• 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!

Worst Genocidal Mass-Murderer In History

The Worst Genocidal Murderer in History


  • Total voters
    52
Not really... most Islamic Caliphates were tolerant of other religions. Jews, Christians, and Muslims lived at peace in the Islamic world for centuries for the most part. It was in fact the Christian world that was the murdering bastards when it came to other religions and even other Christian sects.. the UK went through centuries of Catholic vs Protestant wars as did much of Europe.

The Christian reformation. Something the Islamic world has failed to do, which is why it is in the state it is in. Imagine Christianity today without a protestant movement. But slaughter on the European continent was more a European thing than a Christian thing. Or did Europeans need Christianity to create two world wars? In the end, violence on the European continent was about tribe. You all have proven to merely be the Middle East Lite.

But you seem to be glossing over the very real blood shed and oppression between Islamic tribes down through the centuries across the region. There were plenty of occasions where violence was sparked between rival caliphates. Plenty of occassion where tribes within Islam were suppressed for the greater good of Arab empire. Of course, then there were the "purification jihads" on the Arabian peninsula where religious structures were destroyed and non-adherents to Sunni Islam were slaughtered. And are you aware that Islamic extremists for a century have murdered far more of their own Muslims than Westerners? By all means, enjoy criticizing Christianity, but don't do it while glorifying an ignorant perception of Islam.

Living in "peace" in the Islamic world meant certain taxes for being non-Islamic. It also meant certain restrictions on religious freedom and structures. In other words, as long as they behaved and followed the rules, they were "tolerated." Did you know that in Saudi Arabia today, the Shia are denied the right to name their children certain names that might offend the Sunni tribe? And that they are denied certain religious freedoms? And that they are held to different laws than the Sunni? And that the House of Saud is famous for funding thousands of schools throughout the world and the fundamental base of these schools is to legitimize the Sunni school of thought? Some would call such things oppression or age old colonialism within the Islamic world. I guess others call it "peace."
 
Oh, yes, the Holocaust is often held up as the defining "genocide" of history, and, in many ways, it is -- an unprecendented, systematic execution of entire races of people. But genocides aren't a 20th century invention...

But they were perfected on the European continent in the 20th century. Even the genocide of native Americans on the North American continent began with European engineering. And long after Americans recognized the sin of the genocide across the U.S., Europe was still practicing genocide on the European landscape. Of course, it's not popular to acknowledge that Americans not only voluntarily chose to face the moral consenquences of genocide on the American landscape, but had to force Europeans to face theirs on their own landscape a century later.
 
Last edited:
But they were perfected on the European continent in the 20th century. Even the genocide of native Americans on the North American continent began with European engineering. And long after Americans recognized the sin of the genocide across the U.S., Europe was still practicing genocide on the European landscape. Of course, it's not popular to acknowledge that Americans not only voluntarily chose to face the moral consenquences of genocide on the American landscape, but had to force Europeans to face theirs on their own landscape a century later.

Are you a child, or just someone who regularly listens to FOX News?

The Americans have always, since the start of your young nation, been behind the curb of progress, compared to Europe (especially Britain, France and Germany). I could list innumerable examples of how America is still in the 19th century compared to Europe (stem cell research bans, lack of universal healthcare, shoddy welfare, total disregard for enriched education), but that's not what I'm going to debate right now -- those are universally accepted facts, anyway.

What I'm going to incredulously question you on is how exactly you think the Americans "voluntarily chose to face the moral consequences of genocide". America has done nothing of the sort, apart from a mere pittance of money given to the American Indians still living on reservations for "past crimes" -- America would sooner balk than admit it was the perpetrator of a continent-wide genocide.

Furthermore, in no way did the Americans come over to Europe to "force Europeans to face" our own moral failings with the genocides we've committed -- it's prepostrous. The Americans weren't liberators or saviours or heroes, as much as Hollywood would like to re-write history as such -- no, the Americans were, on the grand scale of World War II, a bunch of pragmatic cowards who stayed out of the war as long as they could, and then only joined in on the side they knew would win already due to the sacrifices of greater nations.

Where, in that, do you see America showing the Europeans the 'wrongness of their ways'?

As I recall, only a few short years later, the Americans were committing their own war crimes in Korea, and then committing full-on napalm-style genocide in Vietnam.

Oh, yes, those upstanding Americans surely hold the high-ground over us measly, intolerant Europeans.
 
Are you a child, or just someone who regularly listens to FOX News?

