A few weeks ago after rediscovering my old chaos codex's, I took a look at the article on Doombreed (on of the first khornate daemon prince) listed on lexicanum to see if I could get any more information on his origins. Now his origins are fairly vague but it says that he was a warlord from ancient earth that managed to ravage entire nations and pretty much cause a hell of a lot of damage. Despite from the lack of information, does anyone else think that Doombreed could be Hitler? I'm not sure is if GW originally has hinted at this (or indeed Doombreed being any other particular warlord in ancient earth) but my personal theory is that Hitler's suicide was in fact form Demonic ascension into the warp (assuming Doombreed is Hitler).
purplefood wrote:it could just as easily be any other leader in a time of war.
This is the problem - the description could apply to dozens of people. The one I've heard most put forward is Ghengis Khan. Appeals a bit more to me from the point of view that Khan was a warrior himself, rather than a political leader (though again, I don't think the description makes any reference to Doombreed's previous form actually doing the killing him/herself - rather being 'responsible' for it).
Seeing as as started above Khorne hates the weak, tricksters, schemers, and would never elevate a non warrior. Hitler was at best a courier or a runner or something; low combat doubt he ever killed someone.
HHitler was not a warrior, he WAS a trickster, a schemer, a politician and a coward. Khorne would never even give him the time of day.
If we're going to current history and excluding future crazies, I prefer the idea of Ghengis Khan. There's various tales of his butchery and battles. I can't confirm this but I've heard that he used early things to divert a river just to drown a village. Sure, smarter than your average Khornate, but sounds like brutality the chaos god would love.
Monster Rain wrote:I always assumed it was Temujin, Hannibal or Alexander the Great.
i dont know who Temujin is but Hannibal and Alexander the great never commited any genocides.
there were much greater conquerers than Hannibal and Alexander the Great was known for be a progressive person when it came to race and treating prisoners and war. the polar opposite of what the very nature of chaos suggests.
Vulpes89 wrote:Well i looked it up on the lexicanum and it said he commited a genocide on a wide scale.
i think that re-enforces the Hitler idea a little more.
Not that this is a super worthwhile point to discuss, but I don't think anybody has ever killed more people than Genghis Khan. I think Stalin's around 20 million, Mao Zedong 10+, and Hitler 10--17 just in Holocaust victims, ignoring war casualties and those more or less enabled by the war, i.e., Stalin's victims. Estimates of the people killed by Genghis Khan's conquests run to 40 million, and some even higher. I don't know enough about it to say how much of that would classify as genocide as opposed to conquest, but my impression is it runs heavily to the latter. Still, that's an awful lot of people. Some conquered areas didn't regain their population numbers until five centuries later, in the 1900s. Beyond that, I think Genghis Khan's far and away the most "warrior" of them.
In any case, I always read this bit of fluff as being about someone in our future.
I always thought they meant that it was a warlord much further than our time, like, in Earth's future.
I doubt it's Hitler really, Khorne places status on Warriors, or at least bloodshed caused by the hand, rather than an army. A lot of people think it's Genghis Khan, but I always thought humanity devolved into techno-barbarians or something before the Emperor appeared and started uniting Earth.
In any case, I always read this bit of fluff as being about someone in our future.
thats another possibility but not as interesting in my opinion.
i think we can all agree that Ghengis Kahn, Hitler and stalin are the most likely candidates. though i would say i dont think Genghis ever committed Genocide. he never commited to getting rid of an entire race of people just because he didnt like them.
When I read that I instantly thought of Napoleon...he was quite the military leader...gak he was even considered the anti-christ. He had the entire world in the grip of fear
Vulpes89 wrote:
i dont know who Temujin is but Hannibal and Alexander the great never commited any genocides.
Alexander the Great was a murderous Thug who slaughtered his way across across Asia. Just because he was semi-Hellenized people think of him as being a civilized, cultured person. He wasn't.
Vulpes89 wrote:
i dont know who Temujin is but Hannibal and Alexander the great never commited any genocides.
