I'm a fan of ancient civs - so my personal choice would be Solomon of Israel and Queen Teuta of Illyria. She'd be able to raid those naval trade routes...
17 million in 15th century? seems exaggerated.
Still, the more you study the more you learn. So every night i say a little thank you to Timothy Pauketat and hope to God he gets more funding.
Sargon never was the leader of the sumerian civilization, but the akkadian one (which Babylon and Assyria are both). Although the territory was the same (enlarged by Sargon and his descendants until up to the dynasty demise), sumerians and akkadians were ethnically different, akkadians being semitics (like arabs, hebrews, ...), while sumerians ... where that's what is th most interesting with sumerians : they don't belong to any ethny we know ! Besides, Lugalzagesi has the problem of being to short lived, and his conquests were completely shadowed by Sargon of Akkad (who, by the way, made Lugalzagesi walk on a donkey in front of his troops, after his loss). Instead of going with people like Gilgamesh, I'd go with somelike Ur-Nammu or his son Shulgi, who really made a unified sumerian empire, and who really existed and made a long lived royal career.
No, that's about right. Genghis butchered his way through 40 million people and caused a resultant dip in global temperatures. 17 million is small fry.
The Comanche pretty much decided they didn't feel like being forever Shoshone, so they moved south and started raiding everyone but each other, around the same time they got some of the horses from the Pueblo Revolt....The Comanche...have a long and successful history in the region before the arrival of the Americans.
There is Denmark and Sweden already.
I don't want to offend anyone, but seriously : If another native american is added, which I don't mind, why would you a third ? All I want to say is that most of them lived as nomads, or little villages, not even creating a real "state" or even "civilization". I'm not saying they shouldn't be included at all, and I believe that 2 amerindians is perfect, 3 are just too much. I'm really trying to get out of an eurocentrism, but still, why not suggest something like the Tarasc kingdom, who were the aztecs rivals and created a state, instead of north american tribes, whose cities are mainly taken from battlefields ?
I don't want to offend anyone, but seriously : If another native american is added, which I don't mind, why would you a third ? All I want to say is that most of them lived as nomads, or little villages, not even creating a real "state" or even "civilization". I'm not saying they shouldn't be included at all, and I believe that 2 amerindians is perfect, 3 are just too much. I'm really trying to get out of an eurocentrism, but still, why not suggest something like the Tarasc kingdom, who were the aztecs rivals and created a state, instead of north american tribes, whose cities are mainly taken from battlefields ?
The Comanche pretty much decided they didn't feel like being forever Shoshone, so they moved south and started raiding everyone but each other, around the same time they got some of the horses from the Pueblo Revolt.
So, I mean, they were Comanche before Americans came around, but that's mainly because Americans were still British and didn't care about much west of the Appalachian Mountains.
They're mostly famous for raiding and fighting Americans, though. Kind of like the Sioux.
I would love to see either one of them, but the Sioux and Comanche are kind if similar, at the end of the day.