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
Yeah all 1,303 of them. English witch trials killed more people than the Spanish Inquisition.

edit:

Counting the Mughals as part of the Mongol Empire seems a bit disingenuous, and the silk road existed long before them.
If you count the Mughals you would count the Timurids as well, making the whole point about religious tolerance null considering the genocidal attitude of Timur against Christians.
 

Deleted member 92121

If you count the Mughals you would count the Timurids as well, making the whole point about religious tolerance null considering the genocidal attitude of Timur against Christians.
Arleady said I wasn't counting the Mughals buddy. Literally on the post before this one.
 
I didn't say they were Mongols, I said they came to be thanks to what was once the Mongol Empire.
Well you're not wrong, but I'd say that's a very wide net to cast for an empire's legacy. Like attributing the industrial revolution to the Viking's legacy.

And I didn't claim they invented the Silk Road either, only contributed a great deal to it's continuous use.
But it was still in use prior to them. It was less relevant due to the rise of Indian Ocean Trade, but I doubt it would have disappeared without the mongols reinvigorating it.
 
First some commentary on the thread:

For those insisting that the OP needs to provide an objective definition of ‘evil’, get real. The real world doesn’t have an objective definition of evil; it is, as has been noted, in the eye of the beholder. Nobody thinks they are the villain. This is obviously an opinion thread.

Now no civilization is completely good or evil, but neither is every person. I’m sure Hitler was nice to his mother, at some point in his life he probably helped an old person across the street and helped a friend move furniture. But one can take a person and sum them up as ‘good’ or ‘evil’ in an overall sense, based on which was dominant. Obviously whatever good Hitler did in life is massively overshadowed by what evil he did, so it’s uncontestable he was an evil person. So in the same way I think it’s fair to categorize civilizations as good or evil, while doing so in no way says they were solely such.

Now to actually respond to the OP:

First choice goes to the Mongols. Any society that wracks up a kill count comparable to twentieth-century regimes using medieval technology and out of a much smaller world population clearly has some issues. The population of China in 1400 was HALF of what is was two centuries earlier (not all of which can be attributed to Mongols-the Black Death was during this period as well-but if the Mongols are responsible for the death of a ‘mere’ 10% of the Chinese population they are responsible for as many dead as the Final Solution). There is a tale that the Mongols seriously considered exterminating the north Chinese population and turning the whole area into pasture. That it was even considered is damning. Genghis Khan’s answer to the question ‘what is best in life’ is that of a psychopath.

Second choice is the British. Partly this is for their global reach; they were assholes all over the planet in ways that few ever were. There is a lot of condemnation of colonialism and imperialism yet what often gets left unsaid is that the British Empire was the premier exemplar of colonialism and imperialism. They oppressed and subjugated more of the world and more people than any other state in history with the exception of the Mongols. They may have done nothing individually worse than what other powers were doing at the time, but they did more of it.

Now I can already here some protesting that the British also gave us some nice things too. I’m sure it brought warmth to a Bengali’s heart that although his children were starving because he’d been put out of work by Lancashire textile imports, the wealth the British were sucking out of India was helping to create modern democracy (in which he could not participate because [insert racial expletive]).

Seriously, this is the state that decided that Chinese efforts to stop the British illegally smuggling opium into their country was a casus belli. This is the state that literally invented the term ‘jingoism’.

Part of my decision for picking the British is that there is still a great deal of defense for it. This forum has a serious problem with fanboyism and apologism for the British Empire. There are lots of claims that the British Empire wasn’t a giant extortion racket, that the British built lots of good things so that somehow justifies it. In this respect the Mongols were better. At least they were honest. “I want your stuff, so I’m going to kill you and take it.” Brutal, but there isn’t the gag-inducing self-righteous hypocrisy that one gets reading about the 19th century British empire.

And for those arguing that a civilization shouldn’t be labeled ‘evil’ because it did nice and/or shiny things with the stuff it extorted from others, that is one of the premier arguments for imperialism. ‘The natives can’t manage their resources wisely; we should ‘help’ them be more ‘efficient’.’ If one murders a man, even though he take all the victim’s wealth and give it to orphans, he is still a murderer.
 

Deleted member 92121

Well you're not wrong, but I'd say that's a very wide net to cast for an empire's legacy. Like attributing the industrial revolution to the Viking's legacy.
Well, if the Industrial Revolution had been started on Scandinavia by a descendant of Vikings a few centuries after the end of the Viking age, and given a name extremely similar to the word "Viking" in order to establish a connection between the two, then I would agree with the comparison.


but I doubt it would have disappeared without the mongols reinvigorating it.

Alas, we disagree.
 

Deleted member 92121

Seriously, this is the state that decided that Chinese efforts to stop the British illegally smuggling opium into their country was a casus belli. This is the state that literally invented the term ‘jingoism’.
This is a great freaking argument in favor of the British.
 
