200 men, dude... Pizarro was like Xenophon, Alexander, and Leonidas wrapped up into one
-
-
Replying to @buellerevsky
That’s impressive too, Norman reconquista was très fort; but Pizarro was up against 50,000 in a strange, hostile land an ocean away from home. There’s no gold in Sicily
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @buellerevsky
The empire Pizarro built was on the geographic scale of Alexander’s (check dimensions of viceroyalty of Peru), vastly more profitable, lasted longer, and he did it with 100 infantry and 60 caballeros
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @QuasLacrimas
when you’re talking conquest on that scale it’s not about the k/d ratios anymore... the strategy, daring, and sheer will that calls for are hard to imagine
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @buellerevsky
Khaganates don’t impress me as much b/c it’s a bandwagon thing, not terribly interesting (any herders who could stop fighting each other and concentrate all forces on farmers can pull it off)
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
The Huns, the Bactrians, the Manchu, the Scythians, the Cimmerians, the Goths, the Aryans... I don’t even think Mongols were the most interesting nomadic plunderers. 10% was mostly plague from trans-Eurasian migration
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.