Which Travian tribe conquers the most villages?

Teutons and Huns lead their respective groups

On 24 worlds where only Romans, Teutons and Gauls were observed, Teutons gained 15.36 villages per 1,000 mapped account-days. Romans gained 9.14 and Gauls 5.43. Teutons had the highest outright rate on 22 of those worlds; another world had no observed changes for any tribe.

On 11 worlds where Egyptians and Huns were also observed, Huns led at 12.80 changes per 1,000 account-days, followed by Teutons at 6.98. Huns had the highest outright rate on eight of those 11 worlds. A twelfth Hun-enabled world also had Spartans; it had nine observed changes and is shown separately below.

These are observed ownership changes, not a controlled ranking of tribe power. They include coordinated transfers between players. A tribe’s share of active players, alliances, spending and the ages and speeds of its worlds can influence the result.

Three-tribe worlds: Teutons take the lead

On these 24 worlds we observed 3,496 qualifying ownership changes. Teutons accounted for 990 of them across 64,454 account-days. An account-day means one account present in the previous daily snapshot; seven accounts present on all seven comparison days contribute 49 account-days.

The table pools worlds at different speeds. The 10x world alone contributed 1,174 changes, so the pooled rate is heavily influenced by it. On the 24 worlds individually, Teutons led outright on 22, shared the highest rate on one and trailed on one.

24 worlds with three observed tribes, 1–8 November. Rates are observed ownership changes per 1,000 account-days.

Tribe	Changes	Account-days	Per 1,000 account-days
Romans	1,176	128,729	9.14
Teutons	990	64,454	15.36
Gauls	1,330	245,092	5.43

Five-tribe worlds: Huns lead

The 11 five-tribe worlds produced 1,786 observed changes. Huns accounted for 357 across 27,895 account-days. Their rate was about 1.8 times the Teuton rate within this group. These worlds all have International hostnames, and the accounts in each tribe are not matched for activity or experience.

On eight of the 11 worlds, Huns had the highest individual tribe rate. One world recorded only one qualifying change, received by a Gaul account.

11 worlds with five observed tribes, 1–8 November. Rates are observed ownership changes per 1,000 account-days.

Tribe	Changes	Account-days	Per 1,000 account-days
Romans	287	77,081	3.72
Teutons	228	32,659	6.98
Gauls	408	171,513	2.38
Egyptians	506	85,889	5.89
Huns	357	27,895	12.80

Do the leaders change when we compare 1x worlds?

Among all 24 1x worlds in the sample, Teutons gained 322 villages over 67,100 account-days, or 4.80 per 1,000 account-days. Huns gained 113 over 17,947 account-days, or 6.30. Huns appeared on only the five-tribe 1x worlds, so those pooled 1x rates still describe different sets of worlds. The tables above are the closer same-world comparison.

The remaining six-tribe world recorded nine changes in total, including six received by Hun accounts. That is too little evidence to rank Spartans against the other tribes. We excluded nine worlds with mixed-tribe accounts during the window because the original account tribe cannot be identified reliably from their village records.

What makes a tribe good at conquering?

Tribe mechanics are only part of a successful chiefing operation. The official conquering guide says the target’s administration building must be destroyed, an administrator must survive a normal attack, and the attacker generally needs a free expansion slot and sufficient culture points.

The official loyalty table lists a 20–30% loyalty reduction for a Roman administrator, 20–25% for Teuton, Gaul and Egyptian administrators, and 15–30% for a Hun administrator before celebration effects. These ranges describe a mechanic, not a measured conquest success rate. Clearing strength, coordination and repeated waves still matter.

Our results suggest where further investigation is worthwhile. They cannot distinguish hostile conquests from planned handovers or explain whether troop stats, player activity or another factor produced the difference. The alliance scouting guide covers how to investigate opponents before choosing a target.

How we measured village ownership changes

We started with the 49 tracked worlds that were active and online when collected and had an archive on 8 November 2026. We excluded four rounds that began on or after 1 November, then required an archive for each date from 1 to 8 November. All 45 remaining worlds had daily archives. We excluded nine with at least one mixed-tribe account in the window, leaving 36.

For each pair of consecutive snapshots, we looked for a village ID that appeared under two different player IDs. Both the previous and new owner had to be non-Natar players visible in the earlier snapshot. We assigned the new owner’s first-village tribe from that earlier snapshot. We counted each qualifying change once per interval and counted all mapped player accounts in the earlier snapshot as account-days.

The 5,291 changes include transfers between players and do not include Natar villages, new settlements or changes to an owner who was absent from the previous snapshot. We excluded 65 additional player-to-player changes where a previous or new owner was missing from the earlier snapshot. Multiple changes between two captures can be missed or combined. A player who controls multiple accounts is counted separately on each.

A mapped account can be inactive, and the same account may contribute multiple changes. The results measure ownership patterns over this one week, not conquest ability in equal conditions.

Common questions