Was Alexander the greatest conqueror?

Although he is Chinese, he has to admit that he is the greatest conqueror. What I can tell you is my own opinion and cannot represent the majority of people.

Take Mongolia as an example. Alexander conquered Greece when he was 20 years old. In his 20s, he had conquered western Asia and parts of Africa (including part of China). He died young, in his early 30s. If compared with Mongolia, Genghis Khan spent his whole life and did not conquer as many things as Alexander. Most of Mongolia's territory was conquered by the descendants of Genghis Khan. A man who conquered half of the world in just 10 years is why he is regarded by the West as the most outstanding strategist in Western history.

Second, the Chinese say that defeat is a common occurrence for military strategists. Even the strongest general will fail sometimes. Here's the thing, Alexander's lack of record of being defeated in any war completely disproves this theory.

And he also overturned one of Sun Tzu's theories. Shunzi once wrote that when you have twice as many troops as others, you should attack with all your strength. When the strength of the army is the same as that of others, you should spread his strength. When someone else has twice as many troops as you, you need to defend. When someone else has five times more troops than you, you have to run away because there is no chance of winning. Alexander overturned this theory in one of his most famous battles. In a war with Persia, he defeated Persia "frontally" (when I say frontally, there is no ambush or anything like that) with a force of 1:5. At that time Persia was the most powerful empire in the West. His general once advised him to attack at night, but Alexander refused because he felt it was dishonorable (he was a Greek, and Greece was a famous people who valued honor, and their wars were often not for profit, but for honor).

Also, the formation of the Macedonian cavalry at that time was different from that of other Western cavalry. It was more like a triangle, and then the general rushed first at the front. Can you imagine how dangerous it would be for a king to be first in every war?

Enroma did become weaker and dispersed in the later period. Rome was not a rubbish empire, only ignorant people can say that. Every empire has its periods of strength and decline. But I don’t think Mongolia can’t defeat Rome. I can only tell you that the archery team Mongolia is good at has no effect at all on the Roman troops, because they have a formation that completely protects bows and arrows (called the turtle formation). The strategy of the Romans was different from that of the Greeks. Rather than having all their armies attack at once like the Greeks, the Romans preferred to reserve their armies for improvisation. Because in a war, only the front line can be attacked by the opponent, and if so many people are thrown over, only the front line is fighting. Therefore, the Romans like to retain their troops and adapt to changes. This is why he later defeated Greece and Macedonia, but of course this was not the case. Alexander's time but after. Mongolia and Rome have one thing in common. They are very prominent in the field of sieges, mainly because of the development of war technology.

In fact, there is no such thing as the strongest empire. No matter Mongolia, Macedonia or Rome, they all had their strongest times. The strength and quality of an empire is not just determined by how much territory it occupies. Alexander is a good example. Mongolia was also a powerful empire. The people above mentioned that there are no ships in Mongolia. In fact, Mongolia has ships, and Mongolia has attacked Japan twice. The first time I returned because the storm damage was too severe. But the second attack was really defeated by Japan. Later, Mongolia did not attack Japan.