The art of war, then, is governed by five constant
factors, to be taken into account in one's deliberations,
when seeking to determine the conditions obtaining in the field.
These are: (1) The Moral Law; (2) Heaven; (3) Earth;
(4) The Commander; (5) Method and discipline.
Sun Tzu, "The Art of War"
Like totalwar.org on Facebook!
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...
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. Voltaire.
"I've been in few famous last stands, lad, and they're butcher shops. That's what Blouse's leading you into, mark my words. What'll you lot do then? We've had a few scuffles, but that's not war. Think you'll be man enough to stand, when the metal meets the meat?"
"You did, sarge", said Polly." You said you were in few last stands."
"Yeah, lad. But I was holding the metal"
Sergeant Major Jackrum 10th Light Foot Infantery Regiment "Inns-and-Out"
I disagree with the winner.
Days since the Apocalypse began
"We are living in space-age times but there's too many of us thinking with stone-age minds" | How to spot a Humanist
"Men of Quality do not fear Equality." | "Belief doesn't change facts. Facts, if you are reasonable, should change your beliefs."
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.
Days since the Apocalypse began
"We are living in space-age times but there's too many of us thinking with stone-age minds" | How to spot a Humanist
"Men of Quality do not fear Equality." | "Belief doesn't change facts. Facts, if you are reasonable, should change your beliefs."
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.
Vitiate Man.
History repeats the old conceits
The glib replies, the same defeats
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
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.
The art of war, then, is governed by five constant
factors, to be taken into account in one's deliberations,
when seeking to determine the conditions obtaining in the field.
These are: (1) The Moral Law; (2) Heaven; (3) Earth;
(4) The Commander; (5) Method and discipline.
Sun Tzu, "The Art of War"
Like totalwar.org on Facebook!
Bookmarks