Greatest Badboy People and Nations per Century

Using the concept of "Badboy" (e.g. Uses force to attack and conquer other nations thereby breaking the prior balance of powers, and is the aggressor) drawn by Paradox Interactive for its games, who would have most badboy per century

21th Century- U.S.A./President George W. Bush of the United States of America

20th Century- Germany/Führer Adolf Hitler of Germany

19th Century- Empire of France/Emperor Napoleon I Bonaparte of France

18th Century- Mughal Empire/Emperor Ekaterina (Catherine) II of Russia

17th Century- Ottoman Empire/King Louis XIV of France

16th Century- Spain-Iberian Union/King Filipe (Phillip) II of Spain

15th Century- Ottoman Empire/Sultan-Caliph Mehmed II of the Ottoman Empire

14th Century- Timurid Empire/Emir Timur Lang (Tamerlane) of the Timurid Empire

13th Century- Mongol Empire/Emperor Genghis Khan of the Mongol Empire

12th Century- Ayyubid Sultanate/Sultan Salah ad-din (Saladin) of the Ayyubid Sultanate

11th Century- Byzantine Empire/Emperor Heinrich (Henry) III of the Holy Roman Empire

10th Century- Holy Roman Empire/Emperor Otto I of the Holy Roman Empire

9th Century- Holy Roman Empire/Emperor Charles Magne of the Frankish Kingdom-Holy Roman Empire

8th Century- Arab Muslim Caliphate/Duke Charles Martel of the Frankish Duchy

7th Century- Arab Muslim Caliphate/Caliph Uthman Ibn Affan of the Arab Muslim Caliphate (Rashidun Dynasty)

6th Century- Byzantine Empire/Emperor Iustinianus (Justinian) I of the Byzantine Empire

5th Century- Visigothic Kingdom/Emperor Attila I of the Hunnic Empire

4th Century- Hunnic Empire/Emperor Balamber of the Hunnic Empire

3rd Century- Persian Sassanid Empire/King-Emperor Shapur I of the Persian Sassanid Empire

2nd Century- Kushan Empire/King Vima Kadphises of the Kushan Empire

1st Century- Roman Empire/Emperor Traianus (Trajan) of the Roman Empire
Year 0
1st Century- Roman Republic/Consul Iulius (Julius) Caesar of the Roman Republic

2nd Century- Roman Republic/Emperor Wu of the Han Empire

3rd Century- Mauryan Empire/Emperor Shi Huang of the Qin Empire

4th Century- Macedonian Empire/King-Emperor Alexandros (Alexander) III of the Macedonian Empire

5th Century- Athenian Democracy/Emperor Xerxes I of the Persian Achaemenid Empire

That is all. I'm open to modifications, especially for the Ancient and Medieval Periods.

I nominate Temujin as the biggest, badddest boy of recorded history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

Using the concept of "Badboy" (e.g. Uses force to attack and conquer other nations thereby breaking the prior balance of powers, and is the aggressor) drawn by Paradox Interactive for its games, who would have most badboy per century

21th Century- USA/George Bush
20th Century- Germany/Adolf Hitler
19th Century- France/Napoleon Bonaparte
18th Century- Mughal Empire/Pyotr I of Russia
17th Century- Ottoman Empire/Gustavus II Adolfus of Sweden
16th Century- Spain/Filipe II of Spain
15th Century- Ottoman Empire/Mehmed II of the Ottoman Empire

I'll continue this later. Tell me which do you think are the badboys per century so I can compile a good list of the "Hitlers" of each century.

---

:inquisitive:

How about we let the 21st century occur before we make an addition to the "World's Worst" list. And if George Bush is this century's Adolf Hitler, we're in for a pretty peaceful 91 years. ~:rolleyes:

Dunno 'bout you, but that doesn't seem to me like it would be a bad thing...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

:inquisitive:

How about we let the 21st century occur before we make an addition to the "World's Worst" list. And if George Bush is this century's Adolf Hitler, we're in for a pretty peaceful 91 years. ~:rolleyes:

---

I just made Bush into this list, because the 21th Cent has already begun and within the few first years since he has already spawned two wars and toppled two governments. Until now, he's the badboy of the 21th Century. Or am I wrong?