It sucks sometimes being the only Genghis Khan apologist on the forum. Mainly because every time I see a thread such as this, my now long speech about how the Mongol Empire was pretty awesome for its time (pre-split and Yuan era). Next time I'm on my computer, I need to put it in my profile page or something for easy access no matter how I'm accessing the site.

Regardless, I've got to go for Sparta. The overwhelming majority of its populace were slaves, slaves who were treated horrifically even by the brutal standards of the day. Meanwhile, the Spartan class that was supposed to benefit from this system were horrifically brutalised from birth and had to manage endless contradictions for which failure to do so would result in death.

As far as quality of life goes, its one of the few moments in human history where its hard to point to anyone who didn't live a dystopic life or actually benefitted from the system in a meaningful way (I'm sure there are of course exceptions).
 
It sucks sometimes being the only Genghis Khan apologist on the forum. Mainly because every time I see a thread such as this, my now long speech about how the Mongol Empire was pretty awesome for its time (pre-split and Yuan era). Next time I'm on my computer, I need to put it in my profile page or something for easy access no matter how I'm accessing the site.

Regardless, I've got to go for Sparta. The overwhelming majority of its populace were slaves, slaves who were treated horrifically even by the brutal standards of the day. Meanwhile, the Spartan class that was supposed to benefit from this system were horrifically brutalised from birth and had to manage endless contradictions for which failure to do so would result in death.

As far as quality of life goes, its one of the few moments in human history where its hard to point to anyone who didn't live a dystopic life or actually benefitted from the system in a meaningful way (I'm sure there are of course exceptions).

One issue with calculating the Mongol Conquests is the prevailing and constant narrative from all cultures against their conquests. Chinese historians and culture loath the Steppe nomads, Islamic, Iranian and Arab scholars blame the end of the so called ‘golden age’ on the Mongols and in Russia, Ukraine, etc,,, we have the blame of the collapse of Kiev and what have you on the Mongols. Not to mention, each blame their future perceived backward polities upon Mongol devastation. It is thus a scapegoat.
 
One issue with calculating the Mongol Conquests is the prevailing and constant narrative from all cultures against their conquests. Chinese historians and culture loath the Steppe nomads, Islamic, Iranian and Arab scholars blame the end of the so called ‘golden age’ on the Mongols and in Russia, Ukraine, etc,,, we have the blame of the collapse of Kiev and what have you on the Mongols. Not to mention, each blame their future perceived backward polities upon Mongol devastation. It is thus a scapegoat.
On the other hand, all of these groups of people were quite familiar with Steppe nomads and all agreed that the Mongols were by far the worst of that group.
 
What about China. The Chinese have committed genocide against nearly every ethnic group they've encountered. The Miao, the Hmong, The Tibetans, The Uyghurs, Taiwanese aborigines, Yue, Qiang, Hui, Manchu, Dzungars, Mongols, and Zhuang.
 
What about China. The Chinese have committed genocide against nearly every ethnic group they've encountered. The Miao, the Hmong, The Tibetans, The Uyghurs, Taiwanese aborigines, Yue, Qiang, Hui, Manchu, Dzungars, Mongols, and Zhuang.

What? The Chinese committed genocide against the Manchu?

Most of these are problematic, but I singled the one because China was ruled by the Manchu and they peacefully assimilated after conquest.
 
Tell that to the people arguing Europe's dominance was set in stone from 5000 BCS ^^
Tell them what? Geographic determinism and ideas about the vikings being responsible for the industrial revolution aren't related at all.

Well, if the Industrial Revolution had been started on Scandinavia by a descendant of Vikings a few centuries after the end of the Viking age, and given a name extremely similar to the word "Viking" in order to establish a connection between the two, then I would agree with the comparison.
a) your requirement for it to have taken place in in Scandinavia is odd, given that the Mughals were in India, not northern central asia.
b) Northern England was heavily settled by vikings, so yup descendants of the vikings (and the Mughals were Persianate Turks rather than any sort of cultural continuity of the Mongols)
c) No, the industrial revolution was not named after the Vikings, but neither where the Mughals, as they called their Dynasty Gurkani.
 

Deleted member 92121

Tell them what? Geographic determinism and ideas about the vikings being responsible for the industrial revolution aren't related at all.
I Believe he's making a joke on geographic determinism. Saying there's people who think that something like the Viking Age was proof that Europe was destined to lead the industrial revolution.

a) your requirement for it to have taken place in in Scandinavia is odd, given that the Mughals were in India, not northern central asia.
Yes, England is fine for the setting. But the period remains the 12th century for me to accept the comparison.

b) Northern England was heavily settled by vikings, so yup descendants of the vikings (and the Mughals were Persianate Turks rather than any sort of cultural continuity of the Mongols)
You're preaching to a veteran of the Jorvik Viking Festival :p. And for the Second Part, they were persionate Turks who wanted to be a cultural continuation of the Mongols.

c) No, the industrial revolution was not named after the Vikings, but neither where the Mughals, as they called their Dynasty Gurkani.
Would you look at that, I didn't know that.
 
Top