StarDestroyer.Net BBS

In terms of making:

1- An overall plan to win a war
2- (Seperate, obviously) An overall geo-political plan for an imperialist state (imperialist in the sense of attempting conquests and/or power projection beyond their borders)

Who would people here say were candidates for the greatest thinker in history?

I nominate Subutai.

Augustus. Nobody else built such a lasting empire in that short a time, with institutions that largely still define how we think about political concepts today.

Requesting more knowledge- I know a little about Subutai, but perhaps Thanas could clarify what ideas in particular of Augustus's were genius beyond others in similiar situations?

He created an empire in a lifetime that is still evident in political organisation to this day. That's definitely the second point, right?

Thanas wrote:Augustus. Nobody else built such a lasting empire in that short a time, with institutions that largely still define how we think about political concepts today.

Augustus? The First Official Emperor?

He didnt build shit. He inherited a mostly already conquered empire. He did however preside over Tuetonberg? I think it was called. The Julio-Claudian institutions were not all his doing either. All he did was win two civil wars and preside over a name change that merely acknowledged a reality. Or is it Egypt? Which was again, an acknowledgement of reality. Now the law reforms? Ok. But that is only half of Op...

But your German...so maybe you like that...

Dominarch's Hope wrote:

Thanas wrote:Augustus. Nobody else built such a lasting empire in that short a time, with institutions that largely still define how we think about political concepts today.

Augustus? The First Official Emperor?

He didnt build shit.

Are you a moron? Why yes, you are.

He inherited a mostly already conquered empire.

Oh really?

Also, he was really the first Roman to integrate conquered provinces the way he did. Look at the lands he conquered. If you know anything of ancient history of, say, Spain, you'd know just how much of a challenge that was. Augustus is the greatest conqueror and the greatest integrator in Roman history, if not the world. His reign saw any serious challenge to Roman power either be contained or crushed.

He did however preside over Tuetonberg? I think it was called.

The Julio-Claudian institutions were not all his doing either.

Oh, this should be rich. Elaborate.

All he did was win two civil wars

You mean, besides win the multiple wars of conquest, the crushing of various insurrections, the campaigns against the Germans, Spaniards, Gauls, Thracians, Pannonians, Noricans etc..

and preside over a name change that merely acknowledged a reality.

Bull crap. He transformed the still republican institutions and changed them into Imperial ones. That is not a mere name change or otherwise any number of dictators ranging from Marius to Caesar would have succeeded.

Or is it Egypt? Which was again, an acknowledgement of reality.

You are a complete ignoramus if you think the integration of Egypt was a mere acknowledgement of reality.

But your German...so maybe you like that...

You've got one post to convince me you are not a racist troll or I will ensure you will be gone from this board forever.

Since the OP asks about 'planning' and creating a 'geo political plan', Augustus is pretty clearly a candidate. He spent years securing the physical reality of the empire and setting in place plans and institutions that defined its future.

I mean, throwing out Subotai and then ragging Augustus? Dear me.

Gengis Khan. He just didn't build in a safe power transferance mechanisim

and more genuinily: Ashoka the Great one of the few bloody thirsty conquerors who hung up his sword and switched to statesmanship.

Requesting clarification on Ashoka as I don't know him very well.

Qin Shi-Huang. Unified China and reform the way China is governed, not to mention establishing a unified Chinese language.

Stark wrote:I mean, throwing out Subotai and then ragging Augustus? Dear me.

At this point I am convinced he is just trying to see how far he can go with pushing the buttons of everybody on this board.

For number 2, whichever Han emperor it was who first implemented Confucian doctrine (either Han Gaozu or Han Wudi, I think), which served as China's fundamental state ideology for the scholar ruling class into the 20th Century.

ray245 wrote:Qin Shi-Huang. Unified China and reform the way China is governed, not to mention establishing a unified Chinese language.

Here we go. Someone who had to actually militarily unify his empire and then plan for it.


