[ness31]

I'm no history buff. The older I get, the more cynical I become about what is and isn't historical fact. This isn't a pleasant scenario. Knowing that you cannot trust any history as it is presented is quite uncomfortable.

And yet I will continue with the charade

In conversation today someone mentioned that Assyrians were renowned for their cruelty. This was news to me. Quick google reveals that what was once Assyria is now modern day Northern Iraq and Southern Turkey, and I thought to myself, hmm, thats a bit of karma in action innit?

I have no opinions on who the cruelest people to ever walk the earth are because I just don't know. I suspect the tool of cruelty, as a means to an end for beings that need it to survive has just been recycled through the ages.

What nation or people or regime in your opinion, is the cruelest to ever confront humankind?

[Tainari88]

I don't like Caligula. I also don't like Timor. I don't like Idi Amin, and many others. The Rwandan genocide. Most colonial Empire takeovers are horrific.

If you are looking for cruelty? Human beings have done it all. Slave trades. Sexual abuse, exploitation, torture for religious purposes, etc.

[ness31]

If you are looking for cruelty?

Indeed I am. The cruelest in fact.

[Patrickov]

What nation or people or regime in your opinion, is the cruelest to ever confront humankind?

The big ones are probably the worst offenders.

Mongol Empire (for Eurasia), Spanish Empire (for Southern Europe, most of the Americas and Africa), British Empire (mainly for Australia. ME, Africa and South Asia might also claim their share, but neither would be at peace even if the British had not been there), Russian Empire / USSR (Eurasia again), United States (for South America after the Spanish, as well as the Pacific)

East Asian civilizations went Scot-free here. China had been too busy fighting themselves or being bullied by others until very recently. Japan did not have much success.

Population-wise the Mongols probably win, but for the area and number of races affected then the Spanish should win.

If locals are taken out of consideration, empires in the recent 200 years (British, United States, Russia / USSR, China) are often cruel to some but Saint to the others (the rate of hatred is usually inversely proportional to the recipient's distance from the said Empire). Just see how PoFo'ers react to different biggies nowadays.

[ness31]

Well it will be interesting to see what people think, considering cruelty is somewhat subjective. If we could measure cruelty, we would be able to gauge how modern day regimes stack up, and, if the entities that use cruelty are learning to exploit a finite resource at a slower rate

[Rugoz]

Cruelest regime:
Pol Pot / Khmer Rouge. Killed 25% of the population, quite an achievement.

Cruelest nation:
Nazi Germany. Horrendous goals/ideology.

Cruelest people:
Probably some primitive boodthirsty tribe.

[ness31]

So Pol Pot is worse than Ghengis?

[Rugoz]

So Pol Pot is worse than Ghengis?

In the case of Ghengis it's difficult to trust the sources, IMO.

[Patrickov]

Cruelest regime:
Pol Pot / Khmer Rouge. Killed 25% of the population, quite an achievement.

Pol Pot is just an extreme presentation of Socialist regimes, combining the ideology with the extreme condition of the country.

Neither of Laos, Vietnam, China and North Korea were / are really any better.

I don't see them cruel to the whole of humanity mainly because neither of them engaged in genocide of other people for very long.

[skinster]

U.S empire.
Brit empire before it.

[lancer345]

The problem is that whenever we talk of nations & Empires thousands of years ago, it's difficult to ascertain what is true or not.
That said, if we're talking about the most brutal people, according to the sources:
- Huns, Mongols, and other Asiatic hordes.
- Jews (the ancient people) and other semitic people. It seems their entire early history is genocide of each other, and extremely virulent religious views.
- The Islamic caliphates (starting with the prophet) and their conquests. The most brutal conquests, even worse than the mongols & Huns IMO because at least the Mongolians tolerated other religions and didn't force conversions.
- The Chinese and other Asians when it comes to torture methods. Iranians (Persians) & Arabs too.

Of course the Western Empires (from Rome & Greek to French/British/etc) were brutal but children compared to what I mentioned above.
Out of all the European Empires I find the Roman Empire and the Spanish Empire to be most brutal. Roman Empire conducted a number of genocides but at the same time was the highest civilisation at the time, so it's hard to judge either way.

[JohnRawls]

I'm no history buff. The older I get, the more cynical I become about what is and isn't historical fact. This isn't a pleasant scenario. Knowing that you cannot trust any history as it is presented is quite uncomfortable.

And yet I will continue with the charade

In conversation today someone mentioned that Assyrians were renowned for their cruelty. This was news to me. Quick google reveals that what was once Assyria is now modern day Northern Iraq and Southern Turkey, and I thought to myself, hmm, thats a bit of karma in action innit?

I have no opinions on who the cruelest people to ever walk the earth are because I just don't know. I suspect the tool of cruelty, as a means to an end for beings that need it to survive has just been recycled through the ages.

What nation or people or regime in your opinion, is the cruelest to ever confront humankind?

Ghenghis Khan and his direct decendants or Rome. If you take in to account the time and volume then it is Rome. If you take in to account just sheer volume then Genghis Khan and his children.