We could attach that label to Putin for the Chechen War and Georgia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

We could attach that label to Putin for the Chechen War and Georgia.

---

True, though I think that those wars were much smaller than Iraq and Afghanistan, not only for the length of time they were actively fought, but also in terms of manpower and casualties.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

I just made Bush into this list, because the 21th Cent has already begun and within the few first years since he has already spawned two wars and toppled two governments. Until now, he's the badboy of the 21th Century. Or am I wrong?

---

Two governments isn't that much for a U.S. president, Bush is slacking off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

True, though I think that those wars were much smaller than Iraq and Afghanistan, not only for the length of time they were actively fought, but also in terms of manpower and casualties.

---

Certainly true about the Georgian conflict, though I think the Second Chechen War and Afghanistan may be similar in terms of death toll and scale.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

Certainly true about the Georgian conflict, though I think the Second Chechen War and Afghanistan may be similar in terms of death toll and scale.

---

Chechnya is a part of Russian Federation so there was no invasion of a foreign country.

In case of Georgia, it was very limited to area around South Ossetia and wasn't an invasion in true sense of the word and there was no toppling of the regime in Georgia...

In the cases of Iraq and Afghanistan, it was a clear invasion and it involved changing the government in both countries...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Chechnya is a part of Russian Federation so there was no invasion of a foreign country.

In case of Georgia, it was very limited to area around South Ossetia and wasn't an invasion in true sense of the word and there was no toppling of the regime in Georgia...

In the cases of Iraq and Afghanistan, it was a clear invasion and it involved changing the government in both countries...

---

That doesn't really matter for the inhabitants of Cechnya now does it?
It's still a war.

And what would you call Russian troops on Georgian territory if not an invasion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

In case of Georgia, it was very limited to area around South Ossetia and wasn't an invasion in true sense of the word and there was no toppling of the regime in Georgia...

---

I supported it and it still looked a lot like an invasion. ~;)

Napoleon was agressive, but as far as I know he always had a pretext for his campaigns. Pretty much every kingdom ganged up on France once the republic had been declared.

For the 19th century, I'd go for Bismarck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conradus

That doesn't really matter for the inhabitants of Cechnya now does it?
It's still a war.

And what would you call Russian troops on Georgian territory if not an invasion?

---

Jolt made it pretty clear - using force to attack and conquer other nations etc...

Chechnya is not the other nation, it's not a sovereign country and neither it was at any point during the conflict, it is and was a part of the Russian Federation.

I said that in case of Georgia - it wasn't an invasion in the true sense of the word, because if it were, you would see Russian troops in Grozny and you wouldn't have Saakashvili in power now...

If you try to look at it that way than you would also have to count NATO troops in Kosovo as an invasion of Serbia...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenring

Napoleon was agressive, but as far as I know he always had a pretext for his campaigns. Pretty much every kingdom ganged up on France once the republic had been declared.

For the 19th century, I'd go for Bismarck.

---

Do not forget, Napoleon annexed a lot of lands, invaded most of Europe, installed puppet governments, reformed and created countries. Bismarck did create a nation which would give him a load of badboy (As it certainly did upset the balance of power by creating a behemoth in Nobody's land), but it can't be compared to Napoleon messing up the entire continent.

On the Putin deal, the Chechen war has nothing to do with the badboy concept as I see it. It was restoring sovereignty over a territory which was formerly Russian (Not saying I agree or disagree with the independence of Chechenya or not). There was no upseting of the balance of power in the war. The Georgian war is however, other matter, but as Sarmatian said, Bush did invade and took two countries. The Russian intervention was limited to a few kilometers and it didn't upset the balance of powers in the region (Georgia might be more fragile now, but not much did change), Iraq was a great power of the Middle East, and its fall, along with Afghanistan earn the USA and Bush much more badboy than any other nation/person until now in this century.

I might go back until Xerxes in the Greek War, in terms of Century limit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

Do not forget, Napoleon annexed a lot of lands, invaded most of Europe, installed puppet governments, reformed and created countries. Bismarck did create a nation which would give him a load of badboy (As it certainly did upset the balance of power by creating a behemoth in Nobody's land), but it can't be compared to Napoleon messing up the entire continent.