Alexander the Great was a murderous Thug who slaughtered his way across across Asia. Just because he was semi-Hellenized people think of him as being a civilized, cultured person. He wasn't.
he allowed every conquered territory to rule itself, all they had to do was pay taxes, change the name of the city and allow his troops to move in and out. he was probably one, if not thee kindest conquers in the history of warfare (hence the Great, title). if you think he slaughtered his way across Asia, you must think every military leader ever was an uncultured, murderous Thug.
sequoiathrone1 wrote:A few weeks ago after rediscovering my old chaos codex's, I took a look at the article on Doombreed (on of the first khornate daemon prince) listed on lexicanum to see if I could get any more information on his origins. Now his origins are fairly vague but it says that he was a warlord from ancient earth that managed to ravage entire nations and pretty much cause a hell of a lot of damage. Despite from the lack of information, does anyone else think that Doombreed could be Hitler? I'm not sure is if GW originally has hinted at this (or indeed Doombreed being any other particular warlord in ancient earth) but my personal theory is that Hitler's suicide was in fact form Demonic ascension into the warp (assuming Doombreed is Hitler).
Contrary to what Public Education would like you to beleive, Hitler was not the only historical figurehead to partake in genocide, and he was definately not the worst. Stalin killed far more of his own people than Hitler did Jews. Both were political leaders though, not warlords.
Most people beleive that Doombreed is Ghengis Khan. Mao Zedong also fits the bill pretty well though.
There is, of course, the idea that GW didn't have anyone specific in mind when writing Doombreed's background. The next genocidal warlord to inevitably come around in the future may be Doombreed. Or the next one. Or the Next one...
gengis khan definitly, there are reports of him pouring molten metal down the throat of a messanger who displeased him then he cut of the nose and ears of one of the messangers in the same group and tied him to the rest who had had their eyes put out so that he could lead them back to thier master and deliver the bad news
Vulpes89 wrote:
he allowed every conquered territory to rule itself, all they had to do was pay taxes, change the name of the city and allow his troops to move in and out. he was probably one, if not thee kindest conquers in the history of warfare (hence the Great, title). if you think he slaughtered his way across Asia, you must think every military leader ever was an uncultured, murderous Thug.
He didn't earn the title "The Great" because he was a kind ruler, he earned it because he conqurered the largest empire in history with unprecedented speed. And yeah, he was a murderous thug. And it isn't just me that thinks that, it's this guy, who knows a thing or two about Greek civilization. I used the title "murderous thug" verbatim from The Soul of Battle when he(VDH) compared Epaminondas to Alexander.
It is any character from history that can fit the definition of "bloodthirsty conqueror who enjoyed causing misery to everyone everywhere."
It could be Genghis Khan, it could be Alexander the Great, Hell it could be one of those Jewish warlords from the book of Judges. I guess its one of those things that GW purposely left blank.
My money is on Vlad the Impaler. He seems like a "blood for the blood god" kind of guy
Varrick wrote: Seeing as as started above Khorne hates the weak, tricksters, schemers, and would never elevate a non warrior. Hitler was at best a courier or a runner or something; low combat doubt he ever killed someone.
HHitler was not a warrior, he WAS a trickster, a schemer, a politician and a coward. Khorne would never even give him the time of day.
Actually, what most people don't know about Hitler is that he WAS a warrior. He was a WWI veteran. He had amazingly good luck in the trenches. There was one time when he was eating lunch in a particular trench, and he heard a voice saying to him "get up and go over there". So he got up, left the trench, and not three minutes after he was gone, the trench was blasted apart by an artillery shell. I also remember reading that on the first day that his regiment, the List Regiment, were deployed at the front, Hitler was one of the few survivors of a bad shelling that blew apart most of his platoon.
Hitler was also a talented and effective soldier. He reveled in warfare and bloodshed. While other men in the trenches expressed a desire to return to their homes and families, Hitler absolutely loved the frontlines. He eventually became a message runner, which, contrary to what you appear to think, was an incredibly dangerous job. Hitler enjoyed putting himself in danger. He would ask other message runners to give him their messages so that he could deliver them, and they were more than happy to do it.
