The greatest conquerors of all time, in the amount of square miles taken:
1. Genghis Khan (4,860,000) [Mongolia]
2. Alexander the Great (2,180,000) [Macedonia]
3. Tamerlane (2,145,000) [Turkestan]
4. Cyrus the Great (2,090,000) [Persia]
5. Attila the Hun (1,450,000) [Hun Empire]
6. Adolf Hitler (1,370,000) [Germany]
7. Napoleon (720,000) [France]
8. Mahmud of Ghazni (680,000) [Afghanistan]
9. Francisco Pizarro (480,000) [Spain]
10. George W. Bush (423,424) [United States]
The last one is partially tongue-in-cheek—but the always funny Chase Me Ladies, I’m in the Cavalry added this:
If Bush invades Canada, as I believe he should, he will overtake Alexander the Great, but still be a Napoleon short of Genghis Khan.
Younghusband, would you greet our soldiers with candy and flowers?

Comments to this entry
Younghusband
November 3, 2005
1:21 pm
Dan
November 3, 2005
1:45 pm
Curzon
November 3, 2005
2:15 pm
Mutantfrog
November 3, 2005
4:25 pm
Alfred Russel Wallace
November 3, 2005
4:28 pm
Curzon
November 3, 2005
4:37 pm
Kushibo
November 4, 2005
3:56 pm
Kushibo
November 4, 2005
3:59 pm
That might explain why my Canada comment didn't show up: Curzon had already beat me to it in the original post and the "egg-on-the-face control function" prevented by comment from going through. Now that's a blog function I can use!
sun bin
November 4, 2005
5:03 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunzhi_Emperor.
that is about 4M sq m.
sun bin
November 4, 2005
5:05 pm
that is 10M sq km.
sun bin
November 4, 2005
5:08 pm
phil
November 5, 2005
12:07 am
sun bin
November 5, 2005
1:22 am
But what about Louisiana purchase, and the Texas annexation (and california)?
Kushibo
November 5, 2005
2:46 am
sun bin, the Louisiana Purchase was 828,000 square miles, which would put Thomas Jefferson at #7, between Hitler and Napoleon.
But the question is, was that "conquering" or just buying? The French had already "conquered" the territory, at least nominally, so what Jefferson did was just take over the deed.
And the Texas annexation was not a conquering situation either, if I recall. The Treaty of Velasco made Texas an independent nation in 1836, so the Texans themselves were the ones who conquered the area (which was significantly larger than its present-day shape, since it included half of New Mexico, and sizable pieces of Oklahoma, Colorado, Kansas, and even Wyoming). In 1845, it was annexed by mutual decision.
The Mexican-American War that came afterward led to the US getting the 525,000-sq-mile Mexican Cession: all of California, Nevada, and Utah; almost all of Arizona, and most of the remainder of New Mexico not already part of Texas (the rest of present-day Arizona and New Mexico would be bought as part of the Gadsen Purchase); and a good deal of Colorado and Wyoming.
That was an actual case of conquering. That would put President Polk or General Zachary Taylor at #8, between Ghazni and Pizarro (General "Old Rough and Ready" Taylor, the hero of this war and others, was elected president in the following election, even though he'd never held public office and allegedly never bothered to vote).
sunbin
November 5, 2005
4:41 am
1. louisiana, i know it wasn't really 'conquest'. i was assuming the french didnt really control all those areas
2. what about spanish-america war? Florida+Phillipines+ some pacific islands?
Mutantfrog
November 5, 2005
5:40 am
Curzon
November 6, 2005
5:50 am
sun bin
November 6, 2005
6:32 am
Kushibo
November 6, 2005
6:33 am
Why?
Is it just because he didn't get on horseback himself and ride through the Afghan mountains or cross the Tigris in a glorious entrance to Baghdad?
So he didn't really get his hands dirty, but the former F-102 fighter pilot did fly a Navy S-3B Viking all, er, part of the way to the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier parked just off the coast of San Diego and his people had "Mission Accomplished" blazoned across the tower, where he declared major combat operations had ended in an inspiring speech that will go down in infamy.
In all seriousness, why should he not be counted as a conqueror of Afghanistan and Iraq, especially considering that other military leaders (which the president is) couldn't do it AND we have not yet completely given either country back to the people in toto?
Will
November 7, 2005
10:04 pm
Norman Long
November 8, 2005
5:11 am
Joe
November 8, 2005
5:44 am
Cary
February 7, 2006
12:53 am
WODEN
February 16, 2006
12:18 am
William V O
February 16, 2006
12:38 am
William V O
February 16, 2006
12:42 am
Cary
February 16, 2006
2:27 am
Ron Patterson
February 16, 2006
3:59 am
kushibo
February 16, 2006
4:06 am
I think "conquering" would require more than just being there for a short time. Also, I don't think the Moon was claimed by the United States.
Why not claim all of space then? Look at me, I'm claiming all the space directly above my person, therefore I'm history's greatest conqueror... until someone with a bigger head and broader shoulders steals my idea.
lirelou
February 16, 2006
7:30 am
lirelou
February 16, 2006
8:01 am
For Sun Bin, the Indians of Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay, and Argentina did not possess the advanced civilization of the Andean peoples, and were thus largely pushed aside. The original territory of Brazil was quite small compared to present day Brazil. The Portuguese had discovered the Philippines, and the Spanish desperately wanted a foothold in Asia (the original impetus for European exploration being to find a route to the spice islands, or the Indies) Spain held (European) title to most of present-day Brazil, and were uninterested in it. So they traded it to Portugal for the Philippines by simply moving the respective lines of latitude from the original Treaty of Tordesillas line of demarcation westward. Brazil, by the way, contains roughly 55% of South America's population, so in shear numbers, Portuguese speakers outnumber Spanish speakers south of Panama. Yet very few Americans, outside of Portuguese-Americans (who are mostly concentrated in the Northeast) speak the language. Brazil also fought no war for national independence as the break-up was amicable. Several wars for regional independence were fought in the mid-19th century, some of which were supported by the Italian patriot Garibaldi and his "red shirts".
Marcos
March 7, 2006
7:16 pm
Regards.