---

That would depend whether those German little states that were absorbed would have counted as annexed. In Paradox games they did. I remember when I formed Germany in Victoria: Revolutions and how happy I was until France, Russia and Austria-Hungary declared war on me and it was Game Over... And now I have the wish to play Vicky again. The best Paradox game, no contest...

Anyways, largely updated. I'm open to suggestions.

For the 17th century Gustav II's expansion was just normal for the times, a far better canidate would be Louis XIV of France.

Now that I'm thinking, didn't Catherine the Great conquer more territories and expanded the borders more than Peter the Great? She is often mentioned as a sort of enlightened despot but there were also many wars and expansions during her rule...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Winter

For the 17th century Gustav II's expansion was just normal for the times, a far better canidate would be Louis XIV of France.

---

Louis XIV is of the 18th Century.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Now that I'm thinking, didn't Catherine the Great conquer more territories and expanded the borders more than Peter the Great? She is often mentioned as a sort of enlightened despot but there were also many wars and expansions during her rule...

---

True enough. I checked Peter's wars: Mostly the Ottoman War where he only won Azov, and the Great Northern War, where he won Finland. However he is easily surpassed by the wars Catherine created, winning Ukraine in the Russo-Turkish War, and participated in the three partitions of Poland.

Louis XIV took effective control from 1661 -1715. Most of his policy and wars of expansions took place in the 1600's. Throughout his reign he advanced French power to its greatest hight and made it the most powerful nation in europe. His reign in the 18th century was entiarly dealing with the war of the Spanish succesion which was a response to his previous agression. In addition most historians place him in the 17th Century instead of the 18th.

Edit for that matter Rechuli wouldn't be a bad choice for the 17th ethier, Gustav II doesn't really deserve the spot though.

I would think Sparta would be a better fit for the 5th Century B.C.E. since Sparta not only helped lead the Greek City States against the Persians, as Athens did, but also defeated the Athenians in the Peloponnesian Wars and was at the height of its power during the time period in addition to being recognized by the rest of the city states as the most competent of them all when it came to land battles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Winter

Louis XIV took effective control from 1661 -1715. Most of his policy and wars of expansions took place in the 1600's. Throughout his reign he advanced French power to its greatest hight and made it the most powerful nation in europe. His reign in the 18th century was entiarly dealing with the war of the Spanish succesion which was a response to his previous agression. In addition most historians place him in the 17th Century instead of the 18th.

Edit for that matter Rechuli wouldn't be a bad choice for the 17th ethier, Gustav II doesn't really deserve the spot though.

---

Indeed, I don't know how I got to that conclusion. Louis XIV did produce far and wide more badboy than Gustav II. You're correct, thank you. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uesugi Kenshin

I would think Sparta would be a better fit for the 5th Century B.C.E. since Sparta not only helped lead the Greek City States against the Persians, as Athens did, but also defeated the Athenians in the Peloponnesian Wars and was at the height of its power during the time period in addition to being recognized by the rest of the city states as the most competent of them all when it came to land battles.

---

Good points, but by comparing the Peloponnesian League, which was for all effects comprised of independent city-states, equals of Sparta, and had been formed in the 6th Century, (And required for each member to supply with soldiers for the common army, and comparing with the Athenian Empire (Or Delian League) which had been formed after the Persian Wars, and had resulted in a great shift in the balance of power, with Athens taking effective control (Mostly through tributations, since the members of the league were forced to pay tribute to Athens in exchange for protection) of the Aegean islands, I'd say that Athens did gain more badboy during the Century than Sparta and its League (Despite having defeated Athens and the Delian League.)

The fact is that Athens capitalized on the Persian defeat to create an hegemony over the Aegean Sea, with it as the clearly dominant city, upon which most members had to pay tribute to. Sparta did not attempt this. Neither after the victory over the Persians, nor after the victory at the Peloponnese War. Furthermore, Athens maintained a magistrate in the league members called Episkopos who oversaw the proper payment of the tribute and reported anything out of ordinary to the mother-city (Athens). There are documents that report that Greeks living in these members of the Delian League felt as if they were being dominated by the Athenian city. This doesn't happen in the Peloponnesian League, however.