Oh and Thanas, I didnt know it was wrong to assume that some Germans might be a little proud of the event that basically all major Roman incursions into Germanic territory and had tremendous influence on how historical border would loo from then on out.

Didnt kniw it was racist to assume that Germany still had some pride left.


However, fuck it. Byebye to this little circlejerk echo chamber. And Dalton, Wong was better at literally everything that counts in terms of foum management.


But this place is stale and dead. There is no point in extending the lifetime of this corpse to be.

Annyyywaaaaaay.

In recent history I propose Otto Von Bismarck. It's not easy to build a unified, modern country out of a broken rabble of dis unified states while opposed by two of the biggest powers in Europe. Too bad all his effort was almost undone by the meddling incompetence of the Kaiser and Hitler.

Dominarch's Hope wrote:However, fuck it. Byebye to this little circlejerk echo chamber. And Dalton, Wong was better at literally everything that counts in terms of foum management.


But this place is stale and dead. There is no point in extending the lifetime of this corpse to be.

I am more than happy to grant you your request and show you the door.

Oh boy, I got told off by a snot-nosed dipshit. I'll mark this in my diary.

Heraclius should be up there for managing to hold together the Byzantine Empire while under attack from so many fronts and leaving it a core from which they could rebuild. If I remember right, he was also the one to implement the system of the themes. I also nominate Basil the Bulgar-Slayer as one of the greatest for raising Byzantine power and territory to a peak unseen since Justinian and for the Christianizing of the Kievan Rus. The one downside to him I can think of was his failure to properly produce a competent successor.
Corrections to any facts I've gotten wrong are welcome, what with me not being an expert on this stuff.

At the risk of sounding like a fool, I'd say Rurik was pretty good at this too. He conquered a kingdom from Novgorod to the Black Sea, and his dynasty survived until the official creation of Russia centuries later by Ivan the Terrible. Also Suleyman, who created an entire legal system separate from the Sharia (the first, I think, in the Islamic world), finished the conquest of the Balkans, conquered Iraq and was generally the last great Ottoman ruler before their period of stagnation.

But compared to Augustus... yeah, I concur to the point. Besides, the discussion about him offered the chance to boot The Dummy, which should count for something.

Panzersharkcat wrote:Heraclius should be up there for managing to hold together the Byzantine Empire while under attack from so many fronts and leaving it a core from which they could rebuild. If I remember right, he was also the one to implement the system of the themes.

Depends on who you listen to. The earlier view presented by Ostrogorsky is that it was Heraclius, but I've also seen it suggested it was instituted later by his grandson Constans II.

I'll throw out Thomas Jefferson. The Louisiana purchase was a huge land grab which set forth the ideas behind the Manifest Destiny. It's pretty much the start of the American global expansion.

How does that address the requirements of the OP? Just buying some land doesn't mean you have a sound and rational plan for imperial growth and management into the future.

Bear in mind this is Crazy Carinium so 'imperial' means 'mass murder'. Actually, maybe the American leaders DO count!

Well Jefferson was planning on getting the land to protect American interests from France and to gain access to greater natural resources for the nation. That's a sound plan I think. It's not as grand as Augustus, but it was a good idea that doubled the size of the country.

Stark wrote:How does that address the requirements of the OP? Just buying some land doesn't mean you have a sound and rational plan for imperial growth and management into the future.

Bear in mind this is Crazy Carinium so 'imperial' means 'mass murder'. Actually, maybe the American leaders DO count!

No it doesn't- it means power. Mass murder is simply an effective way to get it.

TC Pilot wrote:

Panzersharkcat wrote:Heraclius should be up there for managing to hold together the Byzantine Empire while under attack from so many fronts and leaving it a core from which they could rebuild. If I remember right, he was also the one to implement the system of the themes.

Depends on who you listen to. The earlier view presented by Ostrogorsky is that it was Heraclius, but I've also seen it suggested it was instituted later by his grandson Constans II.

Yeah, I looked through Treadgold again and he says it was Constans II.