I would say that Napoleon and his French empire should definitely be there.

On the list of Shortest lived perhaps.  12 years is not long but he does beat Hitler, I will give you that.  Then again, Napoleon had the same problem Hitler had, he did not know when to stop.

To quote from Bladerunner, "He who burns brightest burns the shortest."  Napoleon, Hitler, and Alexander definitely burned brightly. 

What about Genghis Khan then 😉 ?

He falls in the same category, but his ascension to power might have been easier than the big three.

You're sure of that 🙂 ?His empire lasted longer than those three and even increased its size after his death. Biggest Mongol invasion of Europe took place in 1241-1242. That's fourteen years after Genghis' death.

He falls in the same category, but his ascension to power might have been easier than the big three.

You're sure of that 🙂 ?His empire lasted longer than those three and even increased its size after his death. Biggest Mongol invasion of Europe took place in 1241-1242. That's fourteen years after Genghis' death.

But he didn't have to fight the Persians, British/Russians, and the Allies either.

I don't want to abuse you, but I doubt you know what you're talking about 🙂http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_KhanConditions which he had to face were easier than those of Hitler but I think it doesn't matter.Another man who built big, lasting empire from nothing is Mr. Babur the Great http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babur

Let's not forget about Genghis Khan's descendants. After all, he did set out to impregnate just about every young girl in Asia, making him the estimated ancestor of 8% of the men in Asia and 0.5% of the men in the world. He wanted to rule forever. Maybe to a certain extent he has?

He falls in the same category, but his ascension to power might have been easier than the big three.

You're sure of that 🙂 ?His empire lasted longer than those three and even increased its size after his death. Biggest Mongol invasion of Europe took place in 1241-1242. That's fourteen years after Genghis' death.

But he didn't have to fight the Persians, British/Russians, and the Allies either.

I don't want to abuse you, but I doubt you know what you're talking about 🙂http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_KhanConditions which he had to face were easier than those of Hitler but I think it doesn't matter.

Why is it irrelevant if conditions Genghis Khan faced were easier than those faced by Hitler? ???I wont abuse you for trying to pass wikipedia off as a legitmate source.  We have some threads about the reliability of wikipedia here, here, and here.  I am not saying you cant reference it but if you want to base an argument off of "facts" gained from wikipedia, you wont get very far.  I probably wouldn't accuse somebody of ignorance and then reference wikipedia either.

We are not trying to put down his accomplishments just saying that his Empire was not long lasting enough to qualify for the top ten.  You are free to disagree that is the nature of debate.  Personally, I think that the Mongol Empire was significant but it does not belong in the top ten because it only lasted for one generation after his death and the achievements of the successor states are not at issue here but the achievements of the original empire.  Genghis personally was successful but he did not found a successful dynasty that maintained the unity of the Mongol Empire.  The reason for that is probably cultural, the Mongols were neither ready or able to transition from a nomadic lifestyle to the settled lifestyle that an enduring Empire would require.  The Mongols had much in common with the Huns in that respect.  they were a terro for a while, only a while.