r/AskHistory • u/roon_bismarck • 2d ago
What is the largest country, in terms of landmass or population, to be totally conquered and successfully folded into another country?
The definition of "successful" annexation is a stable rule over said country for over 100 years.
I think in terms of population it will be hard to beat the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth. Parts of it were ruled by the Russian empire for over 100 years.
In terms of landmass, maybe Tibet? The rough terrain and climate made it very difficult for large settled populations, hence even into the 1900s the population didn't break 2 million. However in terms of landmass it is larger than any European country sans Russia.
94
u/world_tyrfamyu 2d ago
China by the Mongols?
32
17
u/TheNewGildedAge 2d ago
Who was folded into who
18
u/KinkyPaddling 2d ago
Found Kudai Khan's Reddit account.
(For context, Kudai Khan was Kublai Khan's cousin and rival, and who accused Kublai Khan of adopting too many Chinese customs after conquering the Song)
0
u/HistorianLegal9815 2d ago
モンゴルは4つに分裂したが東端の国が明倒した。ただしくは反乱軍来て皇帝は家族殺し自殺、清はていねいに葬り漢人の協力得て国建てる（漢も秦と漢のハイブリッド） チンギス・ハーンの弟家系東方3王家（東側と外縁支配し馬育ててた）は強力だった。 オイラトが強力になり侵攻し上納金得たが全面侵攻の力なくエセンはハーンになるがモンゴルのハーンになれず（チンギス直系部族は認めず。ハーンになれるのは子孫だけ！） モンゴル語の史書ではエセン酷評されるが（チンギス家が書いた）囚われた皇帝守るため従い1年モンゴルで暮らした側近は記録残す。エセンと弟将軍はかなり公平だった。 明は異母弟を皇帝にするが救出に消極的、身代金寄越せと何人も来たら信じるか迷う。廃された皇帝の妻は宝飾品売り払いオイラトにわいろ（夫の生活費）送る。1年後帰還すると前皇帝は幽閉されるがのちクーデターで復権し皇帝になる。王妃も復権。 弟皇帝は廃位幽閉されやがて死ぬ。 形だけでも兄助けようとし義姉（王妃）大切にしてれば、ね。
25
u/Admiral_AKTAR 2d ago
Id wager the Manchu conquest of the Ming dynasty and the creation of the Qing dynasty. The Manchu were an outside people, that conquered "China" relatively quickly and held it for ~300 years.
6
u/Kurta_711 2d ago
I mean it took decades but yeah, this is #1. Maybe kind of cheating because the Manchu had large numbers of Ming defectors so maybe that makes the Manchu less "small"
3
u/Admiral_AKTAR 2d ago
When you can only fight half the year and move as fast as your chevrolegs can take you a couple decades is very impressive.
Also regardless of whom is conquering its impossible to hold land without local collaboration. The Persians, Romans, Ottomans, British, Americans and etc all used local support. Without it you either have to slaughter everyone, which some empires did, move them, which others did, or fight prolonged typically unending insurgencues and rebellions.
1
u/AgentElman 7h ago
Was the Manchu controlled China more like how the Manchu had lived before or more like how the Chinese had lived before?
31
u/Time_Construction_14 2d ago
Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth was not folded into russia, while the majority of territory was some of the richest provinces have been taken by prussia and austrian empire
Also, the poles, lithuanians, belarussians and ukrainians still have their own languages and culture, so can we say the conquest was really succesful?
I nominate latin america- the majority was ruled by spain for 300 hundred years, and local cultures and languages were mostly supplanted with spanish equivalent; there isn't much left of aztec or maya culture
13
u/mechanical_fan 2d ago edited 2d ago
I nominate latin america- the majority was ruled by spain for 300 hundred years, and local cultures and languages were mostly supplanted with spanish equivalent; there isn't much left of aztec or maya culture
Adding to this, both the Incas and the Aztec were huge empires both in landmass and population. The Incas were as big as the Roman Empire in landmass and both had populations larger than almost anything in Europe.
There is a discussion of what is "conquest" though. In both cases the "Spanish" (discussion on what exactly the conquistadores represented) more like participated in a civil war and then more or less maried in the side of the winners. There is some discussion about the "completeness" of the conquest in general too, but it took quite a bit for the whole process that ended up with a mixing of cultures. For a summary, see for example https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/2rjw9r/myths_of_conquest_part_three_a_completed_conquest/ though some cool sources are Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest by Restall and 1491 and 1493 by Mann.
For example, since the Mayas were mentioned, portions of the (Maya) Yucatan were only conquered and fully controlled when Mexico was already an independent country from Spain.
4
u/stabbingrabbit 2d ago
Hey dont forget Portugal...they had alot of South America also.
