|
|
Post by Claret & Blue Army on Aug 8, 2006 17:37:48 GMT 1
No poll as opened this up for debate instead.
2 main choices are Napolean Bonaparte in the 19th century and Adolf Hitler in the 20th. Both of these little chaps almost had the majority of the continent under their rule. But which was the best either of them or someone else?
|
|
|
|
Post by Lee Francis on Aug 11, 2006 10:24:09 GMT 1
I know he's not European but Ghengis Khan almost got the whole "World Domination" thing right. Apparently about 1% of the Worlds population at the moment are direct descendants of him. Now, i know you are thinking 1% isn't much, but out of 6 Billion people it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by SuperMouse on Aug 11, 2006 14:21:26 GMT 1
Didn't Queen Vicky try to take over the world or something... does that count?
|
|
|
|
Post by chocice on Aug 11, 2006 16:42:17 GMT 1
Gustav Adolphus, he always seems a reasonable chap when i read about him
|
|
|
|
Post by Claret & Blue Army on Aug 11, 2006 17:11:06 GMT 1
Didn't Queen Vicky try to take over the world or something... does that count? Technically yes but colonisation as such was with the main Euro empires of the 19th century in the undiscovered world isn't quite the same thing as ruling their own rival neighbours through conquest. Good point though |
|
|
|
Post by Lee Francis on Aug 11, 2006 18:41:56 GMT 1
Yeah, but it was a type of conquest. Enough blood was spilt over the indian sub-continent and africa!!
Victoria is a Tyrant.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rich on Aug 11, 2006 19:38:37 GMT 1
More people have heard of Hitler than Napolean Bonaparte however Napolean didn't have the same technology Hitler had as he was around a century early. Taking that into account though there is probably some guy from the 16th century or something that would kick both their arses.
|
|
|
|
Post by chocice on Aug 11, 2006 20:06:34 GMT 1
Technically yes but colonisation as such was with the main Euro empires of the 19th century in the undiscovered world isn't quite the same thing as ruling their own rival neighbours through conquest. Good point though[/quote]
Undiscovered world indeed, you make it sound as though the indian sub continent only appeared in the 1700s,civilisation had been there a lot longer than europe . Afterall where did Genghis Khan come from
|
|
|
|
Post by Claret & Blue Army on Aug 11, 2006 23:09:49 GMT 1
Maybe the thread title isn't clear but I was kind of looking for who got a greater stranglehold over the continent of Europe.
Hitler and Bonaparte were the two most recent with the latter probably just shading it with his strategic abilities.
I realise however that I ignored the chances of some of the Roman leaders who also deserve a mention.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lee Francis on Aug 15, 2006 15:57:44 GMT 1
Yes, who can forget Nero, who despite the popular myth, didn't actually fiddle whilst Rome burnt to the ground.
He was slightly nuts though, and anyone who can run an empire such as the Roman one, whilst being a complete head case deserves an honourable mention.
|
|
