Is he the greatest Conqueror in history?

Maybe the cutest conqueror in history though

Which is what matters anyway

t. charlemange

I swear I thought it was a female Napoleon from the thumbnail, which is why I am here.

Genghis Khan's real identity in deities' world is Maitreya Buddha and Messiah who was born as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, etc.
brahmanedu.org/english/

Napoleon's real identity in deities' world is Yahweh III.

Alexander's real identity in deities' world is Yahweh II.

1. Buddhas or bodhisattvas having their root basis of goodness include Sakyamoni Hananim Buddha as the only true original Creator known as Amen in Egyptian myth, Jupiter in Roman myth, Enki in Sumerian myth, Brahman in India, etc. and Maitreya Buddha known as Khonsu or Montu and Horus in Egyptian myth, Mars in Roman myth, Ares and Hermes in Greek myth, Dumuzid in Sumerian myth, Rahula, etc.

2. Great devils or great devil buddhas or great devil bodisattvas having their root basis of both goodness and evil include Prabhutaratna buddha I(다보불 1세, 多寶佛 一世, Da-bo-bul I) known as Ur-nammu in Sumer, Herod the Great, etc, Munsu bodhisattva I(문수보살 1세, 文殊菩薩 一世, Munsu-bosal I) known as Poseidon, Thoth, Ziusudra in Sumerian myth, Romulus in Rome, Simon Peter, etc, and so forth.

3. Great devil deities as evil deities having their root basis of evil includes Vairocana, the evil deity Sakyamuni named as Gautama buddha, Gaia, Yahweh, etc.

Ok

CARTHAGO DELENDA EST

Enki wasn't a creator.

He was melonhead scientist that created neanderthals(enkidu) which were one of his failed experiments meant to replace homo sapiens. As a result he created a breed of superhumans but failed to implement the genes making them completely obedient to melonheads. To this days melonheads and their sapiens armies hunt for neanderthals.

>mfw Carthage KD ratio on Romans
I bet Hannibal still laughs about it.

It can be argued he is but so can the other usual names so it's just a matter of preference. He's my favorite though.

Pretty sure he's (((salty))) about the whole thing.

>Hannibal killed 1:30 Romans even counting the destruction and razing of Carthage and the enslavement of all its population
Nah he's laughing. He's a boogeyman in their culture and they never caught him.

Carthago deleta est.

That's not changing the KD ratio, user.

>Carthago deleta est
Until Caesar rebuilt it.

>melonhead
Sumerian myth was also distorted by the greatest evil deity Vairocana I.
He was born Constantius Chlorus, Marcus Juius Brutus the Younger, Herod Antipas and Tiberius, Zhu Xi, Amenhotep IV, etc.

Sumerian myth includes Vairocana I's rape of a beautiful woman.

Vairocana I and dieities had already plotted occupation of the universe 11.5 billion years ago. All the world histories have been distorted by great devils and evil deities.

Let me tell you something. Do you know Terah, Abram's father? How Terah is descrbied as ~~?
Abram's real identity is Amitadha buddha.

As long as I have learnt, the greatest evil deity Vairocana I was well described in Sumerian myth.

Please, try to figure it out more....

...

...

You sound like my dad when he tries to tell me that obelisks are deigned to channel ancient Egyptian sex magic and that all their gods where half human demons created by the annunaki and that Jimmy Carter was inaugurated by killing a baby at a Canaanite blood sacrifice altar underneath the White House.

Concession accepted now:

Yep, the Lolgol Mempire only lasted 150 years as opposed to those of Alexander, Napoleon, Timur or Attila.

> Absolutely sucked ass

Jimmy Carter's real identity is not included in good deities.
You used the word demon in the half human demons. Of course, there are a lot of demons in Egyptian myth. But Horus, Khonsu or Montu, etc were Maitreya Buddha's incarnations. His emblem is dove, pigeon, etc.

The half human images imply something.
Osiris myth is not a myth. It happened about more than 100 billion years ago. Of course, Osiris myth includes something wrong but... it was the start of the first cosmos coup in the heaven.

Evil deities sometimes tried to implant their descendants into families of good deities, especially Maitreya Buddha known as Messiah in order to get his bloodline. The detail stories are provided on the website brahmanedu/english

I never mentioned any of those four.

Whatever, 150 years is not a short-lived empire at all.

I mentioned those 4 because they showed up in comments previous to yours and you decided to dismiss specifically the Mongols (which had very good generals) because their empire didn't live long. There are others who deserve that criticism much more than Subutai.

Also, you could tell us who you think is a great conqueror and show your cards.

None of my posts or comments mention any of those four at all, you're projecting.

I'm not projecting, I'm saying that dismissing the mongols partially because their Empire did not last ("absolutely sucked ass at duration") when in fact it lasted 150 years (with partial survival like the Golden Horde and comebacks like Timur) is not fair.

I've also said that I would like to know your choices for great conquerors.

Yes

His defeat meant the extraordinary expansion of the British Empire, which was okay in my books. Kind of a win-win, the Napoleonic wars

You continually implied I was directing my opinion against the Mongols on the basis on what those four men did, I didn't.

If we're talking about the longevity of held, conquered land, Pompey takes the cake for greatest Conqueror as the east remained under Roman control for centuries.

Hannibal may have beat Rome decisively in several battles, but he still lost. His overall strategy for winning the war in Italy was also shit. When Rome's allies weren't even wavering after Cannae he should have either marched on Rome or he should have left to fight in Spain and North Africa years before he actually left; before they were lost causes. He conquered parts of Spain, never anything more. Hannibal doesn't compare to Napoleon. Napoleon at least had more territory under his control before plunging into Russia.

Any general or commander, no matter how gifted or talented or brilliant will lose a fucking war if their own home nation or people sabotage his war effort from the start.

>Hannibal doesn't compare to Napoleon
As conqueror sure, as a general? He's superior. Hannibal continually won battles and only suffered draws and stalemates until the very end of the 2nd Punic War. After Napoleon's last victory over the Austro-Hungarian Empire he lost all of his talent and became a bog cannon fodder throwing autocrat who couldn't invent or develop new tactics.

I'd rate Hannibal as superior to Napoleon in terms of strategy or tactics.

He does kind of look like he has boobs

He detached Capua, which was Italy's second city at the time. That was cause for some optimism that others would follow.

I think this thread needs to acknowledge that we're talking about military conquest over political longevity.

It's "greatest conquerer", not "greatest statesman". Besides, you can set up the greatest long-term political structure in existence and still have it crumble around the idiot who comes after you.

>Marched on Rome
Not possible, he understood the need to defeat Rome completely (one if his heroes was Phyrrus of Epirus) but he lacked the allies/provisions do take rome. Hannibal was probably one of the greatest generals (I consider him the greatest ever) but he didn't do much conquering, he subjugated a few Iberian and Gaulic tribes on his march to Rome, but wasn't able to seal the deal in the peninsula.

Not even getting into the fact that conquest of Italia or the Romans wasn't his endgoal, he simply wanted to destroy the Romans to protect Carthage and its empire.

right, hes not a conquerer
i'd like someone to show a better general than him though