POLL: Most 'evil' states in history

What is to you the most evil state that existed before 1900?

  • Austria(-Hungary)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Bulgaria

    Votes: 2 0.5%
  • Byzantine Empire

    Votes: 4 1.0%
  • Crusader States

    Votes: 15 3.8%
  • Frankish Empire

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • France (post Frankish Empire)

    Votes: 4 1.0%
  • Germany

    Votes: 6 1.5%
  • Holy Roman Empire

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Macedonian Empire

    Votes: 1 0.3%
  • Ottoman Empire

    Votes: 37 9.3%
  • Portugal

    Votes: 3 0.8%
  • Roman Empire

    Votes: 5 1.3%
  • Russia

    Votes: 7 1.8%
  • Safavid persia

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Spain

    Votes: 50 12.6%
  • United Kingdom

    Votes: 44 11.1%
  • United States

    Votes: 17 4.3%
  • Others

    Votes: 50 12.6%
  • Netherlands

    Votes: 2 0.5%
  • Mongolian Empire

    Votes: 150 37.8%

  • Total voters
    397
Sure the ruins are still there. And sure, there's still descendants of those that survived and were forcibly converted, and assimilated. Yay.
People that are conquered get assimilated over centuries, the horror! That sure is worse to have millions of people slaughtered, eliminating whole populations and forcing others to migrate elsewhere, totally the same.

Slave trade.
It didn't cause cities or Mali to be destroyed, actually many coastal or cities near the coast appeared as the Europeans entered the scene, especially Southern Nigeria.



Sure they connected the Atlantic world. By creating modern slavery.
Chattel slavery already existed in many similar forms.

They didn't conmect civilizations,
They definitely did, the Spaniards and Portoguse created new navigation routes through the Pacific, by circumnavigating Africa and of course through the Atlantic.

they simply wiped out the old and used the americas as a plantation and mining core to fund their empire.
The Portuguese? They didn't wipe the old, they politically replaced it, most allied nobles in Mesoamerica stayed relatively longer in power as you seem to picture.

The mongols never connected anything though right? Not like there was some kind of trade along some kind of road that extended from china to the mediterranean? I must be imagining it.
The Silk Road already existed for centuries, but apparently you don't know that.
 
You're absolutely correct. I am not saying the Spanish and portuguese Empires were simply evil and should not have existed. And I'm certainly not saying they never did anything that proved benefitial for humanity later on. I only exist because of said globalization.

What I'm saying is that introducing modern Slavery to the world, centuries of considerable religious persecution, the American genocide due to germs and steel, and the striping of a continent of so much natural wealth is, well, is comparatively worse then what the mongols did.

But hey, that's just a opinion.

When you put it that way, you have a very valid point.

Though by that metric, as I've already said before, I consider the British even worse. The Spaniards set the precedent of atrocities, but the British and their heirs perfected it and applied it to an industrial scale.
 

Deleted member 92121

Chattel slavery already existed in many similar forms.

Oh, be fair.


They definitely did, the Spaniards and Portoguse created new navigation routes through the Pacific, by circumnavigating Africa and of course through the Atlantic.
Yeah, as a man of portuguese descent myself, I can admit i made a large mistake with that sentence, totally forgot about the portuguese trade with India, and it's relations with native americans. My sentence was simply wrong. I have no problem admitting it.

The Portuguese? They didn't wipe the old, they politically replaced it, most allied nobles in Mesoamerica stayed relatively longer in power as you seem to picture.
The miscigenation between the portuguese and the native populations of Brazil, and the alliances forged between the colonist and the different tribes, in no way change the fact that there was a genocide.


The Silk Road already existed, but apparently you wouldn't know that. ;)
That the Mongol Empire was paramount on the preservation and expansion of the Silk Road is a fact. Did you know that? Do you really want to trade passive agressive insults? Because I don't.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh, be fair.
No it did exist, both internally to Africa and the Americas, as well interregional slavery in the Mediterranean, Steppes and Middle East, among others.

The miscigenation between the portuguese and the native populations of Brazil, and the alliances foged between the colonist and the different tribes, in no way change the fact that tere was a genocide.
Not by the modern definition of genocide. Even the Spanish that economically exploited the natives, didn't do it to destroy the native communities.

That the Mongol Empire was paramount on the preservation and expansion of the Silk Road is a fact. Did you know that?
Preservation? The Silk Road was going nowhere, it was an established trade route, Central Asian cities were part of it but they were destroyed by the Mongols as was Persia, also part of this trade.
 

Deleted member 92121

When you put it that way, you have a very valid point.

Though by that metric, as I've already said before, I consider the British even worse. The Spaniards set the precedent of atrocities, but the British and their heirs perfected it and applied it to an industrial scale.
I myself put the british in a very close second. Though the fact that the british expanded on the foundations of colonialism is indeed very true.
 
Slavery was certainly common before Atlantic slavery, but chattel slavery sure as hell wasn't.
The Venetians used it in Crete, so did Muslims with Africans Zanjs in Mesopotamia, earlier on Roman slavery with the instances of slavers in mines is very similar as well. It definitely did exist.
 
I myself put the british in a very close second. Though the fact that the British expanded on the foundations of colonialism is indeed very true.

The British did some awful stuff in leading the expansion of the Atlantic slave trade and developing the first truly slave-based societies in the Caribbean. On the other hand, they also led the development of constitutional governance, an independent judiciary, bills of rights, abolition and international humanitarianism. And they were responsible for single-handedly continuing the fight against Nazi Germany, the regime that would surely have been the worst in human history had they survived, on their own. I'm not sure what places like the Congo Free State have in the positive column.
 
