• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who's worse: Genghis Khan, or Hitler?

Who's worse: Genghis Khan, or Hitler?


  • Total voters
    48
Jesus! Apparently I'm more evil.

Nah around here.....that would be me.
yo2.gif
 
Well... he had a lot more people to abuse but he got defeated by a taifun (or smth) when he tried to invade Japan.

Yeah, that Army was defeated. But that didn't stop Kulai from leaving little piles of skulls stacked up throughout the Mideast.
 
Every morning when she gets out of bed, millions die before breakfast.

I had no idea that she had such an active sex life. Good for you, Hill Dog!
 
Morning MMC,

That is what I was asking. Comparing which issue between Genghis Khan and Alexander? Viciousness? Murder rate? Occupied territorial size? What was meant?

Well, I would look at Genocide and the wiping out of tribes and those killed. Which is why Alexander can't compare.
 
Attila should have been entered. The Huns were absolutely brutal and took no prisoners.
 
I don't think evilness is directly proportional to the amount of people one has killed. There is definitely something more sinister about Hitler's "extermination" than Genghis Khan's impersonal conquest.

For example, I think someone like Phalaris was more evil than Genghis Khan. He stuck people in the "Brazen Bull" and burned them alive--perhaps the most
horrific torture method ever invented.
Brazen bull - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
I'll take Hitler for $50, aberrant. Nobody in a political argument is ever accused of acting like Genghis Khan.

I am now going to start doing that. Obama is just like Genghis Khan! The Mongols had socialized health care....
 
Having lived so historically recently, Hitler is rightfully held up as the height of evilness of mankind. Go back some 700 years, though, and Genghis Khan fit that description just as well. Both men are similar, having wrecked havoc on the population of Eurasia in a relatively brief, swift reign of terror.

While WWII was the deadliest war in history, with between 40 and 72 million deaths, the Mongol conquests come close, having result in between 30 and 70 million deaths. And by worldwide population, the Mongol conquests were much deadlier, 17% vs. 1-3% of living people having been killed.

List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Each man committed genocide on an unprecedented scale, but today Genghis Khan enjoys an amount of notoriety, akin to that given to Alexander the Great.

So is one man more evil than the other? And if so, who?

Capitulation to Genghis Khan could bring a modicum of citizenship, protection, and prosperity in exchange for tribute. Capitulation to Hitler if you were a Slav, a Jew, or any number of other peoples meant eventual extermination. Even by the standards of the 13th Century Hitler was more barbarous.
 
The real question is whether Khan was a conservative or libertarian

:2razz:
 
The reason why people see Hitler as the bigger (or greater) evil is because Hitler was not far from the present and there are those who still remember his times. There are also video footage and audio recordings, along with photographs to illustrate the conflict more and therefore leave a more lasting footprint on people's minds.
Genghis Khan on the other hand, is far more removed from the present and therefore has a less of an impact. In addition, the Mongols are mostly irrelevant in the present, while Germany still remains a significant country. All this adds up to why Genghis Khan is often ignored compared to Hitler.

As for the topic itself, I'd have to say both are about the same. While some in this thread holds up statistics to compare one's degree in evil, I dispute it on the grounds that statistics cannot measure one's mind. I daresay that Genghis Khan could and would have killed as much as Hitler did, he only didn't have the resources to do so. It's like comparing a psychotic man who killed 3 people and a depressed and abused teenager who killed 23 people in a shooting spree.
 
Genghis murdered 3/4 of the Persians (- 10 million) in the Persian plateau alone without industrial technology.

If you didn't surrender outright you were dead. Yeah, he was about the same.
 
I am now going to start doing that. Obama is just like Genghis Khan! The Mongols had socialized health care....

:rofl Exactly! And, a lot of people don't know this but Genghis Khan was born in Kenya. :lamo
 
The thread is a question for students of history. If you are unfamiliar with the level of carnage Genghis Khan was responsible for it might surprise you to learn how similar to Hitler he was in his time.

The question I would ask you is was Khan's behavior out of step with how conquering armies of the time acted? I don't know, but would suggest if he acted more or less like most conquerors of his time it would paint his actions in a
different light relative to Hitler.
 
The question I would ask you is was Khan's behavior out of step with how conquering armies of the time acted? I don't know, but would suggest if he acted more or less like most conquerors of his time it would paint his actions in a
different light relative to Hitler.

Yes. Indiscriminate murder of non-combatants, women and children after conquest was generally frowned upon. The Christians, Muslims and Chinese who were on the receiving end of Genghis' violence had rules of warfare.
 
Last edited:
Wow, imagine what Khan would have done with access to today's technology.

Kirk and Spock would have still kicked his ass.
 
The question I would ask you is was Khan's behavior out of step with how conquering armies of the time acted? I don't know, but would suggest if he acted more or less like most conquerors of his time it would paint his actions in a
different light relative to Hitler.

Genghis Khan had a wooden structure whereupon victims such as princesses would be put beneath at a certain back braking angle. Then he together with his generals would step up and have a feast on top of this structure. Their weight would put pressure to such an angle that the princesses' back would be broken. This is a "honorable" bloodless death according to Mongols of the time. It is reserved for higher ranks.

This is Genghis Khan participating in death by torture. Hitler may have ordered but he did not participate himself. Among other forms that I heard was putting tied POW's on a bag surrounded by cats. Then they would hit the cats from outside and the cats would scratch the POW's to inside the bag of death.
 
Having lived so historically recently, Hitler is rightfully held up as the height of evilness of mankind. Go back some 700 years, though, and Genghis Khan fit that description just as well. Both men are similar, having wrecked havoc on the population of Eurasia in a relatively brief, swift reign of terror.

While WWII was the deadliest war in history, with between 40 and 72 million deaths, the Mongol conquests come close, having result in between 30 and 70 million deaths. And by worldwide population, the Mongol conquests were much deadlier, 17% vs. 1-3% of living people having been killed.

List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Each man committed genocide on an unprecedented scale, but today Genghis Khan enjoys an amount of notoriety, akin to that given to Alexander the Great.

So is one man more evil than the other? And if so, who?

Ted: This is a dude who, 700 years ago, totally ravaged China, and who, we were told, 2 hours ago, totally ravaged Oshman's Sporting Goods.

billandteds-475x237.jpg
 
Yes. Indiscriminate murder of non-combatants, women and children after conquest was generally frowned upon. The Christians, Muslims and Chinese who were on the receiving end of Genghis' violence had rules of warfare.

Thanks for the information. Not knowing much about that period of time my initial reaction was to assume that his actions probably weren't out of step with the times.
 
Back
Top Bottom