EDIT: The Peloponnesian League did start using the tribute system in the 4th Century, but that caused the league to break and collapse, as members of the league revolted and defeated Sparta, not 10 years into the tributary system implemented in the Peloponnesian League.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

Good points, but by comparing the Peloponnesian League, which was for all effects comprised of independent city-states, equals of Sparta, and had been formed in the 6th Century, (And required for each member to supply with soldiers for the common army, and comparing with the Athenian Empire (Or Delian League) which had been formed after the Persian Wars, and had resulted in a great shift in the balance of power, with Athens taking effective control (Mostly through tributations, since the members of the league were forced to pay tribute to Athens in exchange for protection) of the Aegean islands, I'd say that Athens did gain more badboy during the Century than Sparta and its League (Despite having defeated Athens and the Delian League.)

The fact is that Athens capitalized on the Persian defeat to create an hegemony over the Aegean Sea, with it as the clearly dominant city, upon which most members had to pay tribute to. Sparta did not attempt this. Neither after the victory over the Persians, nor after the victory at the Peloponnese War. Furthermore, Athens maintained a magistrate in the league members called Episkopos who oversaw the proper payment of the tribute and reported anything out of ordinary to the mother-city (Athens). There are documents that report that Greeks living in these members of the Delian League felt as if they were being dominated by the Athenian city. This doesn't happen in the Peloponnesian League, however.

EDIT: The Peloponnesian League did start using the tribute system in the 4th Century, but that caused the league to break and collapse, as members of the league revolted and defeated Sparta, not 10 years into the tributary system implemented in the Peloponnesian League.

---

Eh, I'd still say leading the armies that defeated Persia (and the Spartans were in charge at every major battle but Marathon which they did not attend), defeating the Athenians when far outclassed at sea, and invading Persia is far more "badboy" than anything that Athens accomplished.

The badboy concept is something that is "gained" by breaking the prior balance of powers, and gaining more power themselves. Defeating Persian armies doesn't increase or decrease badboy in any sense. I'm talking in bigger aspects. While Sparta may have had a bigger and/or more advanced army in any terms, that city-state didn't try to gain more power than Athens did during the Century. That is the concept behind the badboy term. The appropriation of more power. This goes so far that after the victory over the Persians during the Persian wars, after the retreat of the Persian armies back to Asia, the Hellenic League broke since Sparta and its allies didn't want to fight the Persians anymore, while the Athenians still wanted for more power (If one can say so) that was one of the reasons behind the breaking of the Hellenic League into the loose Peloponnisian League (Led by Sparta) and into a much more controlled Delian League, which would come to be called Athenian Empire. Sparta didn't attempt to control the weaker cities (Thus gaining more power) like the Athenians did.
Did Sparta invade the Asian mainland during the 5th Century?

I'd say toppling the Delian League would be remaking the balance of powers, as would imposing one's will upon Greek Asia Minor and Greece itself. And Sparta certainly did do this, though the hegemony was not particularly long-lasting neither was that of Athens, and the Spartan Hegemony came to an end after the 5th Century. I have no good sources for Spartan invasions of Persia at the moment, unless one counts the Ten Thousand, but I wouldn't. I'm fairly certain they must have done this since they controlled Greek Asia Minor for some time.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

Would this be a bad time that to say that I agree that Bismarck is in many ways more appropriate for the 18th Century than Napoleon? I mean throwing France out of its place as the preeminent European power and elevating the new German Reich to the throne of most powerful European power is completely upending the balance of powers and geopolitical situation in a way that I'm not sure Napoleon did. He sure changed some borders for a short period of time, but alliances had been forming against France for years and though he was seen as a far greater threat to the balance of powers than other rulers I don't think he permanently changed the balance of powers as much as Bismarck. One could also mention Garibaldi, but he wasn't as influential as Bismarck and I don't know that merely uniting Italy, though a very significant change in the balance of powers, is on par with Napoleon's rampages.

I nominate Cyrus II the Great/Achaemenid Persians as the biggest badboy of the 6th century BC.

For 7th century BC, I nominate king Esarhaddon/Assyrians, who invaded and conquered Lower Egypt. (the Egyptians rebelled but were defeated again by Esarhaddon's son, Ashurbanibal).