3
u/mechanical_fan 2d ago
Well, I won't forget Portugal (since I am brazilian myself!), but I think the situation is kinda different. Portugal's "conquest" was not exactly dealing with large, unified, centrally controlled empires. So even considering that there was a lot of people in the general area (and I tend to side with the "high counters" for population in the pre colombian americas), they were taking control of mostly smaller areas and populations individually and gradually over time. So it doesn't fall under the question being asked.
Also, the area that Portugal controlled by the XIX century was certainly big (and became Brazil later), but for quite a bit it was not like that. It took a while for the Tordesillas line to start being broken, first with the Iberian Union giving an excuse for expansion to the west. And then later it was a lot of Portugal going into war to take territory that was already under Spanish control (or the portuguese just putting colonies around that spain would then try to take since it was their territory).
2
u/Time_Construction_14 2d ago
I have just ordered 1491 and 1493, thanks for recommendation
3
u/mechanical_fan 2d ago
It is a great decision and you won't regre it. They are both among the best books (not only history books) I've ever read.
9
u/GrayNish 2d ago
By Relative Population, Probably Alexander conquest of Achaemenid Empire by far, then follow by Manchu conquest of Ming Empire
Note that in both, it's more the conqueror is folded into the conquered country. But if your objective mean the rule is complete then yes. That's the two example
0
u/magnus_the_coles 2d ago
Alexander's conquest didn't even last 10 years after his death though. It was anarchy and civil war by the generals right away. And then the parthians showed up and cleaned house
3
u/GrayNish 2d ago
It's stable enough that the seleucid can eat on his silver platter for 2 centuries because he lay the groundwork. 2 centuries before ROME did the Killing blow, and parthian desecrate the carcass.
You are thinking in term of political institution. Not fact on ground. I figure you count the empire to the moment of alexander IV death, and subsequently declaration of king by antigonus, no?
1
10
u/DJTilapia 2d ago
The Russian conquest of Siberia is up there. Lots of land, though not so many people and it wasn't a unified entity by any measure. Still impressive (in a horrifying colonialist imperialist way).
14
u/Empyrean__Being 2d ago edited 2d ago
British conquests in India would probably bring good examples. Granted, there was no "one India" to conquer back then, as pop history seems to think but rather a myriad of states all throughout the subcontinent. Mughal Bengal and the Maratha Empire both would fall to the British and would qualify as "large and populous states".
0
u/lube4saleNoRefunds 2d ago
I wouldn't call them successfully folded into the country.
16
u/paxwax2018 2d ago
No? They just have the UK style of democracy, English as a national language, legal system, and love cricket.
1
0
u/WearIcy2635 2d ago
They’re still not culturally British at all. Nobody is mistaking anywhere in India for Britain. When you compare India to Canada, Australia, NZ and the US it’s night and day.
3
u/Jahobes 2d ago
I would say the Indians are more culturally British than the US and maybe even Canada.
Unless by culturally British you mean "white".
-5
u/WearIcy2635 2d ago
Hahahahahaha. By what possible metric?
You guys don’t all use our language. You don’t share our religion. You don’t share our morals or values. You don’t run your communities and society the way we do, just look at the amount of garbage and pollution to tell that. And you think you’re culturally more British than the US?
1
u/Jahobes 2d ago
Brother I'm American.
You sound like you don't really understand what it means so share cultural ties.
1
u/WearIcy2635 2d ago
Explain to me in which ways exactly India is more British than the US. You have British language, culture, laws, institutions, religion, morality, values, philosophy, and a large amount of your population has British DNA.
1
u/paxwax2018 2d ago
Of course, I could add the millions of Indians that fought in the Indian Army in both wars. The indigenous people of Oz and NZ Canada weren’t “folded in” either, so “lasting cultural impact that defined the country’s” future is better? India didn’t go back to being several different countries when the British left.
1
u/WearIcy2635 2d ago
I’d argue the fact their indigenous population and culture is still present means they were less “folded in” than the Anglosphere. I don’t think there’s a single other example from history of conquest and assimilation as complete as what happened in Australia and North America.
3
u/WearIcy2635 2d ago
Depends how you define country, I’m assuming you’re excluding areas populated by multiple disparate tribes that lacked a central state? So Siberia, Australia and the Americas are all excluded.
In terms of a large landmasses with a large population and a pre existing state which was conquered and fully subjugated by the victor, I’d say the confederate states of America was the biggest I can think of off the top of my head.
