Often it is said that Chinggis Khan conquered twice as much land as Alexander. But is that really true? To me it seems as if they actually use to compare the empire of Alexander with the Mongol empire at it's peak ca 1260 (33 years of perpetual conquest after Chinggis' death). Many books claim that Chinggis conquered China and Persia - but it's not true. Sure most of Chin and the entire Xixia teritorries were conquered, as were Transoxiania and Khwarizm. But still - parts of Chin remained autonomous, Khurassan and Iraq Ajemi (today's Iran and Afghanistan) in Central Asia were completely devastated but yet not officially incorporated into mongol realm until Ögötai Kha'an. Also the extent of the northern border into Siberia is a matter of debate - I'm not even sure whether the loose annexion of vast but sparsely populated forrest-areas could be considered to be real conquests? Also, the expansion in the western steppes is also debated. We don't know how much land Jochi conqured in his father's name, some maps actually show that Chinggis' conquests stretched as far as the Kalka river and to the Sea of Azov (including the Kaukasus) - which is wrong since Djebe and Sübetai didn't really conquer those areas. As far as I know - the mongols exerted no authority over any steppe people west of the Ural until the great invasion 1236, despite the victories of Djebe and Sübedai during their raid 1221-24. The qanqalis in present day Kazakhstan were subdued by Jochi, but the western kipchaqs were not conquered until 1236-37 - several years after Chinggis' death.

Taken this into account - did Chinggis really conquer more than Alexander?

Make your own decision as to what Genghis Khan and Alexander conquered.

Genghis Khan's Empire at its peak

Alexander the Great's Empire at its peak

Take into the account that Genghis Khan probably didn't conquer all that land within that number of years that Alexander conquered,and so forth like the continuation of his line with his sons,as Alexander's son was killed before he was of age.Also take into consideration the features of the map,and the area they both encompass.It might be distorted,but the areas you can see clearer as to where theya re,like the Arabian Pensinsula is on both maps,that can be a way of figuring out which is bigger.

this is the real extend of Chinggis' conquest:

anyway if the Genghis khan's empire at his death not twice the Alexander's empire

it still bigger , it wont be smaller than alexander's empire

Yes, this is what I'm talking about. The map below is quite reliable (except that more of Kazakhstan - the ulus of Jochi - probably should be incorporated). Vamun Tianshu, your map shows the mongol empire at it's peak at the time of Khubilai Khan after his conquest of the Sung (in 1279), not the conquests of Chinggis 1206-1227

the Qangli were not conquered, however they were defeated by the returning expeditionary force of Sübe'edai and submitted thereafter. so the map of Imp Inv shows the Mongol empire at the beginning of Ögödais reign, but mine shows the extend of Chingiz empire at his death = the "real" conquests.

http://www.hostkingdom.net/earthrul.html - http://www.hostkingdom.net/earthrul.html

Alexander's Empire according to this site was 5,439,000 sq. km.

The Mongol's 9 years after Genghis's death 33,152,000 sq. km. the 3rd largest enpire in history. Even if it was only half the size 9 years earlier it wiped the floor with Alexander's.

So what you're saying is that Jochi actually only reigned over a part of today's eastern Kazakhstan and south Siberia?

You could conquer the sahara and end up with a large empire of worthless land.

Say that to the french

Or to Mansa Musa.

have you forgotten that Jochi died shortly before Chignis Qa'an himself? Jochi in fact reigned nothing. the territory given to his sons later was only called Ulus of Jochi.

But then again the steppes were just flat land with very little in terms of settled people to conquer. Conquering a fortress that comands the neighboring area is much more difficult. Alexander had a tougher time in this regard but then again Persia folded after he beat them in the field.

Alexander had an easier time than Ghengis

no way tougher, all he had to do is beat the weak persians ..

Mütügen was killed at the siege of Bamiyan, not in the battle of Parwan (the mongols at Parwan were led by Shigi Kutuktu, not Chinggis). 700 of Jelal al-Dins troops allegedly Survived the carnage at Indus - originally he had tens of thousand of troops, who all perished almost to the man when the army was routed

Nevertheless Jelal al-Din managed to recruit a new army and restore a part of his fathers empire. Without doubt a military commander comparable to Chinggis - had he lived longer who knows what he could have achieve...

i dont understand why Alexander's empire is compared with Genghis's empire

most of Alexander's great Battels were Inside the Persian Empire just to get controle of it, it was the world's largest Empire ( thanx to the First Persian's Kings)

and Alexander's empire did not go more than Greece and Persian Empire ( the persian did the great job by adding Egypt and asia minor)

Genghis lost some battels and alexander didnt live enough to lose (some indians belive that he actually lost in India).

i think the topic should not be Topic: Did Chinggis really conquer more than Alexander?

it should be                             Topic: Did Chinggis really conquer Twice more than Alexander?

a better comparison is Chinggis and one of the Persian's great Kings.

we also have to take in consideration that there is well over a thousand years difference between the two. the population in timujins time will be much greater.

