The Mongols were smaller then the Romans I guess.
It's not based on geographical area, but the number of extant civilizations that existed within that area. Though the Mongols do need to be shown conquering more regions than they had...
Yeah, super biased towards the Romans, Ottomans, and English.
How does Turkey end up wider than the Soviet Union and France barely wider than Switzerland?
What is the hell is the metric here?
Looks like the total number of separate states that were autonomous simultaneously in a region would determine that. See how Turkey is larger than the rest of its neighbors, but is roughly equivalent to the width of the Seljuks/Byzantines/Crusader State earlier in the timeline because the amount of territory they possessed was comparable to three separate independent states.
Such a system will typically favor the Europeans simply due to the sheer number of small petty states that existed in the region simultaneously. Be
glad they didn't show all of the HRE as separate little states, as they could have done that. Whenever things got too fractured, they just went to "independent states" or "this overarching blob" rather than get particular.
Granted, there's plenty they ignore and get wrong, but that seems to be the basis of their metric. Frankly, India and Africa are underrepresented, to say the least.
The biggest problem here is defining what is a "major state" or "recognized civilization" more than anything.
-
Also, lol Sea People. They go "sideways"