https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qy0n6geWEE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bplmqg3ssI
Printable View
Hahaha, the Portuguese, the Nazis and the Timurids, but not the French or the Soviets?
What is he smoking?
Well, that was my question too...
I disagree with the winner.
Why? I was positively surprised, to be sincere.
Persia controlled a huge part of the global population and the vast majority of the "urbanized" world.
Quite an achievement, considering that the second guy (Assyrians) had only loose control over less than half the territory of the Persians.
It is impressive, true. But I don't think it was the closest to world domination.
Well, that's not very explanatory, old chap.
Do you believe that the British were closer or you're thinking of another candidate?
In what concerns the Brits, in my opinion, although they controlled more territory, they were far behind in terms of population, while they were also closely followed by worthy opponents, like the French Empire.
Neither of these is the case with the Achaemenid Empire of Persia.
No, the Mongols and the British are most comparable in terms of land mass and population subjected.
Population in real figures was obviously much smaller for the Achaemenids, and while the relative proportions of current world population are more comparable among the three, one would need to make some heroic assumptions and extrapolations to have the Achs exceed the rest.
But in fact, so far the empire that has come closest to world domination is the USA.
The only thing I got from that video that genuinely interested me was that Achaemenid Persia housed almost half of the world's population at the time.
Seriously?
Other than that, the idea of any of those contenders ruling (most of) the world for a meaningful period of time strikes me as far fetched. Having a large colonial empire is not necessarily a sign of great strenght, either - France and Britain had a hard time fighting Germany in World War I, in spite of their immense colonial possessions.