The Americans have always, since the start of your young nation, been behind the curb of progress, compared to Europe (especially Britain, France and Germany). I could list innumerable examples of how America is still in the 19th century compared to Europe (stem cell research bans, lack of universal healthcare, shoddy welfare, total disregard for enriched education), but that's not what I'm going to debate right now -- those are universally accepted facts, anyway.

What I'm going to incredulously question you on is how exactly you think the Americans "voluntarily chose to face the moral consequences of genocide". America has done nothing of the sort, apart from a mere pittance of money given to the American Indians still living on reservations for "past crimes" -- America would sooner balk than admit it was the perpetrator of a continent-wide genocide.

Furthermore, in no way did the Americans come over to Europe to "force Europeans to face" our own moral failings with the genocides we've committed -- it's prepostrous. The Americans weren't liberators or saviours or heroes, as much as Hollywood would like to re-write history as such -- no, the Americans were, on the grand scale of World War II, a bunch of pragmatic cowards who stayed out of the war as long as they could, and then only joined in on the side they knew would win already due to the sacrifices of greater nations.

Where, in that, do you see America showing the Europeans the 'wrongness of their ways'?

As I recall, only a few short years later, the Americans were committing their own war crimes in Korea, and then committing full-on napalm-style genocide in Vietnam.

Oh, yes, those upstanding Americans surely hold the high-ground over us measly, intolerant Europeans.

that appears to contain alot of psychobabble. war crimes in Korea compared to what the PRC and North Koreans did? Full napalm genocide in Vietnam? we lost in Vietnam because we wouldn't crush Hanoi and bomb the dikes.


I realize eurosocialists hate what America stands for but that is just plain stupid

remind us how we treated a country that we crushed pretty much on our own-Japan.
 
that appears to contain alot of psychobabble. war crimes in Korea compared to what the PRC and North Koreans did? Full napalm genocide in Vietnam? we lost in Vietnam because we wouldn't crush Hanoi and bomb the dikes.


I realize eurosocialists hate what America stands for but that is just plain stupid

remind us how we treated a country that we crushed pretty much on our own-Japan.


For your first statement -- where is the proclaimed psychobabble? All I see is a decent amount of hard evidence that refutes the claims of the previous poster, who said something along the lines of "America's a noble and honourable country and it went over to Europe and showed those nasty Europeans how things are done, thank God for America and its great track record of not committing war crimes and genocides, cos, um, its Mehrikuh", or something to that tune. I simply gave some evidence to the contrary, and if you'd like more, you need only ask -- there's no real historian on Earth who backs the claim that America is somehow more morally upstanding than Europe.

For your next gem of idiocy -- try not to use words like "Eurosocialist" in a negative light, because to that small group of 6.4 billion people living outside of America, socialism (especially European Union-style), is the most successful and competent socioeconomic theory on the planet. I would like to point out that us "Eurosocialists" don't hate what America stands for -- we just think you're backwards tools. It isn't fitting for us to hate lesser beings. XD

On a more serious note, however, I would like to point you to the current economic situation as compared between America and Europe. The socialist (gasp!) European Union has weather the economic crisis exponentially better than America has, and the EU has even seen growth in several sectors across the board -- not to mention that the EU successfully bailed out Greece, and prevented Spain and Portugal from falling into economic ruin. If that's not a resounding endorsement of socialism, I don't know what is. America, on the other hand, still has unemployment levels in the teens. How... Impressive.

And your last point (wrong, as ever) -- America did not crush Japan on its own. That's prepostrous, and a total re-writing of history. In the Pacific War, America was one of many players, as they were in Europe (albeit, in Europe, America was a much more minor player). In the Pacific, I could point you to a dozen-and-one pivotal battles which the Americans didn't take part in, in any way. Firstly, one should look at the defense of Australia -- the first major check against the Japanese in the entire war. Who defended Australia, Indonesia, New Guinea? The Americans? Oh, no, sorry -- that'd be the Australians. When the Japanese were making advances into India, who fought them? The Americans? Nope, sorry, again, the British Empire. Alright, well, surely the Americans were pivotal in MOST of the Japanese Army's combat, right? Er, no, sorry, the Americans didn't even join the war until 1941 -- the Chinese fought the Japanese Army for the same amount of time as the Americans did, four whole years, ON THEIR OWN. Well, that's just China, right, the Japanese were all over the Pacific! What about Vietnam, or Thailand? What's that, you say? The French Colonial forces pushed the Japanese out of large parts of Indochina? Huh, I didn't know the Americans spoke French. Alright, well, here's one -- the Americans were DEFINITELY the ones who ended the War in the Pacific, right, cos everyone else had dropped out? Oh, no, funny, that -- the Soviet Union invaded Manchuria and fought Japan's Kwantung Army -- 70% of all Japanese land forces, and then poised themselves to invade Hokkaido, the northern Japanese Home Island.

