AHC; Largest possible Empire to be created in one mans lifetime?

[WorstOfHumanity]

What is the most amount of land one man (or woman, though less likely for obvious reasons) could conquer in their lifetime? Some great conquerors that come to mind are Alexander, who started but also died young, and Genghis Khan, who was already past his prime when he founded his empire.

Modern examples wouldn't be allowed due to technology making a world conquest theoretically doable, and the individual needs to be involved in the military themselves (not necissarily fighting personally in every conflict during their reign, but for example a Queen Victoria figure wouldn't count).

So that is your challenge - concoct a scenario where someone conquers the most land possible...

Happy hunting

 

[Madhukar_Shah]

When you say created- does that mean they have to put together their initial base by gluing together a bunch of disparate groups from scratch, or are they allowed to have a relatively well organised base handed to them by a predecessor that they can then expand into an empire?

Alexander wouldn’t be anything without Philip, but genghis really did work his way up from 0.

 

[Silver01]

I mean had ali been chosen as caliph and still died when he did the rashidun conquest would have been under one ruler

 

[MegaByyte]

If things go better for Genghis Khan, like coming to power earlier and living a long life, I could see him creating the Mongol Empire at its height during his lifetime.

 

[WorstOfHumanity]

When you say created- does that mean they have to put together their initial base by gluing together a bunch of disparate groups from scratch, or are they allowed to have a relatively well organised base handed to them by a predecessor that they can then expand into an empire?

Alexander wouldn’t be anything without Philip, but genghis really did work his way up from 0.

They don't need to be the one to unite their state, no. They would probably get bonus points if they did, but it isn't required - hence why I used Alexander and Genghis as my examples

 

[how]

How formal does the rule have to be? Several figures who conquered large amounts of land already lived to be fairly old for their times and also the lifestyle that they had with the frequency they were involved in battle along with campaigning also exposing them to disease or sickness. People like Tamerlane, Genghis Khan, Cyrus the Great, all lived long enough to become pensioners. With this in mind the only two I see as having left a lot on the table so to speak were Alexander the Great and Attila the Hun.

You have to consider what additional land they will conquer or can even be conquered as well, Alexander we know wanted to campaign in Arabia, he could have conquered more land in the Subcontinent and there was also the stragglers that he did not take care of during his conquest of the Achaemenid empire, given more time it is assumed he could match the former Persian borders in Asia and mop up Greece. After this then things get more unrealistic like campaigning in Italy or North Africa, just holding on to what he has would already be an enormous task. With Attila the Hun, he could rule a much more informal empire, if he is more successful against the Romans and completely wipes out the Western Empire for instance then if he can claim rulership of the former regions via vassalship and then turn on the Eastern Empire and create essentially a proto Mongol Empire based in Pannonia.

Even with this in mind I don't know if Alexander or Attila could match the amount of land that Genghis Khan conquered IOTL. Although Attila conquered less land than Alexander IOTL and he was older when he died, I think it might be more possible for him to match or surpass the amount of land that Genghis conquered provided he lives another 20 years due to the nature of his informal empire, and the greater opportunities for expansion he had than Alexander.

 

[WorstOfHumanity]

How formal does the rule have to be?

At least as centralised as the various horde/steppe peoples you mentioned - a China that greatly expands its tributary system without actually incorporating any more land wouldn't really count, for example

 

[mjwebb76]

I am going to suggest that an evil American coming to power in around 1935 might be able to conquer the whole world. Specifically, I am imagining an American with megalomaniacal tendencies who is not an isolationist. Specifically, WWII plays out (at least at first) as it does IOTL. This evil leader uses the war to consolidate power and by the end of the war has an atomic bomb. They use the bomb to destroy Russian power in Europe and then bring the European powers under either explicit or implicit American domination. At some point they find a pretext to conquer China and you essentially have a world-wide American Empire. To be clear I am not saying this is at all likely. America has typically preferred more subtlety then just running around conquering people and declaring them part of the American Empire. I will also acknowledge that I am having difficulty imagining which historical figure might fit the bill of the "Evil American Leader". For example, Huey P. Long certainly had dictatorial tendencies but was a staunch isolationist. Douglas MacArthur certainly thought highly of himself but had at least some respect for civilian control of the military (and before WWII had a somewhat tarnished reputation in the Us for firing on the Bonus Army).