There are stories claiming that Hitler captured something like 17 prisoners all at once on one occasion, while in the process of running a message along the frontlines. He was a very good shot as well, and while I doubt he ever bothered to take a killcount, he certainly would have shed blood in defense of his trench. He was delighted by the bloodshed and violence all around him, and he was one of few German NCO's to receive an Iron Cross 1st Class (which some think he did not entirely deserve) as well as an Iron Cross 2nd Class. I think the 2nd Class Iron Cross was for rescuing a wounded officer caught in no-man's land (no mean feat) and the 1st Class Iron Cross was for delivering a very important message through dangerous terrain. (Which in and of itself would not entitle him to an Iron Cross. Maybe that was the same incident as the 17 prisoners thing, I'm not sure.)
Anyway. My point is that Hitler was actually a very good soldier. He was also violent, bloodthirsty, insanely charismatic and dangerous on a colossal scale. When he spoke in public, he would whip himself up into a mad frenzy. It's said that he would sometimes lose as much as five pounds a night by getting so animated during his speeches. To me, that sounds like someone driven violently mad by a love of warfare and bloodshed. So, would Khorne look down with pleasure on Hitler?
Maybe. After all, Hitler was regarded as a good soldier by his commanding officers. He was a schemer (though his propaganda ministers did a lot of the scheming for him...), but he slaughtered millions and soaked the fields of Europe with the blood of innocents. Sounds pretty Khornate to me.
And what we all seem to be forgetting is that Genghis Khan is already represented by not one but TWO GW characters. Kor'sarro Khan (Even has Khan in the name... It's like GW pulled another "Sly Marbo" on us...), and the Rough Rider robo-horse guy. (Mogul Kamir, I think.) Although robo-horse guy is probably also supposed to represent Atilla the Hun...
Brother Captain Andrecus wrote:And what we all seem to be forgetting is that Genghis Khan is already represented by not one but TWO GW characters. Kor'sarro Khan (Even has Khan in the name... It's like GW pulled another "Sly Marbo" on us...), and the Rough Rider robo-horse guy. (Mogul Kamir, I think.) Although robo-horse guy is probably also supposed to represent Atilla the Hun...
Ever hear of Jaghatai Khan, Primarch of the White Scars?
Brother Captain Andrecus wrote:And what we all seem to be forgetting is that Genghis Khan is already represented by not one but TWO GW characters. Kor'sarro Khan (Even has Khan in the name... It's like GW pulled another "Sly Marbo" on us...), and the Rough Rider robo-horse guy. (Mogul Kamir, I think.) Although robo-horse guy is probably also supposed to represent Atilla the Hun...
Ever hear of Jaghatai Khan, Primarch of the White Scars?
Yes, actually. But I had assumed that he represented Kublai Khan, who turned his grandfather's conquests into a viable empire. Jaghatai always struck me as more of a founder/developer type, whereas Kor'sarro is unarguably all warrior/conquest. I realize that it might make more sense chronologically if Jaghatai was Temujin and Kor'sarro was Kublai, but I always thought of the Primarch as the one who built up and transformed the chapter from a bunch of raw barbarians into a unified and effective fighting force, which is what Kublai did for the Mongolian empire. I guess Jaghatai and Kor'sarro could BOTH represent Temujin. But then there'd be THREE Genghis Khan style characters...
Vulpes89 wrote:
i dont know who Temujin is but Hannibal and Alexander the great never commited any genocides.
Alexander the Great was a murderous Thug who slaughtered his way across across Asia. Just because he was semi-Hellenized people think of him as being a civilized, cultured person. He wasn't.
he allowed every conquered territory to rule itself, all they had to do was pay taxes, change the name of the city and allow his troops to move in and out. he was probably one, if not thee kindest conquers in the history of warfare (hence the Great, title). if you think he slaughtered his way across Asia, you must think every military leader ever was an uncultured, murderous Thug.
You got remember its the victor who write history so his scribes would of made him out to be a saint not some form of barbaric warlord like everyone else.
As for this discussion I would be more inclined to say, I recon they just wrote his back ground without thinking of some warlord of our history there is still another 28,000 years will the creat crusade and Horus and 32,000 years till present 40k I mean humans have been around for around 8,000 years tops so far if that thinking the pyramids are about 4-5 thousand years old... And look at everything that has happened!