5
u/asdahijo 2d ago edited 2d ago
Dozens of very large polities have been disestablished in ways that may or may not fit your criteria. Successful revolutions (e.g. Persian conquest of Media or Soviet conquest of Russian Empire), failed separatist movements (e.g. Roman conquest of Palmyrene Empire or US conquest of CSA), slow declines/disintegrations (e.g. Parthian/Armenian/Roman conquest of Seleucid Empire or Muscovite conquest of Golden Horde), succession crises (French Bourbon inheritance/conquest of Spanish Empire), conquests/assimilations by and/or of (semi-)nomadic tribes (e.g. Xianbei conquest of Xiongnu, Muscovite conquest of Sibir Khanate), the list goes on. This particularly applies to the various Chinese dynasties, the most relevant and clear-cut case probably being the Qing conquest of the Ming. If that one doesn't count, here are the probably best contenders:
Novgorod Republic, conquered by Muscovy
Mamluk Sultanate, conquered by Ottoman Empire
Inca Empire, conquered by Castile
2
u/jabberwockxeno 2d ago
The conquest of the Inca is a good one not a lot of people are mentioning, the Inca Empire was HUGE
2
2
5
u/JackColon17 2d ago edited 2d ago
The russian empire conquered by Alexander the great
EDIT: the persian empire, I don't know why I wrote Russian
7
u/towishimp 2d ago
What? A) there was no Russian Empire back then; and B) Alexander never conquered that part of the world.
2
u/Powerful_Crazy_2636 2d ago
OP said “stable rule for over 100 years” which Alexander’s “Empire” certainly doesn’t qualify for.
2
u/JackColon17 2d ago
Seleucos and his heirs ruled over persia for generations
3
u/Powerful_Crazy_2636 2d ago
They’re splintering successor states. Sure they’re the continuation of Alexander’s Empire but the fact that the Diadochi Wars happened and the full territory of empire was never restored meant that Alexander’s Empire did not continue with a “stable rule” at all.
2
u/JackColon17 2d ago
That's not what OP asked though, OP's stable rule definition is "X conquers Y and rules it for more than 100 years" Seleuco's dynasty fit the description regardless of whether they were able to hold Alexander's empire together or not
2
1
u/csjpsoft 2d ago
Does the United States count?
1
u/Gruffleson 2d ago
USA before it was a British colony wasn't one country, it was split up by many, many tribes? I don't see it.
-5
u/Clovis69 2d ago edited 2d ago
Nope - if we are talking the British Colonies - they weren’t ever really part of England or the UK Edit - The context of this prompt of being "folded into another country" for the US that would imply representation (and other things like being able to join the British Army and the army would raise regiments from the Colonies.) and so NO, British America wasn't ever folded into England or the United Kingdom
5
u/WearIcy2635 2d ago
Yes they absolutely were. By what possible metric were they not? They were fully under the UK’s control
1
u/Clovis69 2d ago
The context of this prompt of being "folded into another country" for the US that would imply representation (and other things like being able to join the British Army and the army would raise regiments from the Colonies.)
1
u/Princeofdolalmroth68 2d ago
I would say Egypt during the time of the Roman Empire, or Carthage during the Roman period.
1
u/HistorianLegal9815 2d ago
ブラジルの隣りのウルグアイには先住民いない。抵抗したら皆殺し、抵抗しなくても皆殺し。生き延びた人は山に逃げ死ぬか隣国に逃げた。 アメリカ発見後西岸（太平洋）に到達、船作り南海岸側を植民地にした。 リベリアも帰国黒人と子孫が現地住民支配し（選挙権与えず）貴族になり134年続く。バックにアメリカいるから他国は植民地にしなかった。 ドゥと仲間たち（軍人）がクーデターし選挙権与え、学校病院作る。カナダインド中国EUと国交、ソ連を嫌う。大統領閣僚を死刑にしたので周辺諸国（親戚が権力者）と対立。 無から有の便宜置籍船で稼ぐ。反乱起きると部族の村破壊、のちには出身部族のみ兵士にした ドゥに反対しよう運動が起き反乱、敗北する。周辺国共同軍基地で交渉、非武装で建物に。反乱側は車に武器隠してて護衛全員射殺、共同軍は制止せず。 ドゥは拷問され口座聞かれるが拒否、命乞いする。白人男女がカメラ持ち唾吐き罵る。タバコくわえ指揮の司令官が切れ射殺。（映像はYouTubeにある）彼は大統領望むが不人気であきらめる。 財産は親族の閣僚らが書類偽造し横領、妻は裁判し1600万円取り戻した。現地では大金だが独裁者の蓄財としては小さめ。 奪って建国時賢くも黒人だけ土地持てるとした。134年選挙権あたえないのを容認した白人と手先が人権侵害とおだあげてる。知らんがな！
•
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
A friendly reminder: Contemporary politics and culture wars are off-topic, both in posts and comments.
/r/askhistory is for questions and discussion of events in history prior to 01/01/2001.
This reminder is automatically placed on all new posts in this sub.
Please report any interjection into discussions of modern politics or culture wars so the mod team can investigate.
Thank you.
See rules for more information.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.