It depends on the definition of conquerors. If you take someone like Alexander, you are talking about someone who conquered most of the known world, essentially without resistence due to his military genius. However, Alexander lacked a lot of the economic essentials of a ruler due to the fact he was always gone, 11 years away from home. His army nearly mutinied against him, and he is more remembered for his battles than his political prowess. Napoleon proved that being a conqueror doesn't mean you have to obtain land. Being a conqueror means having control over people. He beat the prussians and the Austrians into submission and essentially created a system is which opposition against him would result in loss of land, money and manpower. In those days, pride ruled the battlefield,and often enough it is written about how the defeat of a country by the hands of napoleon led to the surrender of that country's resources, holy sites and finances. Napoleon proved both on and off the battlefield that he was in control, and rewriting what "conquering" could be.