I'm not trying to downplay any of the American victories in the Pacific -- don't get me wrong, America WAS vital in the War in the Pacific, and I'm very glad the Americans helped fight the Japanese there. But it's ignorant and disrespectful to all the other non-Americans who fought and died in the Pacific to say that America won that theatre of the war on its own.

Anyway, got anything else to throw at me, or, are you done?
 
Are you a child, or just someone who regularly listens to FOX News?

The Americans have always, since the start of your young nation, been behind the curb of progress, compared to Europe (especially Britain, France and Germany). I could list innumerable examples of how America is still in the 19th century compared to Europe (stem cell research bans, lack of universal healthcare, shoddy welfare, total disregard for enriched education), but that's not what I'm going to debate right now -- those are universally accepted facts, anyway.

What I'm going to incredulously question you on is how exactly you think the Americans "voluntarily chose to face the moral consequences of genocide". America has done nothing of the sort, apart from a mere pittance of money given to the American Indians still living on reservations for "past crimes" -- America would sooner balk than admit it was the perpetrator of a continent-wide genocide.

Furthermore, in no way did the Americans come over to Europe to "force Europeans to face" our own moral failings with the genocides we've committed -- it's prepostrous. The Americans weren't liberators or saviours or heroes, as much as Hollywood would like to re-write history as such -- no, the Americans were, on the grand scale of World War II, a bunch of pragmatic cowards who stayed out of the war as long as they could, and then only joined in on the side they knew would win already due to the sacrifices of greater nations.

Where, in that, do you see America showing the Europeans the 'wrongness of their ways'?

As I recall, only a few short years later, the Americans were committing their own war crimes in Korea, and then committing full-on napalm-style genocide in Vietnam.

Oh, yes, those upstanding Americans surely hold the high-ground over us measly, intolerant Europeans.
Meh. This is so much bs I wouldn't even know where to begin.

I chose Stalin who killed Soviet citizens, Soviet-sphere citizens, and foreigners on numerous levels... political opposition, ethnic cleansing, and military doctrine to name a few.
 
Meh. This is so much bs I wouldn't even know where to begin.

I chose Stalin who killed Soviet citizens, Soviet-sphere citizens, and foreigners on numerous levels... political opposition, ethnic cleansing, and military doctrine to name a few.

Care to explain what's BS about it, or, is this just some anti-left knee-jerk reaction?



On another note, I agree, Stalin's a pretty good choice. His damage to the reputation of the USSR was... Incalculable.
 
For your first statement -- where is the proclaimed psychobabble? All I see is a decent amount of hard evidence that refutes the claims of the previous poster, who said something along the lines of "America's a noble and honourable country and it went over to Europe and showed those nasty Europeans how things are done, thank God for America and its great track record of not committing war crimes and genocides, cos, um, its Mehrikuh", or something to that tune. I simply gave some evidence to the contrary, and if you'd like more, you need only ask -- there's no real historian on Earth who backs the claim that America is somehow more morally upstanding than Europe.

For your next gem of idiocy -- try not to use words like "Eurosocialist" in a negative light, because to that small group of 6.4 billion people living outside of America, socialism (especially European Union-style), is the most successful and competent socioeconomic theory on the planet. I would like to point out that us "Eurosocialists" don't hate what America stands for -- we just think you're backwards tools. It isn't fitting for us to hate lesser beings. XD

On a more serious note, however, I would like to point you to the current economic situation as compared between America and Europe. The socialist (gasp!) European Union has weather the economic crisis exponentially better than America has, and the EU has even seen growth in several sectors across the board -- not to mention that the EU successfully bailed out Greece, and prevented Spain and Portugal from falling into economic ruin. If that's not a resounding endorsement of socialism, I don't know what is. America, on the other hand, still has unemployment levels in the teens. How... Impressive.