However, I think there was a brief space of time when this might have been possible. Prior to 1940 or so, I don't think any country had the technological ability to conquer the whole world. After around 1955 other powers such as China and Russia had recovered sufficiently from WWII that they could oppose complete US domination (and the US would oppose world-wide domination of any other country). However, in the context of the question, I think there is remote possibility that an American could conquer the whole world in a decade or two, meaning the largest empire in the lifetime of one man is a world-wide empire.

 

[Discernible]

Question.

What has been the largest Empire to be created in one man's lifetime?

...and does annexing Antarctica count?

And I take it, it's just land as I'm emperor of all seas outside the 12 mile limit...

 

[Comte de Dordogne]

I am going to suggest that an evil American coming to power in around 1935 might be able to conquer the whole world. Specifically, I am imagining an American with megalomaniacal tendencies who is not an isolationist. Specifically, WWII plays out (at least at first) as it does IOTL. This evil leader uses the war to consolidate power and by the end of the war has an atomic bomb. They use the bomb to destroy Russian power in Europe and then bring the European powers under either explicit or implicit American domination. At some point they find a pretext to conquer China and you essentially have a world-wide American Empire. To be clear I am not saying this is at all likely. America has typically preferred more subtlety then just running around conquering people and declaring them part of the American Empire. I will also acknowledge that I am having difficulty imagining which historical figure might fit the bill of the "Evil American Leader". For example, Huey P. Long certainly had dictatorial tendencies but was a staunch isolationist. Douglas MacArthur certainly thought highly of himself but had at least some respect for civilian control of the military (and before WWII had a somewhat tarnished reputation in the Us for firing on the Bonus Army).

However, I think there was a brief space of time when this might have been possible. Prior to 1940 or so, I don't think any country had the technological ability to conquer the whole world. After around 1955 other powers such as China and Russia had recovered sufficiently from WWII that they could oppose complete US domination (and the US would oppose world-wide domination of any other country). However, in the context of the question, I think there is remote possibility that an American could conquer the whole world in a decade or two, meaning the largest empire in the lifetime of one man is a world-wide empire.

A few months ago, I started a discussion on a premise similar to what you write but not starting from the same point.
I had imagined that a country between the 1930s and 1950s that succeeded in developing atomic weapons, a substantial arsenal and a total monopoly might find itself tempted to wage a war of total conquest to prevent any other nation from challenging them in the future.
The most likely candidate would have been a United States with fascist tendencies, not hesitating to wipe out every major city in the world to bring all its competitors to their knees.

 

[GuildedAgeNostalgia]

I'm assuming that Genghis Khan or Alexander the Great currently holds the title?

Timur being able to conquer China is your best bet.

 

[PobreCesar]

Timur being able to conquer China is your best bet.

So this?

(Showing countries that Timur pulverized)

 

[CaesarKhan]

I am going to suggest that an evil American coming to power in around 1935 might be able to conquer the whole world. Specifically, I am imagining an American with megalomaniacal tendencies who is not an isolationist. Specifically, WWII plays out (at least at first) as it does IOTL. This evil leader uses the war to consolidate power and by the end of the war has an atomic bomb. They use the bomb to destroy Russian power in Europe and then bring the European powers under either explicit or implicit American domination. At some point they find a pretext to conquer China and you essentially have a world-wide American Empire. To be clear I am not saying this is at all likely. America has typically preferred more subtlety then just running around conquering people and declaring them part of the American Empire. I will also acknowledge that I am having difficulty imagining which historical figure might fit the bill of the "Evil American Leader". For example, Huey P. Long certainly had dictatorial tendencies but was a staunch isolationist. Douglas MacArthur certainly thought highly of himself but had at least some respect for civilian control of the military (and before WWII had a somewhat tarnished reputation in the Us for firing on the Bonus Army).

However, I think there was a brief space of time when this might have been possible. Prior to 1940 or so, I don't think any country had the technological ability to conquer the whole world. After around 1955 other powers such as China and Russia had recovered sufficiently from WWII that they could oppose complete US domination (and the US would oppose world-wide domination of any other country). However, in the context of the question, I think there is remote possibility that an American could conquer the whole world in a decade or two, meaning the largest empire in the lifetime of one man is a world-wide empire.

The OP said no modern examples, but allowing them I'd say your right.

