StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Which was worst?

The Mongol Hordes were arguably the most devestating, engaging on wholesale butcher on a comparitive scale not seen before or since.

Genghis Khan reportedly considered depopulating the whole of China until a court official pointed out that live Chinese pay more taxes then dead ones.

Twentieth Century Communists and their spin-offs have an astoudingly poor human rights record with their infamously oppressive police states and disasterously lethal collectivation schemes. Not to mention the impressive death tolls that cleansing the state of landowners and imperialists took. And most people know of the Cambodian killing fields.

Nazi Germany while not possessing the highest comparitive death toll is terrifying in the precision and willful destruction of selected peoples in a assembly line-like function. Over ten million "undesireables" to the Nazi vision were liquidated.

Abrahamic-dirived religious groups have an record of total deaths responsible throughout their religious wars, inquisitions, and morality trips. Not counting secondary affects, but the actual death toll in the name of their God in wars and cleansings of Christendom, Isreal, and the Islamic World.

The Western Imperialist powers are responsible for the outright destruction of millions throughout Africa, Asia, and South America. While modernizing and exploiting these nations, the costs in humanity were immense. Not counting secondary affects such as Twentieth Century chaos and the AIDS epidemic.

The Roman Cathlic Church.

The Crusades, the Inquisition, and countless little barbaraties, wars, and atrocities. They've spilled more blood than just about anyone.

Stormbringer wrote:The Roman Cathlic Church.

The Crusades, the Inquisition, and countless little barbaraties, wars, and atrocities. They've spilled more blood than just about anyone.

I thought there weren't too many people back then, so the death toll is probably <10 million

Pu-239 wrote:

Stormbringer wrote:The Roman Cathlic Church.

The Crusades, the Inquisition, and countless little barbaraties, wars, and atrocities. They've spilled more blood than just about anyone.

I thought there weren't too many people back then, so the death toll is probably <10 million

True but they've been at it for a long time. The Crusades and the Inquisition went on for a long time. And those are just two of the worst examples. They are still causing human misery to this day!

Pu-239 wrote:

Stormbringer wrote:The Roman Cathlic Church.

The Crusades, the Inquisition, and countless little barbaraties, wars, and atrocities. They've spilled more blood than just about anyone.

I thought there weren't too many people back then, so the death toll is probably <10 million

They wiped out some 60 million on the Americas alone.

Mongels, go for sheer numbers.
Nazis, for such good execution of their will
But Religion is the most creative it gets my vote

Darth Wong wrote:

Pu-239 wrote:

Stormbringer wrote:The Roman Cathlic Church.

The Crusades, the Inquisition, and countless little barbaraties, wars, and atrocities. They've spilled more blood than just about anyone.

I thought there weren't too many people back then, so the death toll is probably <10 million

They wiped out some 60 million on the Americas alone.

Forgot all about their role in the Spanish conquest of the Americas.

I don't know. Compare the following that took place over just 100 years and you're out beating even the Communists and Fascists of the last Century.

Population figures circa A.D. 1200:

China: 115 million people

Korea: 4 million people

Iran: 5 million people

Afghanistan: 2.5 million

Irag: 1 million

World Total Population: 360 million people (approx.)

Population figures circa A.D. 1300:

China: 86 million

Korea: 3 million

Iran: 3.5 million

Afghanistan: 1.75 million

Iraq: 1 million

World Total: 360 million (approx.)

Net loss of 29 million people in China, 1 million in Korea, 1.5 million in Iran, 750 thousand in Afghanistan, and 500 thousand in Iraq. And the Mongols purposely spread the Black Plague west to annhiliate their enemies, and as a result, a fifth or more of Europe's population died.

Not counting Russia, they killed over 32 million people. They directly destroyed nearly 1% of the entire world's population in just one century across mostly one continent, and thanks to the Black Plague they directly spread, they were indirectly responsible for far more.

These are just the Mongol conquests of one century, and most of that is in Asia alone. You expand the Mongol phenomon over the age of the Catholic Church and expand it to the Church's size over history, and the body count becomes truely enormous. They were the 13th century equivalent of the Kymer Rouge of all of Asia. All for greed and domination. I vote Mongols.

Wong, when you say 60 million in South America alone, how much of that can be astributed to colonial imperialism and not the Church itself. How did the Church itself exterminate those 60 million?

The Church instructed its followers to seek out, enslave, and subjugate all those of other religions. They were doing as instructed.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Wong, when you say 60 million in South America alone, how much of that can be astributed to colonial imperialism and not the Church itself. How did the Church itself exterminate those 60 million?

