3 ms·
> as conquring the whole world Unless it's a matter of speech, he conquered about 3.5% of the world's land mass and about a third of the (estimated) population
by IkmoIkmo 11y ago
> as conquring the whole world
Unless it's a matter of speech, he conquered about 3.5% of the world's land mass and about a third of the (estimated) population, neither of which put you in the top 3 and couldn't be considered the 'whole world' either. By land mass it's not even in the top 20 largest empires ever. He was unique not for the greatest empire but rather for being so primely responsible for the massive empire he did create and in doing it all in about 12 years, the British empire for example by comparison has no single persons who were so primely responsible with many leaders emerging over hundreds of years, combined with his personal role in battles, all of which ending in victory, makes him the stuff of legends.
- StuffMaster 11y agoHe conquered the "known world", I believe is how it goes.
- IkmoIkmo 11y agoWell he factually didn't even from the perspective of 'his known world', Alexander both turned back from on campaign, and had planned another campaign he didn't live to initiate. But regardless it strikes me as a pretty ridiculous claim to make, (especially today) when an estimated 70% of the world population lived in places (they obviously know) that weren't conquered by Alexander. After all there is no 'the' known world. You can find many millions of people who have not a clue of the world beyond a few miles away and you'll thereby find many different people who each rule their known world.
- rmc 11y agoYes it is a manner of speech. My full quote was: "Alexander was viewed (in his time) as conquring the whole world".