Alcibiades

Inspired by a recent comment by Guaporense,I thought perhaps we should try to rank ancient conquerors according to the number of peoples subjected.I dont recall anything similar being attempted before.

Just so you know,the proposed people need not be heads of state (monarchs,Emperors,clan chiefs etc),so any Roman Republican and Classical Greek figure is a fair game.

We will try to determine,as closely as possible,how much people different candidates subjugated by looking for explicit statements in literary sources (if there are such),demographic figures for those conquered regions/places/countries at around that time (if we have such),or by some other method,if these are not sufficient.

As for the time limit of Antiquity,let us say the Arab Conquests in 630s for Europe and Middle East,fall of Gupta Empire in circa 550 for India and the establishment of Tang Dynasty in 620 in China,okay?


Okay,you can either do this by posting lists,with the aproximate number of conquered people next to names,if you alread think you have enough data about the listed figures,or we can more slowly.


For example,let us list the people who (you think) have definitely conquered more than 2 million people?

Alcibiades

Darth Roach

Hmm, I didn't know he conquered that many... In fact, I don't think he ever really conquered anything.

Guaporense

Pliny claims that Pompey conquered 12,183,000 people in the course of his Eastern campaigns. That's quite a lot of people: Pompey conquered more people than Caesar.

Alcibiades

Dont be smartass,and try to adress the OP,if you have something to add.
Alcibiades

Alcibiades

Okay,Pompey definitely conquered more than 2 mil,even if that figure from Pliny is entirely reliable or not.Also,Caesar,even if we dont count all of Roman Republic,is over that figure (Gaul alone puts him above).

Also,I think it would be accurate to add,from Roman Republic,Scipio Africanus,yes?
Alcibiades

Darth Roach

Which, according to your very own population tables, is pretty unlikely. What was it, 4 million in Anatolia, 3 or so in Syria, 5 in Egypt? And that's the most populous eastern locations. The number is weirdly specific as well.
I was just pulling your leg - about how you always add "Alcibiades" at the end of your posts.

IMO the conquerors who subdued the most people were Chandragupta Maurya and Alexander.

Depending on the population of Gaul, and what you call conquest, might be Caesar as well.

Alcibiades

I dont think,form Classical Greece,that many would count (if any).Perhaps Cimon is close to that figure?He did "liberated" (read:subdued)large part of Thracian coast and many Aegean Islands,as well as some of the coast of Asia Minor.

Maybe also Epaminondas is close,but only if we include Thessaly,among with his satelite-states in Peloponnese (many of those quickly broke off from Thebes).
Alcibiades

Alcibiades

From Near/Middle East,I think the obvious would be Cyrus the Great,Cambyses,Darius I,Ardashir I,Khosrau I and Khosrau II.

Maybe even Artaxerxes II (he recovered Phoenicia,Cyprus and Ionia at different periods) and some of Assyrian rulers?
Alcibiades

Alcibiades

How much people did Maurya,approximately,subdue?Are there any records?

Also,is there someone other than him from India in this period who conquered more than 2 mil people?
Alcibiades

Darth Roach

Well, not really.
1. Cyrus didn't conquer too many people. He conquered Iran (~3 million max), Anatolia (5 max), Mesopotamia (~5-6) and the Levant (maybe 3 million at most). So that adds up to an absolute maximum of 17 million. Likely much less.
2. Cambyses conquered Egypt, which is about 5 million.
3. Darius... Well, Darius is a pretty distinct case. He didn't really conquer anything as much as winning a huge civil war. He started in Egypt - so he took Mesopotamia, Iran and parts of Anatolia from rivals. He conquered Punjab, though, and central Asia, so you might get some new subjects there, but a few million at most.
4. Ardashir conquered Fars (a couple hundred thousand), Kerman (same), and then he conquered the rest of the Parthian empire. So maybe about 10 million if we count his minor gains against Rome and the other states Parthians had lost territory to.
5. Khosrau I certainly did not conquer anything.
6. Neither did Khosrau II. He made an attempt at Rome that was doomed from the start, since the Sassanids lacked the capacity to fight the ERE.

Of the Sassanids, only Ardashir and Shapur made considerable gains.
If we don't count the loss of Egypt, he only reestablished Achaemenid rule and defeated his unruly brother.
They would have, if they didn't kill them off.
Northern India, whatever that amounts to.
Probably anyone who conquered anything in India, since it's crowded.