Not to mention that the Church commended the Consquistadors (hell, they arbitrated between Spain and Portugal), sent missions, gave silent approval to the slave trade, and help spread disease and destruction. I'd say they've got plenty of blood on their hands.

Yeah, but its arguable that they would've anyway. Imperial Germany was relatively religiously liberal, as was America, but their late-19th Century colonial behavior was as bad as the others. I think colonial behavior are nearly always the same, regardless of religion.

How many people did Communsit regimes and thier policies end up ? Last time I checked, it said around 100 million.

I believe would have ened up more than that if he wasn't defeated.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Yeah, but its arguable that they would've anyway. Imperial Germany was relatively religiously liberal, as was America, but their late-19th Century colonial behavior was as bad as the others. I think colonial behavior are nearly always the same, regardless of religion.

Maybe, but the Church helped and should share the blame for helping them.

And even if the cases of America and Germany the Protestants egged them on. They did it to save the "savages" souls.

The real reason was economics and you know it. Did the Roosevelt Corollary come from Protestant whining or a desire for a canal and to step in and overthrow Latin gov'ts at will to protect American growers.

The Catholic Church has been oppressive and lethal throughout its history, but the idea it was, when placed in scale, more brutal or lethal then the Mongols is something I don't see.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:The real reason was economics and you know it. Did the Roosevelt Corollary come from Protestant whining or a desire for a canal and to step in and overthrow Latin gov'ts at will to protect American growers.

Of course the governments did it for selfish reasons. But the Church (Catholic and Protestants) egged on would be colonial powers. They provided an excuse and helped out. Therefor there is blood on their hands.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:The Catholic Church has been oppressive and lethal throughout its history, but the idea it was, when placed in scale, more brutal or lethal then the Mongols is something I don't see.

The Mongols are certainly vicious and brutal. I don't dispute that. They caused a lot of death and destruction but the Catholic Church done at least as bad, and is still in business.

Darth Wong wrote:The Church instructed its followers to seek out, enslave, and subjugate all those of other religions. They were doing as instructed.

Heaven's knows the advent of nationalism and the pure economic dreams of nations that were compeltely disconnected from the Church can't be blamed. The rules of Europe in the early colonial era used religion to incite their poeple and the Church played along, sure they mgiht be complicit and have the blood on their hands to a degree but even without the Catholic Church you would have had wholesale butchery and slavery in the name of Spain or France or England. Again the church might have been a cotnributing factor but the motivaiton and the execution were seperated from them, they merely added fuel to the fire.

People love to make excuses for the church. When someone points out that the communists killed millions, no one complains that it had nothing to do with communism, and that nationalistic fervour or plain old human evil might have been bigger contributing factors. But when you make the same characterization of an organization which happens to be religious in nature, then all sorts of excuses pop out of the woodwork. "Oh, you can't blame the institution for the actions of its members, even if its leadership promoted those actions ... they did it on their own, for other reasons!" By this flawed reasoning, neither the Nazis or the Communists can be blamed for their respective crimes.

I would say the Golden Horde, followed by the Communist regimes. Why?
I beleive that the Mongol occupation of Russia was the cause for the Russians' "screw the government" attitude, which caused all of its problems later on. Also, before the coquest, Russia was a technologically advanced country with strong ties to the Byzantine Empire. After it, Russia has been reduced to a backward stagnating country and has remained so ever since.

I am pretty sure that is what happened everywhere else as well.

Darth Wong wrote:People love to make excuses for the church. When someone points out that the communists killed millions, no one complains that it had nothing to do with communism, and that nationalistic fervour or plain old human evil might have been bigger contributing factors. But when you make the same characterization of an organization which happens to be religious in nature, then all sorts of excuses pop out of the woodwork. "Oh, you can't blame the institution for the actions of its members, even if its leadership promoted those actions ... they did it on their own, for other reasons!" By this flawed reasoning, neither the Nazis or the Communists can be blamed for their respective crimes.

Which would seem to suggest that the poeple here who are defending the Catholic Church as not being as brutal as other regiemes are doing the same thing.

Furthermore if it comes down to a matter of responsibility then it rests along lines of authority. The Chruch would be directly responsible for those deaths caused by its missionaries which undoubtably numbered into the millions, I don't pretend that theyy weren't brutally "helping" the "heathan" local populaces. The Church might also be partially, and indirectly, responsible for many of the deaths caused as a result of colonial expansion...however they have no authority over the actions of the nations of Europe, only influence that waxed and started to wane before the beginning of true Western Expansion. The Nazi and Communist regiemes were the governments of their countries and thus had direct authority and are directly responsible.