And your last point (wrong, as ever) -- America did not crush Japan on its own. That's prepostrous, and a total re-writing of history. In the Pacific War, America was one of many players, as they were in Europe (albeit, in Europe, America was a much more minor player). In the Pacific, I could point you to a dozen-and-one pivotal battles which the Americans didn't take part in, in any way. Firstly, one should look at the defense of Australia -- the first major check against the Japanese in the entire war. Who defended Australia, Indonesia, New Guinea? The Americans? Oh, no, sorry -- that'd be the Australians. When the Japanese were making advances into India, who fought them? The Americans? Nope, sorry, again, the British Empire. Alright, well, surely the Americans were pivotal in MOST of the Japanese Army's combat, right? Er, no, sorry, the Americans didn't even join the war until 1941 -- the Chinese fought the Japanese Army for the same amount of time as the Americans did, four whole years, ON THEIR OWN. Well, that's just China, right, the Japanese were all over the Pacific! What about Vietnam, or Thailand? What's that, you say? The French Colonial forces pushed the Japanese out of large parts of Indochina? Huh, I didn't know the Americans spoke French. Alright, well, here's one -- the Americans were DEFINITELY the ones who ended the War in the Pacific, right, cos everyone else had dropped out? Oh, no, funny, that -- the Soviet Union invaded Manchuria and fought Japan's Kwantung Army -- 70% of all Japanese land forces, and then poised themselves to invade Hokkaido, the northern Japanese Home Island.

I'm not trying to downplay any of the American victories in the Pacific -- don't get me wrong, America WAS vital in the War in the Pacific, and I'm very glad the Americans helped fight the Japanese there. But it's ignorant and disrespectful to all the other non-Americans who fought and died in the Pacific to say that America won that theatre of the war on its own.

Anyway, got anything else to throw at me, or, are you done?

socialism is a disease of losers and those who wish to become rich without earning it by pandering to the losers

nothing more nothing less
 
And you clearly have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about, you have lost any and all credibility, first of all the Muslims went to war with eachother since the begining of their religion (Shia-Sunni split) they were not tolerant of other religions whatsoever in fact Mohammad himself conducted ethnic cleansing and genocide against the Jewish Banu tribes of the Arabian Peninsula , the conducted the single largest intentional genocide until Hitler and Stalin which they perpetrated against the Hindu and Buddhists of the Indian Subcontinent. This "tolerance" of other religions only applied to the monotheistic religions of Christianity and Judaism, and this tolerance came in the form of centuries of conquest pogroms, ethnic cleansing, forced conversions, etc and if they managed to make it through all that they were allowed to live as third class dhimmi's.

Seriously spare me your apologetic west = bad, east = good BS, organized religion = bad, and Islam = even worse than Christianity.

Oh spare me with this "Islam is bad" crap. Get your facts straight. Christianity was the backward intolerant religion of the Middle Ages.. there is a reason that it is called the Dark ages. And during that time Islam was the tolerant forward thinking religion of the day, and it was Islam that saved much of the ancient knowledge, knowledge that Christianity tried to destroy. Ever heard of Al-Andalus around the 800s and 900s? It was considered the most perfect civilization ever to exist on earth, since all 3 major religions of the region lived in peace under Islamic rule and were equals. During this time, the Christian's were still burning books and force converting non-believers.

I have never ever stated that Islam during the middle ages was perfect.. there was civil war, sects battling each other and other religions. But during the golden age of Islam from 700 to 1300ish, it was Islam that was the center of technology, wisdom and tolerance. And all this while, Christianity was in a dark hole of death and destruction, and it was not until the 1600s that Christianity really started to get out of its near 1000 year hole of stupidity. Now there is no doubt that Islam started to fall behind due to radicalism, stupidity and lack of innovation in religion during the 1300s and forward, but there is no denying that before this Islam was far more tolerant and progressive on almost every single front when compared to Christianity.

Yes Christianity had its reformation and learned from its 1000+ years of mistakes, but it did not come willingly by any means. And yes Islam could use a reformation it self no doubt about that, but that does not mean in any way that the history of Islam should be in some way tainted by the morons of modern times.
 
I would like to point out that the word "genocide" has a meaning, people. It's the systematic extermination of a people group (i.e. Hitler), not just another word for "mass murder" (i.e. Stalin).

^

Yeah, that.
 
Hey all, decided to step in and correct a few misconceptions...

Firstly, there's this annoying piece of propaganda that is somehow still circulating and thriving in America -- Stalin, while an absolutely horrible, murdering bastard, and a stain upon the name of the USSR, did not murder "20 million people+". The number just grows and grows, and it's ridiculous to watch it -- at first the Americans said he murdered five million people, and then ten. Then fifteen, then, no surprise, twenty. Soon enough it was forty, and I've even heard people claiming Stalin somehow murdered hundreds of millions of people, leaving me to wonder how exactly the people that believe that account for the fact that there are still Russians alive today.