Monster Rain wrote:I always assumed it was Temujin, Hannibal or Alexander the Great.
Out of these Temujin seems the most likely. Macharius and Alexander the Great are far too similiar for the latter to have been a Khornate Deamon Prine. Not enough bloodthirsty-ish-ness there.
Hannibal is a maybe, Khorne usually frowns on defeat.
I'd place my bets on him being someone from the Steppes.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Doombreed was certainly not Hitler at any rate. Besides, everyone knows that Hitler was innocent, the whole dickery of the Holocuast and WWII was the Changeling's idea of gaks and giggles.
The fact that Khorne is all about martial prowess, Genghis Khan fits better than Hitler, simply because the latter was more of a political figurehead than a genocidal warlord at the time that he made his name. Genghis really did accomplish amazing things, even if those things were literally bathed in the blood of millions, but I digress, it was just another one of those things that GW never meant to answer, but if it came down to it, making Hitler into a almighty badass Daemon Prince wouldn't exactly be a great move.
Any of those Warlords, Alexander the Great doesn't have the same image, Hitler and Stalin didn't become infamous for being warriors. That said, there were many others, these few are just the most well known. I vote for Genghis Khan, just seems to be the most likely if they were apparently raised in the 15th century.
I think people are putting too much stock in the whole genocide part. Remember, eliminating an entire enemy tribe is still technically genocide: "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group".
Platuan4th wrote:I think people are putting too much stock in the whole genocide part. Remember, eliminating an entire enemy tribe is still technically genocide: "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group".
That's why i thought it could more or less be anyone... Well not anyone but a lot of people...
We can certainly rule out Hitler. He was a soldier but not an exceptional one. He was a politician more than a soldier. While he may have killed during his time in the trenches his personal kill count would have been very low compared to other historical leaders.
It is unlikely to be anyone recent or in the immediate future. Our style of war seperates leaders and soldiers. Tacticians don't fight and good warriors rarely lead large numbers of soldiers. Doombreed would need to have not only been skilled tactician but would also have to lead from the front.
What about Vlad the Impaler?
He would take people who were still alive, and impale them.
He was also found of eating the flesh of children, as he invited the childrens parents to dine.
Give he didn't cause a massive genocide, he abosultly reveled in war, torture, and bloodshed.
purplefood wrote:it could just as easily be any other leader in a time of war.
This is the problem - the description could apply to dozens of people. The one I've heard most put forward is Ghengis Khan. Appeals a bit more to me from the point of view that Khan was a warrior himself, rather than a political leader (though again, I don't think the description makes any reference to Doombreed's previous form actually doing the killing him/herself - rather being 'responsible' for it).
hitler was a soilder himself in WW1
kind of, he was a runner for the 16th Bavarian Reserve Regiment and was wounded few times and had awards for bravery.
so he could be classed as a 'warrior'
Considering that Doombreed was one of Khorne's first servants and that Khorne awoke fully during the Middle Ages, I'd say that it points to either Temujin or Moctezuma. The Aztecs were pretty into the whole blood sacrifice thing and skulls feature prominently in their religion. Now that I think about it, Moctezuma the First would seem more likely than GK, and I've always thought Genghis when I read the fluff.
Another point about Hitler-why would Doombreed single out 1 religion in particular? Remember, Khorne cares not wher the blood flows from, only that it does.
TrollPie wrote:Another point about Hitler-why would Doombreed single out 1 religion in particular?
Hitler didn't single out a single religion. He also attempted to exterminate Gypsies, Jehovah's Witnesses, Polish, Romani, the anti-Nazi Confessing Church, and a large variety of others.
TrollPie wrote:Another point about Hitler-why would Doombreed single out 1 religion in particular?
Hitler didn't single out a single religion. He also attempted to exterminate Gypsies, Jehovah's Witnesses, Polish, Romani, the anti-Nazi Confessing Church, and a large variety of others.
True, but that's still most religions and sects of Christianity that he hasn't touched-or maybe he was just playing on people's existing hatred? Khorne can't control people who don't serve him-that's what Tzeentch is for.