So if you want to count all 60 million od deaths due to colonial expasion to the Catholic Church then you'd have to count the vast waves of influence that the Mongol Empire had upon the nations it conuered and surrounding regions, their total dismemberment of the Muslim Empire in the late 13th century not only destroyed millions but eliminated the Caliphate as a central authority leading to centuries of bitter struggles and blood shed that caused additional untold millions of deaths in the mid-east that can be indirectl attributed to them. The Nazis can still be considered to be racking up kills for every facist group that still ops up.

My point is that once you start saying a group is responsible for those kills in places and times it had no authority then, by applying the same determination, EVERYONE's kill count rises. If you take only those deaths directly due to the actions of a regieme institution then you'll almost certianly find either the Mongols or 20th century communism topping the list and even if you take indiret deaths due to influence then you'd probably sitll wind up with the Mongols or 20th century Communism being the big killers. Sicne you seem to be most taken with the Nazis and Communists as not being as bad as the Church then I'd ask you to compare the destruction caused by the catholic church with the complete and utter desolation that the Mongols set upon China, Russia, and the Mid-east. Historians today still argue that the reason for the fundamentalist fervor of the mid-east is due to the Mongols and their attacks, similairly Russia's oft noted paranoia about defense is attributed to the same root cause...eight centuries later. It'll be another three hundred years before we could judge the effects of the Church on South America over the same time frame.

Darth Wong wrote:People love to make excuses for the church. When someone points out that the communists killed millions, no one complains that it had nothing to do with communism, and that nationalistic fervour or plain old human evil might have been bigger contributing factors. But when you make the same characterization of an organization which happens to be religious in nature, then all sorts of excuses pop out of the woodwork. "Oh, you can't blame the institution for the actions of its members, even if its leadership promoted those actions ... they did it on their own, for other reasons!" By this flawed reasoning, neither the Nazis or the Communists can be blamed for their respective crimes.

I have no problem saying the Catholic Church is a mass-murdering institution.

However, I see a difference between egging on eagerly plundering colonialists and an army that purposely would catapolt rats with bubonic into cities to weaken them, once sliced the heads off all inhabitants of a city after their last target supposedly had survivors who'd hid in the piles of bodies, build mountains of skulls, and salted the fields so nothing would grow. The Nazi's directed the construction of whole facilities for the assembly-line style of butchery of carefully selected and gathered peoples. It's the difference between a mob boss and a serial killer, while they both butcher, its hard to compete with the willingness and mechanically precise nature of Nazi holocaust and the Horde's slaughters. I do blame the Church for their part, but I can't accept that condoning what the conquistadores did as equal to being the conquistadores, and doing all of it throughout a continent in a short-span of time.

I just find one more sickening and murderous then the other. The blood on both their hands is thick.

Wilkens and I agree completely. Where do you stop drawing the line in where they're responsible? Who's more a group of sick and murdering bastards? The SS or the people who let Hitler rule in power and went along with his sick vision; condoning it and helping along by participating in the war machine?

However, I see a difference between egging on eagerly plundering colonialists and an army that purposely would catapolt rats with bubonic into cities to weaken them, once sliced the heads off all inhabitants of a city after their last target supposedly had survivors who'd hid in the piles of bodies, build mountains of skulls, and salted the fields so nothing would grow.

And you do know that the Crusaders were literally wading in blood when they took the Temple? They slaughtered and killed so many that the blood was nearly knee high according to many accounts? That's wanton brutality at it's finest.

Stormbringer wrote:

However, I see a difference between egging on eagerly plundering colonialists and an army that purposely would catapolt rats with bubonic into cities to weaken them, once sliced the heads off all inhabitants of a city after their last target supposedly had survivors who'd hid in the piles of bodies, build mountains of skulls, and salted the fields so nothing would grow.

And you do know that the Crusaders were literally wading in blood when they took the Temple? They slaughtered and killed so many that the blood was nearly knee high according to many accounts? That's wanton brutality at it's finest.

And when Rome took over Carthage they killed every male adult and child, raped and killed most of the women, looted the city, burned it to the ground, and then salted the earth where it stood.

Yeah, but the Crusades are highly exaggerated due to our Western bias.

The Mongols slaughtered 25% of the Chinese population personally. They killed tens of millions there alone. Anecdotal evidence is irrelevent. I'm saying Crusader-style butcher is worse then a few condolances for conquistadores 5000 miles away. Crusader-style butcher is what 1% of the world's population suffered in Asia in less then a century from an army composed of nomads.