Thread replies: 8
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2
File: GenghisConquest.png (38KB, 752x591px) Image search:
[Google]
38KB, 752x591px
Can we attempt to make some sort of ranking of conquerors based on the area they subdued?
Genghis Khan would be the number 1 by a distance (see pic related), having annexed an area of 24 million square kilometers. But after that it gets fuzzy.
Nader Shah's empire was 5.3 million square kilometers big.
Alexander the Great's empire was 5.2 million square kilometers big.
Tamerlane's empire was 4.4 million square kilometers big.
I can't find sources for the size of Cyrus' empire, but one shitty websites said it was also about 5.2 million square kilometers big.
Any others? Mahmud of Ghazni conquered a couple of million square kilometers himself.
What about Napoleon? Hitler? Any other lads?
>>
Persia had the largest empire by proportion of the global human population. I don't know anything about the blood thirsty conquerors who helped build it though.
>>
What about Cortes and Pizarro by the way? Any estimates?
>>
Victorian England was the largest by land area and population, but it wasn't contiguous.
>>
>>1215999
It was conquered over multiple centuries and hundreds of different "conquerors", so not relevant to the question
>>
File: 1463472498211.jpg (58KB, 500x651px) Image search:
[Google]
58KB, 500x651px
>>1216005
>>1215968
>it's a Great Man Theory thread
>>
>>1215968
>based on the area they subdued
That's stupid. It should be based around population or, even better, % of world's population. Impossible to do here though.
>>
>>1216045
your mom is stupid
>Impossible to do here though
admitting your idea is stupid? noice
Thread posts: 8
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2