Goldfinger, you are incorrect. I believe you mean to reference the Councils of Hippo, Carthage, and Rome (1st), from 393-399 AD. The First Council of Nicaea did not discuss Biblical canon.

And that is besides the point. They chose what writings to include, but those writings that they chose were written a few decades after Christ (according to most modern scholars)

Huh, good to know. There were so many councils that I get them all mixed up.

Still, I think there is a huge difference between writing down the ideas yourself and having someone else write what they think you did or said decades later.

But that's besides the point now. Khan vs Napoleon is a really tough matchup. Both match up relatively equally militarily. Comes down to politics and policy, I suppose.

Both had a brilliant rise to power, both were spectacular military and political leaders, both were in charge of major expanding empires. However, I must give this to Genghis, given the wide range of his impact on history.

Genghis Khan

Napoleon, although both are worthy winners of the tournament

Napoleon was less of a dick and similarly badass, so my vote goes to him.

Napoleon ultimately lost. Genghiz won, and his son, Kublai kept things going in China. His western empire did not crumble until his sons and grandsons failed. And his DNA is everywhere in Europe. Clearly more impactful than Napoleon.

And that makes him the greatest? His DNA is everywhere because he raped people. He was more focused on destruction than he was on conquest. He was more successful than Napoleon because his people had a large advantage in combat, not because he was a greater person.

Genghis: 7
Napoleon: 4

ghug has a point, VB. Technologically, the Mongols had better military equipment than almost any of their foes. France did not enjoy such an advantage. Genghis also faced petty tribal politics at the beginning, where he could isolate enemies and take them out one by one. Napoleonic France was immediately attacked by every major power in Europe.

Not putting down Genghis' accomplishments, but that's something that you should consider. Also, DNA =/= impact. Silk road = impact. Destruction of caliphate = impact.

***not saying that Genghis isn't brilliant for isolating and exploiting his opponents. Just saying that it physically wasn't possible for Napoleon to do so.

genghis

@VB As far as I could look up your claims, your mistaken, unless you identify Europe with Central Asia. In which case you're still mistaken, but differently.

Just barely...I vote Napoleon.

Napoleon, close though.

Napoleon

Napoleon (that should make it 8-8, right?)

Khan.

The mongols conquered more land in 25 years than Rome in 400

Many historians also credit the mongols for smashing the Feudal System in much of Europe.

@TP There are quite some people voting for this guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u57ImvH1gVA&spfreload=10

What shall we do with their votes? Shall they get a chance to write them down more precisely?

That guy isn't on the ballot, I'm afraid.

Gengis Khan was the greatest of all. Still I like Hanniball Barca the most.

^^^^This guy knows whats up

"Gengis Khan was the greatest of all" - greatest at what? Destroying peaceful villages and brutally murdering or enslaving all the inhabitants? What da fuk is there to admire about this scumbag?

gengis khan

Tyran - I have never once heard the Mongols for smashing the feudal system

yeah, that was actually Napoleon.

The Mongols are credited with helping introduce gunpowder and the Black Death to Europe. Gunpowder helped make castles obsolete which in turn made the feudal system based off of being able to protect your people- in your castle obsolete. Not to mention the Black Death killing a large portion of Europe and making individual labor more valuable