I'm not entirely into the details as to what gives "badboy points" In the Paradox games...

But if there is one who upset the balance and was as untrustworthy as they come then Frederick the Great is the top dog for the 18th century. For a more generic top position then Prussia, Austria and Russia share that for removing Poland from the map.

And what is the reason the Ottomans is on the list for the 17th century? France and Sweden were the two main "badboys" that expanded/invaded and upset the old balance.


CBR

I think the Ottomans are there for there pushes in southeastern europe and seige of vienna.

Agreed on Fredrick the Great.

Major comment on this from me is that its a very euro-centric list.

Anyway, would like to suggest that Athenian Democracry be taken off the list as in the large scale of things that was a very minor empire over a handful of Greek speaking coastal villages. The Persian (Achaemenids) meanwhile managed quite a bit of expansion in that century by bringing some dependent states directly under their rule and re-established control over many territories lost to rebellions.



Pope Urban II is surely the real bad boy of the 11th century

Some other debatable alternatives

Simon Bolivar / Shaka Zulu - 19th century
Various Norman invasions - 11th century
Aztecs killed a lot of people in 16th century, Spain just sneezed in the wrong places
Maybe consider replacing Hitler with Stalin (or even Mao?) for 20th century as he has more souls trailing in his wake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cambyses

Major comment on this from me is that its a very euro-centric list.

Anyway, would like to suggest that Athenian Democracry be taken off the list as in the large scale of things that was a very minor empire over a handful of Greek speaking coastal villages. The Persian (Achaemenids) meanwhile managed quite a bit of expansion in that century by bringing some dependent states directly under their rule and re-established control over many territories lost to rebellions.



Pope Urban II is surely the real bad boy of the 11th century

Some other debatable alternatives

Simon Bolivar / Shaka Zulu - 19th century
Various Norman invasions - 11th century
Aztecs killed a lot of people in 16th century, Spain just sneezed in the wrong places
Maybe consider replacing Hitler with Stalin (or even Mao?) for 20th century as he has more souls trailing in his wake.

---

I'll reply to everyone tomorrow, anyways, just this message.

True, it is very Euro-centric, even I noticed that, although I made the list using mostly my knowledge, which is obviously fallible (As with the example of the Peter of Russia.)

I was undecisive over the Athenian Democracy and the Persian Empire, but as I compared, I decided to put the Athenians in, as they built an empire, while the Persians basically centralized or crushed rebellions (Which doesn't add badboy). But looking over the general state of things in that Century, most history I know revolved around Greece, thus why the Athenians are in.

Anyways, there is a misconception of badboy with your suggestions. Badboy isn't about how many people were killed. It's about the acquisition of more power through forceful conflicts with foreign entities, which innevitably breaches the prior equilibrium of powers. Shaka Zulu pales in comparison with many of the people forwarded for that century. Simon Bolivar is another case, and we'll compare him with the other notorious people for the badboy of the 19th Century later.
I considered putting the Normans in, but since they didn't really were a state of any kind, I passed them over. Spain (And later with the addition of Portugal), most notably by Carlos V and Filipe II far and wide surpasses the Aztec Empire in terms of wars and badboy acquired. Stalin's badboy (Once again the badboy concept) can't be compared to Hitler, who did annex and occupy several countries, started a World War, and would have brought Germany more wars and power in case he had won it. Stalin didn't surpass Hitler, nor Mao who only lead in a couple of small wars to further his own power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

Stalin's badboy (Once again the badboy concept) can't be compared to Hitler, who did annex and occupy several countries, started a World War, and would have brought Germany more wars and power in case he had won it. Stalin didn't surpass Hitler, nor Mao who only lead in a couple of small wars to further his own power.

---

On the other hand, Stalin did brutally oppress and control many Eastern European states, which has to count for some badboy points.

Badboy points from Paradox games is difficult to understand for those who never played them. It is a "gamey" feature but it is also very realistic. It doesn't equate to amount of territory taken or to how much of a bad guy certain ruler was, but how much was the existing balance of power upset.