Most people do not understand how Rome or Genghis conquered and maintained control over such large territories. Well i guess in case of Rome it is civilized. Genghis and his children had an easy to understand way of doing it, if you do not surrender then you either die or get enslaved. If a city does not surrender then it is purged to the ground with no exceptions. So wiping out over 50% of a regions population was nothing special for the Mongols.

Rome on the other hand was a bit more careful where it did it. They didn't do it all the time but reserved these methods for special places who resisted too much or who they deemed a threat. Ceasar had no problem with reducing the population of Gaul by 1/3rd to 1/2th. Carthage was fully destroyed and all people enslaved. Barbarians beyond the Rhine and Danube were kept in check by pre-emptive wars and expiditions.

[lancer345]

Ghenghis Khan and his direct decendants or Rome. If you take in to account the time and volume then it is Rome. If you take in to account just sheer volume then Genghis Khan and his children.

Most people do not understand how Rome or Genghis conquered and maintained control over such large territories. Well i guess in case of Rome it is civilized. Genghis and his children had an easy to understand way of doing it, if you do not surrender then you either die or get enslaved. If a city does not surrender then it is purged to the ground with no exceptions. So wiping out over 50% of a regions population was nothing special for the Mongols.

Rome on the other hand was a bit more careful where it did it. They didn't do it all the time but reserved these methods for special places who resisted too much or who they deemed a threat. Ceasar had no problem with reducing the population of Gaul by 1/3rd to 1/2th. Carthage was fully destroyed and all people enslaved. Barbarians beyond the Rhine and Danube were kept in check by pre-emptive wars and expiditions.

It's very sad that the Romans are basically responsible for a sort of Celtic genocide.
All of continental Western Europe was originally populated by Celts, who were pushed back or massacred, until only the modern Celtic enclaves were left (Britanny in France, Ireland, Wales, etc).

I remember reading a French historian, who mentioned that when the Franks entered Roman Gaul, they found it extremely depopulated, and the number of Franks easily matched or outnumbered the Gauls. In fact the only reason that the Germanic peoples were able to cross the Rhine in such massive numbers (and form kingdoms) is because Gaul was so depopulated.

My theory is that the Celts were always hated by the Romans, as they already sacked Rome (and committed atrocities on the Romans) before. There is much we do not know, but what is certain is that Caesar had the certain idea to genocide a good part of them.

[JohnRawls]

It's very sad that the Romans are basically responsible for a sort of Celtic genocide.
All of continental Western Europe was originally populated by Celts, who were pushed back or massacred, until only the modern Celtic enclaves were left (Britanny in France, Ireland, Wales, etc).

I remember reading a French historian, who mentioned that when the Franks entered Roman Gaul, they found it extremely depopulated, and the number of Franks easily matched or outnumbered the Gauls. In fact the only reason that the Germanic peoples were able to cross the Rhine in such massive numbers (and form kingdoms) is because Gaul was so depopulated.

My theory is that the Celts were always hated by the Romans, as they already sacked Rome (and committed atrocities on the Romans) before. There is much we do not know, but what is certain is that Caesar had the certain idea to genocide a good part of them.

Peoples migrations are not something new and exclusive to celts, most of the current European people including the celts came from Asia running away from others usually.

Rome didn't really hate Celts, Rome eradicated opposition to itself so if you opposed Rome then you would get destroyed and basically genocided. If you played along and accepted the system then Rome would not touch you. You can compare Israel/Palestein vs Greece or Egypt. Rome basically said "fuck it" and the idea for Israel/Palestein at some point was to fully remove the population and repopulate the territory. While Greece and Egypt was barely touched because they played along and integrated well in to the Roman system.

[Rancid]

Hands down it has to be something before the modern era. No one gave a fuck about human rights back in the day.

[B0ycey]

Hands down it has to be something before the modern era. No one gave a fuck about human rights back in the day.

Indeed. I'm struggling to think of anyone other than Ghangis Khan here. Not only for the killing, but the raping too.

[lancer345]

Peoples migrations are not something new and exclusive to celts, most of the current European people including the celts came from Asia running away from others usually.

Rome didn't really hate Celts, Rome eradicated opposition to itself so if you opposed Rome then you would get destroyed and basically genocided. If you played along and accepted the system then Rome would not touch you. You can compare Israel/Palestein vs Greece or Egypt. Rome basically said "fuck it" and the idea for Israel/Palestein at some point was to fully remove the population and repopulate the territory. While Greece and Egypt was barely touched because they played along and integrated well in to the Roman system.

I guess the Germans and Parthians were the true freedom fighters here, who resisted and never got conquered!

[Oxymoron]

You have to give it to Genghis, I mean he killed so many people he literally lowered the temperature of the Earth.
If not him.... hmmm then most likely the Assyrians, they did not mess around and butchered whole civilizations.

[litwin]

Cruelest regime:
Pol Pot / Khmer Rouge. Killed 25% of the population, quite an achievement.

Cruelest nation:
Nazi Germany. Horrendous goals/ideology.

Cruelest people:
Probably some primitive boodthirsty tribe.

like Muscovite khans PETER THE SODOMITE, Ivan the terrible killed more ....

[ingliz]

All three?

The USA.

They have been on a killing spree from the beginning, internally and globally. And if they were not killing, they were supporting killers.

They supplied both sides in the two wars and built an empire on the bones of millions of innocents.