Originally posted by Scythian LOL You guys seem to be in love with Genghis... This thread asked for a comparation between Alexander and Genghis's empires, the comparation was made, they are almost of equal size, but the one of Alexander was much more populated. Deal with those little things called facts. You can say that Genghis conquered more 'empires' but, all those empires together had the population equal to a less populated city in Alexander's empire. These 'empires' were empires in name only.  The armies of these empires were of proportional size to the size of their population. Then, you say that Alexander died before he got beaten, but, then again, if he lived longer, what indicates that he would've been beaten? What do you think, that if he lived for 30 more years, that his empire would reduce in size, or INCREASE. But, that's all just speculation. Look at the map, and enjoy

I was trying to be neutral and I actually don’t like Genghis and the Khans after him, they killed more than 50 million people to make their large empire and they destroyed almost all the Islamic states in Asia.
I don’t know about the populations I thought the topic was about size not populations
And there is two maps showing different sizes of the Mongols at the time of Genghis death, which one is to consider a Fact?
Egypt which was almost half of the Persian Empire population surrendered to Alexander and considered him a savior and son of their God.
And about Alexander if he lived longer the empire will decrease or increase, well it depend if he lose or win in the future battles.
As fare as I know he was planning to take Arabia and Western Europe.
Alexander was a great skilled Conqueror so was Genghis
 But I still think that Genghis conquered more at his life time.

Why you shouldn't consider the known world, I think we should lands that there were no claim for them to Alexander's empire.

Well, I couldn't care less about who consquered more land, but when it comes to the second part, no he didn't lose any battle!

(I also didn't get the fun part but perhaps that's just me!)

i guess that what made him somekind of myth.

simply realize that your comparison is based on a "alexander was greater because he was born 2cm taller than genghis" basis....everyone knows that Siberia and the arabic peninsula are less populated than China or europe, but that does't mean the conquest was less harder fought...

the facts show Chinggis empire as the bigger one, there's nothign to argue at all. and population growth was not linear, how come there are today cities of several thousands on the American east coast but before 1500 it was sparsely populated? your evaluation is therefore not a scientific approach. that's why empires are measured by territory and not population. and lookign at your map i realised you included territories not conquered by him, namely Cyrenaica. that means that you've faked the map in favour of Alexander anyway, that shows your credibility.

Not sure if Genghis knew about Alexander, but it looks like he used the same tactic Alexander used in Tyre that is if you resist me and I win I will kill you all in the most gruesome manner you can imagine. Lets just hope there will be less of this kind of greatness in the future history and centuries from now people try brag about more important accepts of their ancestors life.

two reasons I believe he lost battles.

1. After he conquered Persian empire, the Rebelians gets so strong and beat up Alexander's army. but there is no book says he was on the battle, so we are not sure.

2. Some Indians said Alexander had been defeated in India, I agree with them. They found many city's ruined around 2300 years before, so probaaly that should be Alexander. If he did keep going, then he must be come back with lose.

You may believe whatever you like, but if you don't back it up with sources and proof, it's not good enough!

And no, both your above-mentioned cases are wrong. Alexander crushed the rebels decisively and defeated King Porus in India as all the sources say and the ensuing situation indicates.

Yiannis, what do you call it:

http://www.pothos.org/alexander.asp?paraID=98&keyword_id=8&title=Battles%20(Minor) - Source: Pothos (Battles of Alexander)

Alexander's intentions were to reach Persepolis before the Persians could evacuate the huge treasures stored in Darius' palaces. But the satrap Ariobarzanes, who governed the satrapy of Persia, had prepared an ambush in the mountain gorge known as the Persian or Susian Gates. When he struck, Alexander was trapped. The Persians were commanding the heights and arrows and stones were raining down mercilessly on the Macedonians. Ariobarzanes had walled the gorge, preventing Alexander from breaking through. In the end Alexander had to retreat, leaving behind many casualties. It was a disgrace. Ariobarzanes had faced the Macedonians before as a cavalry commander at Gaugamela and he must have realised it would take a cunning plan to stop them.

Why didn't you posted the rest of the story? That Alexander left part of the army under Krateros to occupy Ariobarsanes, then he took the other part, and under the cover of the night and with the help of a local sheperd, he crossed the mountains and attacked the Persians from behind. Simultanously Krateros attaaked from the frond and the Persian force was anihilated. Ariobarsanes barelly made it alive. When he reached Persepolis, percecuted by Alexander, the town's people refuced to leaved him in the city. He was killed shortly after.

So I would call it a "difficult success"

Ok, Therefore Alexander couldn't defeat Darius in any battle and the result of those battles was a "difficult unsuccess" for Alexander because Daius just retreated and finally he was killed by Bessus, is it right? (if you to see just the end of the story)

to me it looks like Dairus ran away than retreated, as far as i know he didnt have an army with him, just few guards and didnt have plans to re-attack since most of his army generals are now Alexander's generals for Alexander's persian army

i think one of Alexander smart moves was to be nice to the persian generals and the royal family of Dairus and how he respected Dairus when he found him dead

by that he gained the Persian loyality and their huge army.

but in Perisan gates Alexander had a ceremonial retreat, yes?