It's not about human rights, concentration camps, genocides etc... For example, Hitler and Nazi Germany aren't on the list because of the genocide, they're there because they've upset the balance of power by conquering numerous countries. By that concept. conquests of Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Louis XIV or Hitler are exactly the same. Their "other" policies are not of an issue, just their conquests and how much did they upset the existing balance of power

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

It's not about human rights, concentration camps, genocides etc... For example, Hitler and Nazi Germany aren't on the list because of the genocide, they're there because they've upset the balance of power by conquering numerous countries. By that concept. conquests of Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Louis XIV or Hitler are exactly the same. Their "other" policies are not of an issue, just their conquests and how much did they upset the existing balance of power

---

If this was addressed at me, I'm aware. I was referring to the fact that the Soviet control of Eastern Europe could be called a de facto annexation.

I think Crochane deserves to be on the list somewhere. He was pretty badass.

No love for Britain?

After all during the 18th and 19th century British troops pretty much invaded every continent on the map. A nation which forcibly took the largest Empire in history probably deserves a little infamy. The only reason we aren't regarded as evil is usually because people tend to forget about the invading and killing natives side of thing, and focus more on the cultural and technological benefits.

I would say Britain's massive naval dominance certainly upset the balance of power, at least at sea.

The ruler would of course be Queen Victoria. Another lady for the list :P

Jolt you still haven't said anything about the candidates I presented in post #28, and no one else has posted alternative names for the 6th and 7th centuries BC. Time to update the list maybe? Esarhaddon may be contestable but Cyrus II definitely deserves to be included.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Beane

No love for Britain?

After all during the 18th and 19th century British troops pretty much invaded every continent on the map. A nation which forcibly took the largest Empire in history probably deserves a little infamy. The only reason we aren't regarded as evil is usually because people tend to forget about the invading and killing natives side of thing, and focus more on the cultural and technological benefits.

I would say Britain's massive naval dominance certainly upset the balance of power, at least at sea.

The ruler would of course be Queen Victoria. Another lady for the list :P

---

I was just about to put Britain forward. They also engaged in power struggles with both France and Russia multiple times in the 18th/19th centuries, especially with the "Great Game" (I hate that term so much, by the way; it's incredibly arrogant) and, if you count the East India company as an extension or client state in all but name, of the British empire, then you can also count in the forcible conquest of the Indian subcontinent.

Edit: and yes, the list is awfully Eurocentric; at the very least, Qin Shi Huang ought to be on the list.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conqueror

Jolt you still haven't said anything about the candidates I presented in post #28, and no one else has posted alternative names for the 6th and 7th centuries BC. Time to update the list maybe? Esarhaddon may be contestable but Cyrus II definitely deserves to be included.

---

Sorry. I currently don't have the time to reply to every post and update everything, as I am in college, far away from home. I come to the net and to this site to post somewhat small replies and check on my games, and I don't even have time for those. I shall look onto everything as soon as I have time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reverend Joe

I was just about to put Britain forward. They also engaged in power struggles with both France and Russia multiple times in the 18th/19th centuries, especially with the "Great Game" (I hate that term so much, by the way; it's incredibly arrogant) and, if you count the East India company as an extension or client state in all but name, of the British empire, then you can also count in the forcible conquest of the Indian subcontinent.

Edit: and yes, the list is awfully Eurocentric; at the very least, Qin Shi Huang ought to be on the list.

---

True, Britain did upset the world balance quite much, it will be a case for discussion amongst us when I have time. Yes the list in very eurocentric, and Qin Shi Huang is in the list (Badboy-Person of the 3rd Cent B.C.), though I was unsure whether to put him or Ashoka of the Indian Mauryan Dynasty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

Yes the list in very eurocentric, and Qin Shi Huang is in the list (Badboy-Person of the 3rd Cent B.C.), though I was unsure whether to put him or Ashoka of the Indian Mauryan Dynasty.

---

Ah, I see. :2thumbsup:

I would like to propose an alternative for the 11th century AD: sultanate of great seljuq/Togrul beg.
They defeated the byzantines, fatimids, abbasids and ghaznavids and captured nicaea, antioch, jerusalem, bagdad, nishapur, merv, damascus to name only the most important.

I would put the Brits down for the 18th cen. We destroyed forever any other European pretensions of Global Hegemony, the game was up, effectively.