The Venetians used it in Crete, so did Muslims with Africans Zanjs in Mesopotamia, earlier on Roman slavery with the instances of slavers in mines is very similar as well. It definitely did exist.

Do you have sources for each of those?
 

Deleted member 92121

The British did some awful stuff in leading the expansion of the Atlantic slave trade and developing the first truly slave-based societies in the Caribbean. On the other hand, they also led the development of constitutional governance, an independent judiciary, bills of rights, abolition and international humanitarianism. And they were responsible for single-handedly continuing the fight against Nazi Germany, the regime that would surely have been the worst in human history had they survived, on their own. I'm not sure what places like the Congo Free State have in the positive column.
Add the Congo free state and/or the Greater Nazi Reich to the poll, and they have my vote. Though choosing one would be difficult(no it wouldn't, it would be the nazis).
 
Do you have sources for each of those?
Well, nothing direct as I heard it second-handed and not directly from sources but I could find some:

Venetia:

The Sugar Cane Industry: An historical geography from its origin to 1914

Abbassids:

Well generally look up the Zanj rebellion.

Romans:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/22fdcs/how_bad_was_the_life_of_a_roman_slave/


In countries with double digit percentages of slaves it's hard to not have chattel slavery in some form, although I'm not 100% sure what people mean by that term(I took it as massive slavery with degrading conditions for the objective of direct economical gain).
 
What I'm saying is that introducing modern Slavery to the world, centuries of considerable religious persecution, the American genocide due to germs and steel, and the striping of a continent of so much natural wealth is, well, is comparatively worse then what the mongols did.
Just on that bit, I was reading yesterday in "Power and Plenty" that most of the gold actually stayed in the Americas to fuel a middle class.
On the subject of Mesoamerican integration, I can recommend the historian Serge Gruzinski who wrote a lot about it.
There's also the book 1493 which is excellent if you're interested!
 
Couldn't one see Nazi Germany and other 20th century regimes as the product of their times and contexts? I mean I tend to see Nazi Germany as being the culmination of a lot of late 19th and early 20th century European beliefs and ideologies, if only taken to a greater extreme. Social Darwinism, scientific racism,etc, were all present in Europe before the Nazis came to power, and they were widely accepted.

Certainly some elements of the Nazi ideology were structurally determined. Just look at the appalling Swedish institute for racial biology in the 30s.

However, one doesn’t have to be a genious to disintangle that from the appalling crimes of the Nazi and Stalinist regimes to see they were far beyond what was seen as acceptable state behaviour of the times.
 

Deleted member 92121

Just on that bit, I was reading yesterday in "Power and Plenty" that most of the gold actually stayed in the Americas to fuel a middle class.
I read O'Rourke in multiple courses in college, and it's a interesting situation. There was, both in Brazil and the spanish colonies, a considerable ammount of deception on part of the colonists towards the metropolis when it came to preserving the gold. A LOT of gold supposed to end in Spain and Portugal stayed right here in the Americas. That's probably more significant with the spanish case, since Gold was not found in Brazil until the dawn of the 18th century, much later.

But the preservation of considerble mineral wealth on the americas on purpose on part of the Metropolis? I don't remember ever reading about that, and it doens't seem very plausible. There was always negotiation between the crown and the viceroys, in order to mantain a ballance of power, maybe during the Bourbonic Reforms? Though, even then, it sounds very bizarre.

EDIT: It wouldn't have been during the Bourbonic reforms, these crushed corruption on the colonies hard, which upset the balance of power, which started a crisis on the Colony-motropolis relatioship, which led to the eventual collapse of the Spanish Empire on the New World. You wouldn't see gold being left here on purpose during the 18th century.

There's also the book 1493 which is excellent if you're interested!
That one I did not read.
 
Sorry if I sound like a killjoy but this thread is pointless from the start and I don't see any good discussion of alternate or actual history here, just an endless parade of 'NO U'.

'Good' and 'Evil' are pointless adjectives to assign to entire civilizations that had a lifespan of hundreds of years.
 
But the preservation of considerble mineral wealth on the americas on purpose on part of the Metropolis? I don't remember ever reading about that, and it doens't seem very plausible. There was always negotiation between the crown and the viceroys, in order to mantain a ballance of power, maybe during the Bourbonic Reforms? Though, even then, it sounds very bizarre.
The bits I read didn't say it was metropolitan decision, just that it stayed there.


That one I did not read.
it's a vulgarisation book but extremely well researched, very deep and wide and a great read.
The sister book is 1491 on precolombian Americas, which I also greatly recommend.
 

Deleted member 92121

it's a vulgarisation book but extremely well researched, very deep and wide and a great read.
The sister book is 1491 on precolombian Americas, which I also greatly recommend.
I shall read them. Thanks for the suggestion!
 

Deleted member 92121

Yeah all 1,303 of them. English witch trials killed more people than the Spanish Inquisition.
Yeah, that's a fair point. Though one must admit that the Inquisition functioned primarily as a mechanism for forcing compliance, it's bark was much louder then it's bite, if you will. Nevertheless, it's very true people exagerate about the Spanish Inquisition quite a bit. I blame Monty Python.

edit:

Counting the Mughals as part of the Mongol Empire seems a bit disingenuous, and the silk road existed long before them.
I didn't say they were Mongols, I said they came to be thanks to what was once the Mongol Empire. And I didn't claim they invented the Silk Road either, only contributed a great deal to it's continuous use.
 
Top