i don't really know about Genghis Khan being the best diplomacy player. From what i remember learning about him, it was his technological superiority over his enemies with his cavalry archers that allowed him to conquer as much as he did. In a game where all units are equal strength, i'm not so sure the strategy of "don't ally with anyone and just attack all your neighbors until you have 18 supply centers" would work if everybody was at an equal strength to begin with. and that also kind of goes for Cortez too from earlier posts.

My personal favorite for this would be Cavour from the italian unification period. He convinced the very independent city-states of italy to join Piedmont-Sardinia, allied with France and Prussia to gain land from Austria, then was able to use the wildcard Garibaldi and his Red Shirts to gain control of the south and also keep order in the lands that he had already picked up. And then for his legacy after his death, he was able to set the stage necessary for the Vatican and papal states to join Italy

"Who else could hold the title of master of manipulation than the man who has been a religious dictator almost his whole life and yet is still thought of by most of the world as a soft, cuddly grandfather figure? Everyone would want to be his ally. No one would suspect his stab. And above all else, thanks to the magic of reincarnation, he is impossible to kill."

ROFLMAO + 1000 to Octavious.

India and America give him an SC each.

"i don't really know about Genghis Khan being the best diplomacy player"

Genghis Khan had his rear end handed to him by his chief rival twice during his rise to power in Mongolia. Also, he died before most of the big Mongol conquests were accomplished. His legacy (as founder of the most fearsome land empire in history) is far more important than his actual accomplishments (after unifying the Mongols, his only noteworthy accomplishments in life were annihilating an empire no one ever remembers and conquering part of China. Lots of people have done that).

And Kublai Khan's sinocentric policies were the direct cause of the breakup of the Mongol Empire. He was also solidly defeated - twice! - by those backwards and primitive Japanese barbarians (as well as the Vietnamese and Indonesians).

While the Mongols did create the largest and most fearsome empire in history, I don't think any one of their leaders could possibly fall even into the top 10. They were all too busy getting drink and fighting with their relatives to realize their full potential. Also, their press was just "Surrender or die!!!". Aside from Genghis, they had no diplomatic skill whatsoever (although, to be fair, they generally did not need to).

"i don't really know about Genghis Khan being the best diplomacy player"

Yes. Not sure how "diplomatic" he was. By all accounts he was quite rude. I suspect he was a multi-accounter.

How about Karl the Great? This guy conquered an area which deserves being mentioned as Rome 2.0 by inventing feudalism.

Or how about the grandmaster of opportunism, Marcus Tutius Cicero?

no i beg to differ about the mongols having no diplomacy. in the middle east they proposed an alliance with the crusaders against the egyptians.

it is merely a stereotype that all they did was demand surrender. they did do that, but only when they knew they could beat you.

Simon Bolivar. Conquered Latin America. Lost in the bickering and infighting only after winning 18 SCs. So loved by all, other countries named him dictator whilst he conquered them.