I think Britain is the only other power that could feasibly pull it off, and America would undoubtedly be their biggest obstacle were they to try. I could see a Prime Minister Oswald Mosley teaming up with a more explicitly fascist Edward VIII (especially with the support of the white dominions) being able to pull off the same feats, including creating the atomic bomb if needs be

As for medieval/ancient examples, I have to agree with others saying Genghis Khan. Imagine his father Yesügei fills a Philip II of Macedon role, uniting the Mongol tribes and creating a functional army. Say he dies at the same time as our world - Genghis' date of birth is contentious, but if you go with the older claims then he would be 16 when his father died. This is, coincidentally, the age Mongol culture defined as the start of adulthood (all men between 16 and 70 were expected to fight), so he could definitely find support.

From here, say he has a long and successful conquering life and the feats could be enormous. His mother Hoelun lived to be 81 herself, so he has the genes to go on longer than most in his day, too

 

[Aluma]

A spicy variation of the mongol suggestion

The Khwarazmian Empire not only does not butcher their relations with the mongols by murdering every atempt at estabilishing peaceful relations, but actively courts their friendship by not only accepting the offer of peace & trade but also offering minor pieces of land to mongol nobility and their military protection to the mongolian tribes in exchange of recognising the Shah's authority

Now that may seem dumb without a SI's hindsight, why would the Great Shah want to pander to a bunch of barbarian horse nomads he couldnt care less about that offended him by addressing him as an equal?

Simple, to stick one into China's arse

Any further intel made into the mongols would have shown they loathed the chinese, mainly the Jin, and were already reading themselves to go to war with them even as Temujin asserted he wanted to let go of his warring ways

So even if the khwarazmias had absolutely no idea the mongols could actually pull off a conquest of China, let alone of their own empire, they could grasp the idea that they could cause trouble to the chinese like their own horse nomads were causing to them and let the mongols be a thorn on China's side while they could take advantage of the situation to come in and seize the rich trade routes of Central Asia that the chinese wanted so badly to control and then offer their "help" to the struggling dynasties in the form of paid reinforcements to aid in "reestabilishing order" in there in exchange for sweet sweet trade concessions to Khwarazmia

Of course things wouldnt go according to plan and instead the mongols take all of China as khwarazmian tributaries and form a weird Mongol Empire earlier than IOTL(as they never had to bother to invade Khwarazmia who instead actively strenghtened them) with the Shah as the ceremonial overlord on top of it, and with the allied Khanates in China and Central Asia that in theory are his subjects the ruling Shah at the time the mongols were finished with China could then change his focus West using their support to conquer as much he could in his way till his body expires

Thus TTL Khwarazmian Empire would be much larger than the OTL Mongol Empire if everything went right for them, even if de facto the khwarazmians are only symbolically at the top because the mongols are grateful of them and respect their past ruler enough to play along for the time being

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

See if it's land, it's always gonna be a Genghisid or Nomadic power, because then you can more-or-less claim all the steppes and tundra of northern asia. Genghis, Timur, maybe a Qing if we're flexible.

Alexander did conquer a lot, but more importantly it wasn't remotely the same amount of land - even though I'd say an Alexander the Great that lived had the potential to have Spain through Italy, Persia, and maybe even Gangetic India under his control isn't impossible and is the more powerful empire for it's time.

The only one that I think could match either or outclass them would be Timur-on-steroids. Crush the Ottomans and use the Romans as a client state there to clean up, god knows with the Ottomans wrecked you've got cash to burn - he already had plans to invade China and I don't doubt he could achieve it, the key is then does he have the ability to take India - it's in his backyard, and it's fragmented, so a window exists where Samarkand rules from Constantinople to Ceylon to Beijing to the Urals.

An alt-Mohammed figure could be a candidate, he unified Arabia in 10 years before dying, and his heirs exploded outwards, an earlier ruler could do it too, or maybe he dies and his successor does all the conquering to give them a boost.

The last contender I think has a shot is probably the Mali, and it's only because of the land. Lets say Mansa Musa doesn't go on his historic Hajj, but instead uses that wealth to expand across the Sahara and establish a Malian Caliphate (honestly, Mansa Musa ruling Egypt from Alexandria is an image that tickles me). Not going to pretend it'd last that long (short of a very loyal Malian Viceroy) but uniting the Muslim world including Mali would be dope, and heck if we're assuming he has the gold to burn, let him go and have Aceh swear fealty and he's got a toehold in to boot.