Anyway, all I'm saying is, Stalin DID commit genocide, and it would be wrong to play down that fact. But it would be equally wrong to grossly inflate the numbers for the sake of propaganda -- Stalin's Purges and the Holodomor could simply not have accounted for more than seven million deaths in total, and numbers in great excess of that are rank McCarthyist propaganda.

On that note, to the man who said Karl Marx ought to be on the list -- that's a daft idea. Americans have another annoying tendency to see the word "communist" and equate it with "baby-murdering child-raping demon-spawn", which is, needless to say, no more true than equating all capitalists with "non-white-baby-murdering child-raping demon-spawn" -- so do try to keep political biases to an intelligible level, thanks.

Nothing stops the fact that in order to implement communism, you seem to have to kill off a good hunk of your population. Commies suck and communist regimes rank amongst the most evil and murderous of them all. Stalin can burn in hell...if hell existed. 20 million seems to be the accepted number, but if you have proof of other numbers; then by all means.
 
Last edited:
Are you a child?
Not that there is anything wrong/right with that..

Are you an idiot?
Not that there is anything wrong/right with that...
 
The Christian reformation. Something the Islamic world has failed to do, which is why it is in the state it is in. Imagine Christianity today without a protestant movement. But slaughter on the European continent was more a European thing than a Christian thing. Or did Europeans need Christianity to create two world wars? In the end, violence on the European continent was about tribe. You all have proven to merely be the Middle East Lite.

Ahh your usual crap. First off European history is longer than 100 years.. I know as an American that can be mindblowing that a nation has a history longer than 250 years, but that is a fact. Secondly, when the two world wars came about, religion had been thrown to the side and it was as you said "tribes" as in nations fighting each other. However, long before those wars, there was over 1000 years (yea mind blowing I know!) of history where wars were fought based on tribe/country and more than often with a religious aspect. And in almost every war, both sides used "God" as a motivation factor and often reasoning to smite their enemies. Add to that many civil wars between Christian sects... the English civil war and so on.

But you seem to be glossing over the very real blood shed and oppression between Islamic tribes down through the centuries across the region.
There were plenty of occasions where violence was sparked between rival caliphates. Plenty of occassion where tribes within Islam were suppressed for the greater good of Arab empire. Of course, then there were the "purification jihads" on the Arabian peninsula where religious structures were destroyed and non-adherents to Sunni Islam were slaughtered. And are you aware that Islamic extremists for a century have murdered far more of their own Muslims than Westerners? By all means, enjoy criticizing Christianity, but don't do it while glorifying an ignorant perception of Islam.

And again you missed the point, but I am guessing that was deliberate. I never claimed Islam was perfect, but I did claim that while Christian Europe was in its Dark Ages, the Islamic world had its golden age where all major religions were welcome and treated with respect and often treated as equals. Did that last? Of course not, and I never claimed it did. When Christianity started its reformation, the Islamic world was in total free fall from internal conflicts and of course from attacks by radical Christians during the crusades.

Living in "peace" in the Islamic world meant certain taxes for being non-Islamic.

Yes, but it is better than being forced to convert like in the Christian world.

It also meant certain restrictions on religious freedom and structures.

Not really, depends on the time frame we are talking about. During the golden age.. no, after.. yes. Then again, when the oh so tolerant Christians took over former Muslim areas of Europe, these oh so tolerant Christians did what to the mosques.. oh yea, tor them down or defaced them by planting a church in the middle.. ahh the tolerance.... ever heard of the Great Mosque of Cordoba?

In other words, as long as they behaved and followed the rules, they were "tolerated."

Again, so what? It is still better than being forced converted or driven out of your home or killed because you have the wrong religion... where did that happen.. oh yea in Christian Europe. Just ask the Jews..

Did you know that in Saudi Arabia today, the Shia are denied the right to name their children certain names that might offend the Sunni tribe?

And this has to do with Islam anno 900 AD in what way? Do you know that as Christian you cant name your child how you want according to the Church right? My parents preacher denied my name until they proved that it was a family name going back 500 years.. go figure with all that tolerance. After all the preacher could not deny a name that was approved 500 years ago by one of his fellow holy men could he now..

And that they are denied certain religious freedoms?

So what. Saudi Arabia is hardly the whole of Islam. 1.2+ billion Muslims and Saudi Arabia has at best about 30 million or so..

