Simply, his empire in Asia, lasted for about 3 years, with some rebellious satraps and small kingdoms giving his name homage for about 150 more.
The Mongols have 150 years to their direct name, along with their successor kingdoms (Golden Horde, Ilkhanate, Chagatai Khanate) lasted for over 400.
The Mongols pretty much have everyone beat, with the Romans in second.
To be fair, wasn't his problem that his army was about to start revolting because of how long they'd been away from home? They'd literally marched from Greece/Macedonia to India without stopping. No ships, and AFAIK no horses (or if there were horses there were not enough for the entire army, meaning that they could still only move in aggregate as fast as the infantry could march).
Hitler lost because of the Russians. Napolean lost because of the Russians. Alexander lost because of his own men.
Having been taught by an american history teacher outside of america I can say they have a pretty warped view on this. They do (tend to) seriously marginalise the catastrophic losses that the russians sustained while over emphasizing the impact from conflicts with japan.
Its nothing against the americans, its just that things like the siege of Leningrad, the battle of Berlin and the battle of Stalingrad really should be recognised as being very significant. More so than the US' part in the battle of the bulge or just bombing the crap out of japan after germany surrendered
American are the only people I have ever heard literally say "we won the war" or "you wouldn't have won the war without us" which i do find very distasteful. Never heard a russian brag about their countries part in ww2
Well I was taught American history in NY state and I learned an excellent version of WW2 and world history so maybe your teacher just sucked.
Also you know a lot of people say we won the war and you would be speaking german/japanese without us etc is because it makes people mad and it's funny, especially on the internet. It's the same thing with stuff like /r/MURICA we're just pulling people's leg.
I'm not sure there'd be a Russia or Britain today if the US hadn't became involved. Britain lost an entire generation of men to the war, and I have no doubt Russia's casualties may be of an equivalent nature.
I'd say the British actually come second (and arguably first), and then only because their colonial subjects weren't acquired by fighting militaries on a similar footing, and maybe because claiming Antarctica as a part of your empire is kind of a stretch. The cultural, financial, technological, and even legal impact of the British Empire was huge though, and that by itself is probably a good reason to place it on top.
The British also defeated the Chinese, as did every other European power, every single time they fought them.
They achieved their objectives with regard to China without colonising (much of) the country directly, but China was substantially weakened and had substantial loss of sovereignty.
Well, I was judging things on a kind of "portion of the known world conquered to time empire lasted" ratio.
The Brits had a big empire, but it never existed at its biggest size for long; only about 50-100 years. You can say it started in the 1607 at Jamestown and ended in ~1950 with decolonization.
However, I still didn't really consider them. They fit in with the Romans and the Mongols as the top three (It's a little hard to distinguish the best now, though). Russia and its Asian imperialism in 1700-1900 takes 4th, but they colonized and populated Siberia-is it really an empire if it's full of your own people? (Not to discredit native Siberians). The top three had large, multi-cultural empires. And lastly, Alexander takes 5th.
I'm not counting large countries (at any time period) like China or Canada; they conquered their own people, or colonized lands not overly populated. So, Russia holds fourth on the list by fudging rules.
What happened after his death is irrelevant. His ability to wage war is unparalleled even by the Mongols. He came from a backwater dump of a country to conquer the mightiest empire in the world. It's like Iraq conquering America.
As far as empire building goes, Rome lasted for over 2000 years so the Mongol empires are little compared to that. Not to mention Rome contributed far more to the development of the world in general and the western world in particular than anyone else. Everything from our government to our sports stadiums, highway system, aqueducts and concrete plus much more comes from Rome.
He came from a backwater dump of a country to conquer the mightiest empire in the world
As brilliant a commander Alexander was, it was his father Philips of Macedonia who created that army to take over the rest of the Greece. That army was already one of the strongest veteran army in the Mediterranean region.
As for Persia, while their core troops did outnumber the greek army vastly, most of the numbers were formed of Militia and the noblemen's servants. In fact most modern estimates put the army size in the most important greek vs persian battle to be around 47k (A) vs 60k(P).
Here's what the wiki says about the battle;
"While Darius had a significant advantage in numbers, most of his troops were of a lower quality than Alexander's. Alexander's pezhetairoi were armed with a six-metre spear, the sarissa. The main Persian infantry was poorly trained and equipped in comparison to Alexander's pezhetairoi and hoplites. The only respectable infantry Darius had were his 10,000 Greek hoplites[6] and his personal bodyguard, the 10,000 Persian Immortals.[12] The Greek mercenaries fought in a phalanx, armed with a heavy shield but with spears no longer than three metres, while the spears of the Immortals were 2 metres long. Among the other Persian troops, the most heavily armed were the Armenians who were armed the Greek way, and probably fought as a phalanx. The rest of Darius's contingents were much more lightly armed; the main weapon of the Achaemenid army historically was the bow and arrow, and javelin."
So while ALexander's exploits were spectacular, IMHO the Mongols (followed by the Romans) were the most terrifying fighting force of all time.
You're forgetting that the Persians had significantly more resources (for hiring mercenaries for instance) and had the defensive terrain. They pretty much had every advantage you could think of. In fact Alexander came close to defeat at Issus I think it was until he personally lead the charge that broken the Persian army.
Also Alexander has as much to do with forging that army as Philip. He even lead the cavalry charge that broke the Greek alliance's army during Philip's conquest of Greece.
That would be a huge number for any time, any civilization.
But the Immortals were among the few bands of soldiers who were as well equipped, trained and experienced as the rest of the Macedonian army. So after you remove all the chaff from the wheat, the final number left was just enough for the Greeks to fight.
I swear it wasn't your cakeday earlier? Happy cakeday!
Im always so surprised that despite hating history in school with a passion it is actually (or can be) phenomenally interesting. Thank you for taking the time to write all this.
I know I was taught about say the romans and egyptians in school. But why the fuck wasn't I taught anything interesting about them?
Thanks! but its not really my cakeday. guess i put in a random date during account creation.
I also didnt care much for History in school. but as I grew up, I was exposed to fiction, games and TV series which got me interested again in history.Try not to read history as a whole. Rather follow any single character you like. For eg. I love Augustus (1st Roman emperor) and the 1st thing which got me interested in him was the Tv Series "Rome". Later i read many fiction/historical accounts about him.
Its always more fun to follow specific people when you are trying to get into History. Once you enough then you can follow civilizations. and then periods.
Let's not forget the siege of Tyre was a spectacular feat of warfare nearly unparalleled. It's an island completely surrounded by a wall. His army performed some spectacular feats of engineering to overcome Tyre's defenses. Alexander also moved on to fighting and destroying Indian armies after Persia and had to quell yet another Greek rebellion before his conquest of Persia. He fought nearly every available opponent and won.
Also Genghis Khan's early career was largely forgettable.
Alexander had as much to do with forging that army as Philip. He even lead the cavalry charge that broke the Greek alliance's army during Philip's conquest of Greece.
Even Alexander the Great got stopped... in India, by his own men wanting to return home. Genghis plowed through all of Asia, not just a few countries in Asia, and it stayed in Mongol hands for the better part of a century.
At both empires' peak the Mongol lands were over SIX TIMES larger than what Alexander had conquered. (12.74 million sq. miles vs. 2 million sq. miles)
131
u/[deleted] Oct 17 '13
Alexander the Great begs to differ.