 

[Aluma]

The last contender I think has a shot is probably the Mali, and it's only because of the land. Lets say Mansa Musa doesn't go on his historic Hajj, but instead uses that wealth to expand across the Sahara and establish a Malian Caliphate (honestly, Mansa Musa ruling Egypt from Alexandria is an image that tickles me). Not going to pretend it'd last that long (short of a very loyal Malian Viceroy) but uniting the Muslim world including Mali would be dope, and heck if we're assuming he has the gold to burn, let him go and have Aceh swear fealty and he's got a toehold in to boot.

Combo that with something like Bilad Al-Humran where that expedition to the atlantic not only happens but actually finds America and you could add a colonial empire on top of that

 

[mjwebb76]

The OP said no modern examples, but allowing them I'd say your right.

I think Britain is the only other power that could feasibly pull it off, and America would undoubtedly be their biggest obstacle were they to try. I could see a Prime Minister Oswald Mosley teaming up with a more explicitly fascist Edward VIII (especially with the support of the white dominions) being able to pull off the same feats, including creating the atomic bomb if needs be

As for medieval/ancient examples, I have to agree with others saying Genghis Khan. Imagine his father Yesügei fills a Philip II of Macedon role, uniting the Mongol tribes and creating a functional army. Say he dies at the same time as our world - Genghis' date of birth is contentious, but if you go with the older claims then he would be 16 when his father died. This is, coincidentally, the age Mongol culture defined as the start of adulthood (all men between 16 and 70 were expected to fight), so he could definitely find support.

From here, say he has a long and successful conquering life and the feats could be enormous. His mother Hoelun lived to be 81 herself, so he has the genes to go on longer than most in his day, too

I missed the point about no modern examples.

That said, I disagree with regard to Britain. First, by 1930 Britain had serious economic problems. Even if it somehow could have developed the bomb I think the US would be able to resist them absent some ASB scenario. As I noted, there was a very brief period where MAYBE an evil America could do it. After about 1950-1955 even Alt-Evil-America would lack the resources as the Soviets are likely to have an atomic bomb and serious land armies.

 

[Gloss]

If it's by population it likely has to include India or China

 

[Ursogulos]

A spicy variation of the mongol suggestion

The Khwarazmian Empire not only does not butcher their relations with the mongols by murdering every atempt at estabilishing peaceful relations, but actively courts their friendship by not only accepting the offer of peace & trade but also offering minor pieces of land to mongol nobility and their military protection to the mongolian tribes in exchange of recognising the Shah's authority

Now that may seem dumb without a SI's hindsight, why would the Great Shah want to pander to a bunch of barbarian horse nomads he couldnt care less about that offended him by addressing him as an equal?

Simple, to stick one into China's arse

Any further intel made into the mongols would have shown they loathed the chinese, mainly the Jin, and were already reading themselves to go to war with them even as Temujin asserted he wanted to let go of his warring ways

So even if the khwarazmias had absolutely no idea the mongols could actually pull off a conquest of China, let alone of their own empire, they could grasp the idea that they could cause trouble to the chinese like their own horse nomads were causing to them and let the mongols be a thorn on China's side while they could take advantage of the situation to come in and seize the rich trade routes of Central Asia that the chinese wanted so badly to control and then offer their "help" to the struggling dynasties in the form of paid reinforcements to aid in "reestabilishing order" in there in exchange for sweet sweet trade concessions to Khwarazmia

Of course things wouldnt go according to plan and instead the mongols take all of China as khwarazmian tributaries and form a weird Mongol Empire earlier than IOTL(as they never had to bother to invade Khwarazmia who instead actively strenghtened them) with the Shah as the ceremonial overlord on top of it, and with the allied Khanates in China and Central Asia that in theory are his subjects the ruling Shah at the time the mongols were finished with China could then change his focus West using their support to conquer as much he could in his way till his body expires

Thus TTL Khwarazmian Empire would be much larger than the OTL Mongol Empire if everything went right for them, even if de facto the khwarazmians are only symbolically at the top because the mongols are grateful of them and respect their past ruler enough to play along for the time being

A wacky idea😎, I had a Jalaluddin mingbarnu TL in my mind for a while now.

 

[Aluma]

A wacky idea😎

Mine always are

I had a Jalaluddin mingbarnu TL in my mind for a while now.

Sounds great!
Kinda curious already considering how much I like your Golden Horde TL, I mean... It partly inspired that comment in the first place =3