I like to think he was Genghis Khan prior to becoming Doombreed. It just sort of fits, in my mind. But frankly, unless GW outright say 'IT WAS THIS PERSON' (or give very obvious hints), we'll never really figure it out.
Definitely don't think it was hitler, though. Not enough war face, too much inferior moustache.
purplefood wrote:it could just as easily be any other leader in a time of war.
This is the problem - the description could apply to dozens of people. The one I've heard most put forward is Ghengis Khan. Appeals a bit more to me from the point of view that Khan was a warrior himself, rather than a political leader (though again, I don't think the description makes any reference to Doombreed's previous form actually doing the killing him/herself - rather being 'responsible' for it).
hitler was a soilder himself in WW1 kind of, he was a runner for the 16th Bavarian Reserve Regiment and was wounded few times and had awards for bravery. so he could be classed as a 'warrior'
Hitler was more than just a runner, he was a full soldier before that and won many medals.
The fact of the matter is that GW hasn't and won't specify who Doombreed was before. If they ever were to, Stalin, Hitler and other political despots are ruled out due to a negative image they have generally. As Khorne rose around the middle-ages, it rules out anyone before that. It would also likely be someone with a better known profile, which would rule out the lesser known Warlords like Moctezuma, although he logically fits very well. After that, it narrows down to a select few, which includes Genghis Khan, Attila the Hun, Vlad the Impaler, all of which are fairly well known and are likely simply due to the novelty. I vote Genghis Khan. He was ruthless, blood-thirsty, but also a proven general as well as warrior. When he conquered the Russian steppe and stormed Kiev, he put wooden planks over the bodies of captured Russian generals and princes and slowly crushed them to death by eating dinner on top of them.
I doubt that Khorne would approve of Hitlers tricking of the European powers and his phony alliance with Russia, Also, the fact that Hitler oversaw the destruction of a multitude of documents and the dismantling of crematoria at concentration camps , Khorne would not give him credit after trying to cover up his actions.
purplefood wrote:it could just as easily be any other leader in a time of war.
This is the problem - the description could apply to dozens of people. The one I've heard most put forward is Ghengis Khan. Appeals a bit more to me from the point of view that Khan was a warrior himself, rather than a political leader (though again, I don't think the description makes any reference to Doombreed's previous form actually doing the killing him/herself - rather being 'responsible' for it).
hitler was a soilder himself in WW1
kind of, he was a runner for the 16th Bavarian Reserve Regiment and was wounded few times and had awards for bravery.
so he could be classed as a 'warrior'
Hitler was more than just a runner, he was a full soldier before that and won many medals.
The fact of the matter is that GW hasn't and won't specify who Doombreed was before. If they ever were to, Stalin, Hitler and other political despots are ruled out due to a negative image they have generally. As Khorne rose around the middle-ages, it rules out anyone before that. It would also likely be someone with a better known profile, which would rule out the lesser known Warlords like Moctezuma, although he logically fits very well. After that, it narrows down to a select few, which includes Genghis Khan, Attila the Hun, Vlad the Impaler, all of which are fairly well known and are likely simply due to the novelty. I vote Genghis Khan. He was ruthless, blood-thirsty, but also a proven general as well as warrior. When he conquered the Russian steppe and stormed Kiev, he put wooden planks over the bodies of captured Russian generals and princes and slowly crushed them to death by eating dinner on top of them.
I am a history major and all the reading I have ever done on the subject indicates that Hitler was never more than a company runner. He was decoerated for bravery, yes, because he was wounded, but I have never seen anything to indicate he would personally have any blood on his hands. I dont recall the name of the book, im sure I could find it if I had to, but here is a readable article from a reliable source. I would show you a scholarly journall too, but you have to be enrolled at a school that subscribes to them to read the internet link
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/16/new-evidence-adolf-hitler
iproxtaco wrote:Hmm, it conflicts with what I've read about him and been told, but I'm still not convinced.
I'd be very interested in seeing what you've read, because like Romegamer, everything I've ever seen or been told states he was a runner and not a frontliner. Many sources say he WANTED to be a soldier on the front line(or rather, a war hero as Hitler himself is said to have put it) but was given the runner job instead.