You should consider that Darius was the king of kings and Alexander was just a novice local king, however he rebelled against his master but he always respected the king of kings.

thats true

i dont think Alexander and his 40,000 army will be able to controle an empire streatched from Egypt to India without respecting Persian traditions and culture and their royalities, Dairus was king of kings thanx to Cyrus the great and Darius the great, they built the foundation of the first largest and strongest Empire in the world that time.

and Alexander knew that it was a mistak to allow the distruction of Cyrus the great's tomb thats why he orderd the tomb to be restored.

and adopted some of Persian ways which his generals didnt like.

Some how I think George Bush would have appreciated if you had used Saddam and his Chemical loving bodies as the contemporary and the gentler example, and left Bush out of this elite group

No, because the purpose of engaging in a battle is to win it! And Alexander, ultimatelly, won every single one of them, destroying the forces opposing him... if Darius run away instead, that was his problem. There was no organized retreat of any kind, rather a "run for your lives" kind of thing.

Yea, you said Darius run for his life? that means he scared, actually he have nothing to worry about, Alexander almost lost at the same time.

One more thing, Alexander picked a good time for attack Persia when it gets weak. The governers of Persia were corrupt and there sodiers do not want fight for them except for some nobles. Persian sodiers are so bad, they have to hire Greek mercenaries to increase their power and the Greek mercenaries actually helped Alexander. The main reason Persia lost is because Darius escape from the battle(because he just got scared). And they have some problem with their strategy, like they should wait Alexander in Babylon city not fight a battle to lose army. Not sell their ships to cut of Alexander's supporting line, Persia could easy win. How ever, Alexander got %60 lucky to conquer Persia.

Greek mercenaries fought on both sides, and the mercenaries fightign for the Persians were absolutely loyal, in fact they did not helped Alexander but he had them all massacred after the battle of the Granikos because there should be no Greeks to oppose him in the world.

Interesting how there are so many shepherds in Greek stories. I wonder if this is the same shepherd that helped Xerxes at Thermopylae. 

Originally posted by Miller Interesting how there are so many shepherds in Greek stories. I wonder if this is the same shepherd that helped Xerxes at Thermopylae.

I see you've spotted the similarity. It does ring a bell doesn't it?

" Many books claim that Chinggis conquered China and Persia - but it's not true. Sure most of Chin and the entire Xixia teritorries were conquered, as were Transoxiania and Khwarizm."

Not even, Xi Xia was not conquered until after his death. He only conquered around 1/3 of Jin and many of these cities were retaken, especially after the Jin annihilated the Mongol at Da Yuan Chang.

The extent of Genghis's empire in the U.S. analysis of the top ten conquerors of history was 4,850,000. Hoowever thta undoubtly included Xi Xia and the territory north of the steppe as Temujin already mentioned. Also the Tarim Basin was NOT conquered, the Uighur kingdoms there were independent and only vassal in name. But Genghis's eempireis still larger than Alexander's simply because of the vast steppe territories he conquered.

"nope, but it was larger than Alexanders empire."

No, they are around equal with Alexander at a slight lead with 2,180,000 sq miles and Timur at 2,160,000.

I also don't see a meaning to comparing population at different times, or else, Mao would have been the greatest conquerer of all,

"the facts show Chinggis empire as the bigger one, there's nothign to argue at all. and population growth was not linear, how come there are today cities of several thousands on the American east coast but before 1500 it was sparsely populated? your evaluation is therefore not a scientific approach. that's why empires are measured by territory and not population. and lookign at your map i realised you included territories not conquered by him, namely Cyrenaica. that means that you've faked the map in favour of Alexander anyway, that shows your credibility."

Neither size or population measure conquest, its the total wealth and importance(which include military and technological advances that strengthen the regime) combined that decide whats the best territories conquered. Size and population are just factors that add up to it. While we can't measure population we certainly could measure the percentage of population they possess in the world, which Alexander did have a lead.

"Other than that, his empire encompassed vast unpopulated areas, while Alexander's empire was of more populated and more civilized areas."

No, by sheer number Genghis conquered far more, the population of Jin on the eve of conquest had roughly 48 million people that does not include Manchuria which has over 2 million population of its own, although Chinngis did not conquer all of Jin he still had at least 15 million people in the territory he conquered. the steppe territory has roughly 1.5 million, the territory conquered of Khariazem had some 4 million people and that of east turkestan at least another milion added up this should be some 22 million in all that he conquered.(although he did significantly reduced them to nearly half that number.)

For Alexander's Empire:

Near East less Arabia: 12.0 million
Egypt: 4 million 
Central Asia and India: 1.5 Million

Greek states: 1.25 million.

All together it couldn't have been over 20 million.