Genghis Khan controlled a vast empire

The argument

The case for Genghis Khan rests on the scale of what he personally brought under his control. At its height his empire spanned some eleven million square kilometres — an extent that, on this account, surpasses the empires of Rome, of Alexander the Great, and of Attila the Hun. Power measured as territory held is the most direct comparison available across very different eras, and by that measure no other figure in the set comes close. What makes the figure more striking is how the territory was taken. His armies were not better supplied than those they faced; they were differently built. His soldiers were highly trained in mounted combat, and cavalry used that way repeatedly decimated the infantry formations of more organised and traditional armies. An opponent's institutional advantages — settled logistics, fortified positions, established military convention — counted for less against a force that could choose where and when to engage. That is why the conquests read less as a series of fortunate victories than as the working out of a decisive military advantage. The consequences on the ground underline the completeness of that control. Where his armies took land they razed its resources and pillaged its settlements, leaving little capacity for the conquered to mount a later challenge. Proponents of this position note that nothing stood in the way of his conquest until his death — the expansion was not halted by an opposing power but ended by the mortality of the man directing it. Taken together, the argument is that Genghis Khan exercised a more absolute and less contested command over a larger share of the known world than any other individual. On the territorial and military measure, he is the most powerful person of all time.

Context

Power comes from the size of the empire you control. This is evident in geo-politics today. Russia’s Vladimir Putin, China’s Xi Jinping, and America’s Donald Trump hold the most political power because they control the largest territories.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Most of Genghis Khan’s territory was uninhabited grassland. As a result, the size of his territory becomes almost meaningless. What use is holding a territory if there is nobody in it to exercise power over? The areas he controlled were mostly occupied by other nomadic tribes, which he simply gained control over. Very few cities and large settlements, and very little infrastructure were seized by Khan's armies. Additionally, he did not dictate a clear ideological or cultural doctrine to the lands he possessed. While some Mongol practices were adopted and implemented, local cultures largely went unchanged under Mongol administration. They were simply unified by an individual, but nothing deeper.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Most of the territory he controlled were rural villages and grasslands. [Rejecting P2] Genghis Khan did not greatly influence the lands he controlled. [Rejecting P3] Khan's influence did not extend past his military and territorial strength, as many regions largely maintained their local cultures.

Framing

Having absolute power over your own tiny island makes you far less powerful than someone with only minor influence over a vast territory. Therefore, the size of the territory is a key component of evaluating power.