I beleive the mongols practiced man animimistic and shamanistic religions, probably similar to early religion in Africa, but alot of later Mongol warlords who succeeded Gehngis were muslims such as Timur
There was no religious discrimination in the Mongol Empire. Genghis himself was under the religion known as Tengriism, which is largely based around the worship of the sky and earth, although they did not have a god specifically related to War that I know of. It's stated that he noticed this Warlord due to the destruction he wrought, and offered him Daemonhood.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Scrap that, I found a mention of a God called Begtse, the Mongolian God of War apparently.
iproxtaco wrote:There was no religious discrimination in the Mongol Empire. Genghis himself was under the religion known as Tengriism, which is largely based around the worship of the sky and earth, although they did not have a god specifically related to War that I know of. It's stated that he noticed this Warlord due to the destruction he wrought, and offered him Daemonhood.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Scrap that, I found a mention of a God called Begtse, the Mongolian God of War apparently.
Could someone please inform where these figures for Genghis Khan's number of killed are coming from? The only thing on that scale I heard was that the Mongol Empire killed around 40 million - which spans a much larger time and geographical period than Genghis Khan did. Everything I read about while he was alive put it at 4 million or under.
I doubt Games Workshop plan on saying who he was - it's more interesting if we don't know, It's certainly not going to be Hitler or someone like that due to political correctness and the risk of causing offence. Genghis Khan or Attila the Hun seem the most likely to me as well, but then again lots of people have committed genoicide since (as well as before) the Middle Ages.
Hitler was a soldier, but his actions in power depart from the Khornate ways. Scheming, brainwashing, lies and deception... Same can be said about Stalin. Shooting Polish officers in the back: Not Khorne-y. Letting thousands of people starve because of your criminal incompetence: Certainly, that's something the Blood God doesn't approve of.
If these two individuals are to be granted the gift of Daemonhood, I'm afraid Tzeentch is their guy. The two fell victim to destructive ideas that eventually possessed them, granted them untold power, and ended up consuming them. That's how things are done in the Impossible Fortress.
So, I'm for either a future tyrant or some other criminal, dictator and henchmen of mankind's recent and not so recent past. With so many candidates, it's hard to single Doombreed out!.
On the other hand, I loved that piece of fluff. A good reminder that the story of warhammer 40k is set on such a distant future that the times we're living in, the readers' frame of reference, is treated as the stuff of legends.
What about Vlad the Impaler?
He would take people who were still alive, and impale them.
He was also found of eating the flesh of children, as he invited the childrens parents to dine.
Give he didn't cause a massive genocide, he abosultly reveled in war, torture, and bloodshed.
Just another possiblity...
I actually think Vlad would fit more in the Imperium, since his schtick was "You broke the law? Congrats, you get a pointy wooden stick". I think all that stuff about him eating children was a legend fabricated by his enemies, too.
Shaman wrote:Did any of these guys pray to a war god?
I can only think of ares with alexander. Chaos gods don't make you a daemon unless you do things in their name.
Genghis khan have a war god?
The Aztec reason for warfare was to get more people for their cut-out-their-still-living-hearts-and-give-them-to-the-gods rituals. They saved the skulls for other religious stuff IIRC. I don't think there's ANYTHING that screams "Blood for the Blood God! Skulls for the Skull Throne" more than that! I'm not sure if Moctezuma's war exploits fit in with the description of Doombreed's though.
Vulpes89 wrote:
he allowed every conquered territory to rule itself, all they had to do was pay taxes, change the name of the city and allow his troops to move in and out. he was probably one, if not thee kindest conquers in the history of warfare (hence the Great, title). if you think he slaughtered his way across Asia, you must think every military leader ever was an uncultured, murderous Thug.
He didn't earn the title "The Great" because he was a kind ruler, he earned it because he conqurered the largest empire in history with unprecedented speed. And yeah, he was a murderous thug. And it isn't just me that thinks that, it's this guy, who knows a thing or two about Greek civilization. I used the title "murderous thug" verbatim from The Soul of Battle when he(VDH) compared Epaminondas to Alexander.
