and with Bithynia suggest to me that he would have made both great ruler and great conqueror with enough resources.

[Blue3]

Why not Mohammed? His religion basically included a political system along with it, and he reconciled the various Arab tribes, and set the foundation for the greater conquest.

That's exactly why he was terrible. Are you trolling?

Are you?

Why would this make him an incompetent conqueror and ruler? He's responsible for a lot of conquest, and created a sustainable system of ruling.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Augustus Caesar & Napoleon of France

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Why not Mohammed? His religion basically included a political system along with it, and he reconciled the various Arab tribes, and set the foundation for the greater conquest.

That's exactly why he was terrible. Are you trolling?

'Great' does not mean 'good', otherwise being a great conqueror would definitionally exclude one from being a great ruler.

[Mr. Smith]

Cyrus the Great was decent.

[muon2]

August?

Augustus (assuming that's whom your referring to) wasn't really a grew conqueror per se - the majority of military exploits during his reign that resulted in territorial expansion, such as the formal annexation of Egypt and the establishment of provinces in Germania, were largely the result of heavy lifting done by subordinates such as Agrippa, Tiberius and Drusus, and of course, the conquest of Germania turned into a complete disaster in the long run. Augustus was more of a politician than a great general, although he still qualifies as one of the few good Roman emperors. One Roman emperor who actually did combine being a great conqueror and ruler was Trajan (and oddly enough he was probably the only one).

Justinian I also would fit in the category with Augustus who led a great expansion of the Empire and was a remarkable ruler as well. Like Augustus, Justinian had great generals in Belisarius and Narses.

[The Mikado]

William The Conqueror

This is a joke, right?

[Cory]

'Great' does not mean 'good', otherwise being a great conqueror would definitionally exclude one from being a great ruler.

Yeah but then we would have to say Hitler was "Great". After all he rose from nothing, took over a major country, turned it into a total dictatorship and proceeded to conquer a continent (and Europe at that). Not just anybody does that. It takes more than a little skill and talent.

Same goes for Stalin, Mao, ect.

I guess if we're doing it this way we can't play favorites. Stalin, Hitler and Mao were all 'Great' leaders then I say.

[Blue3]

I'm asking about conquerors and rulers. Meaning they had a large/impactful conquest... and they proceeded to be great at ruling it too, and setting up a good system for succession where the empire doesn't fall apart at the ruler's death.

[Helsinkian]

Frederick the Great of Prussia?

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Frederick the Great of Prussia?

muh age of enlightenment, muh century of frederick

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Napoleon's regime was very adept at ruling.

This as well. I honestly think the world would be a better place today had he defeated Russia and 'Germany' and UK in 1815.

Better.

Yeah, obv.

[Mike67]

1)Roman Emperor Trajan
2)Roman Emperor Hadrian
3)Holy Roman Emperor Charlemagne
4)Persian King Darius
5)Mongol Ruler Genghis Khan

[America Needs R'hllor]

William The Conqueror

This, and the Normans as a whole. Robert Guiscard was a great ruler, as was Roger II. The only Norman who wasn't a great ruler but was a great military leader was Robert the Magnificent.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Pachacuti