And that they are held to different laws than the Sunni?

And again, how is that different than anywhere else? Gays in America are held to different laws (some) than non gays.. how is that in any way different?

And that the House of Saud is famous for funding thousands of schools throughout the world and the fundamental base of these schools is to legitimize the Sunni school of thought?

Yea, and again so what. US evangelicals are using their power to dictate homosexuality laws in Uganda... only international outrage prevented (so far) that the Evangelicals got their way and made homosexuality punishable by death. Catholic Church still allows witch burnings in Nigeria and so on and so on. Or the US funding abstinence programs over condom programs to stem AIDS in Africa..same thing.

Some would call such things oppression or age old colonialism within the Islamic world. I guess others call it "peace."

Again, that is Islam of today, not Islam of 1000+ years ago.
 
socialism is a disease of losers and those who wish to become rich without earning it by pandering to the losers

nothing more nothing less

So, basically, you managed to totally avoid all of the points I made, and instead replaced what normal people call an "argument" with some propagandic trash.

If you want to make a countrepoint on the effectiveness of socialism, MAKE A COUNTREPOINT. In the post you quoted, there are two entire paragraphs devoted to proving how socialism is the most viable and healthy socioeconomic model on the planet, and yet you didn't make a single argument against that.

This site is called Debate Politics, no? Howbout you try debating politics, for a change?
 
To have fun, to laugh and be silly.
I am beginning to thing that todays youth are overly serious, do not enjoy life...
this is not good.

It's not like I'm offended or anything. I just think that it's pointless and impossible to determine the biggest douchebag.
 
So, basically, you managed to totally avoid all of the points I made, and instead replaced what normal people call an "argument" with some propagandic trash.

If you want to make a countrepoint on the effectiveness of socialism, MAKE A COUNTREPOINT. In the post you quoted, there are two entire paragraphs devoted to proving how socialism is the most viable and healthy socioeconomic model on the planet, and yet you didn't make a single argument against that.

This site is called Debate Politics, no? Howbout you try debating politics, for a change?

socialism is a disease your opinion about it notwithstanding

it appeals to non producers =both rich and poor.

as Dame Thatcher correctly noted

its a great idea until you run out of other peoples' money

why would anyone work hard when most of what they make is going to go to non producers

Where did Sweden's great tennis players live when Sweden was in a tax grabbing orgasm? Monte Carlo

and Greece has proven what a spectacular failure socialism is

the bottom line, socialism or other forms of lowest common denominator nonsense punish success and reward sloth
 
Last edited:
Hm....how about groups? The KKK, al Qaeda....
 
Tamerlane is believed to have killed over 10 million people in his time. Including the majority of a cities population ( scholars, and tradesmen excepted)

Ghengis Khan did pretty much the same, but I dont know about the numbers he killed in comparison.

Niether were genocidal though. Mass murderers yes, genocidal no. Niether cared about wiping out any specific ethinic groups, just about inspiring fear in enemies to cause them to surrender without putting up a fight
 
Tamerlane is believed to have killed over 10 million people in his time. Including the majority of a cities population ( scholars, and tradesmen excepted)

Ghengis Khan did pretty much the same, but I dont know about the numbers he killed in comparison.

Niether were genocidal though. Mass murderers yes, genocidal no. Niether cared about wiping out any specific ethinic groups, just about inspiring fear in enemies to cause them to surrender without putting up a fight

ten million

I find that almost impossible to believe
 
ten million

I find that almost impossible to believe
Contemporary sources say that Timur's forces killed about 19 million people during their conquests. That number is probably exaggerated, but Timur does seem to have enjoyed massacre for its own sake.
Tamerlane Biography - Timur the Lame
A poor article about Tamerlane,


The cities of Asia at the time were orders of magnitude larger in population then those of europe. In military campaigns if the a city resisted or fought back, he had a tendancy to kill everyone but artists, tradesmen and scholars ( he captured them and brought them to Samarkand). Everyone else would be killed typically with their heads piled into pyramids.
 
Tamerlane Biography - Timur the Lame
A poor article about Tamerlane,


The cities of Asia at the time were orders of magnitude larger in population then those of europe. In military campaigns if the a city resisted or fought back, he had a tendancy to kill everyone but artists, tradesmen and scholars ( he captured them and brought them to Samarkand). Everyone else would be killed typically with their heads piled into pyramids.

contemporary sources said Moses parted the Red Sea or that Methusela lived for centuries
 
Back
Top Bottom