In that case almost everone back then was a murderous thug, as that's how the ancients rolled. It was fairly commonplace for such acts to happen back then; anachronistically judging his actions is really not the best sign in a historian.
Oh, and Alexander's empire wasn't the largest in history. That title belongs to the British Empire.
Vulpes89 wrote:
he allowed every conquered territory to rule itself, all they had to do was pay taxes, change the name of the city and allow his troops to move in and out. he was probably one, if not thee kindest conquers in the history of warfare (hence the Great, title). if you think he slaughtered his way across Asia, you must think every military leader ever was an uncultured, murderous Thug.
He didn't earn the title "The Great" because he was a kind ruler, he earned it because he conqurered the largest empire in history with unprecedented speed. And yeah, he was a murderous thug. And it isn't just me that thinks that, it's this guy, who knows a thing or two about Greek civilization. I used the title "murderous thug" verbatim from The Soul of Battle when he(VDH) compared Epaminondas to Alexander.
In that case almost everone back then was a murderous thug, as that's how the ancients rolled. It was fairly commonplace for such acts to happen back then; anachronistically judging his actions is really not the best sign in a historian.
Oh, and Alexander's empire wasn't the largest in history. That title belongs to the British Empire.
Or to the Mongolian Empire, depending on wether you count all of India as British or not. Anyway, Alexander's Empire was the largest known in his part of the World and at his time. Thus, the "largest Empire" thing.
The Mongolian Empire was the largest continual, as in, it was the largest area of unbroken land to be ruled by a single monarch or people. The British Empire could well be larger, although it would be on the actual total area it covered, as it was made up of colonies across the world rather than a single unbroken mass.
iproxtaco wrote:The Mongolian Empire was the largest continual, as in, it was the largest area of unbroken land to be ruled by a single monarch or people. The British Empire could well be larger, although it would be on the actual total area it covered, as it was made up of colonies across the world rather than a single unbroken mass.
The British Empire was only 700k square km larger than the Mongolian, and that's if you include all of India in the British and don't include large parts of Siberia in the Mongolian Empire. If you consider the Mongol Empire as a single Empire during the rule of Kublai Khan the Mongols win hands down.
It comes down to vassal states and large parts of declared conquers, like large parts of Siberia which The Mongols didn't actually fight over. IF you include absolutely everything under the jurisdiction of the Government or Monarch, then probably The Mongols.
iproxtaco wrote:It comes down to vassal states and large parts of declared conquers, like large parts of Siberia which The Mongols didn't actually fight over. IF you include absolutely everything under the jurisdiction of the Government or Monarch, then probably The Mongols.
Agreed on that. On a slightly related note, we're both wrong! The Imperium of Man is the biggest Empire ever! *Badum-tish*
Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:
In that case almost everone back then was a murderous thug, as that's how the ancients rolled. It was fairly commonplace for such acts to happen back then; anachronistically judging his actions is really not the best sign in a historian.
Oh, and Alexander's empire wasn't the largest in history. That title belongs to the British Empire.
Re-read what I wrote. He conquered the largest empire in history with unprecendented speed. I guess I should have put in the cavaet "The Persian Empire was the largest Empire up until that point". What took 2 Centuries for the Achaemenids to build, Alexander conquered in less than 15 years. That is how he earned the title "The Great". It wouldn't be until Napoleon that another European conquered such a large territory in such a short time.
Also, no, not everyone was a Murderous Thug in the manner of Alexander. The person I'm quoting from directly compared him to Epaminondas, who was a liberator and and did not slaughter his way to victory.
Varrick wrote: Seeing as as started above Khorne hates the weak, tricksters, schemers, and would never elevate a non warrior. Hitler was at best a courier or a runner or something; low combat doubt he ever killed someone.
HHitler was not a warrior, he WAS a trickster, a schemer, a politician and a coward. Khorne would never even give him the time of day.
Actually, what most people don't know about Hitler is that he WAS a warrior. He was a WWI veteran. He had amazingly good luck in the trenches. There was one time when he was eating lunch in a particular trench, and he heard a voice saying to him "get up and go over there". So he got up, left the trench, and not three minutes after he was gone, the trench was blasted apart by an artillery shell. I also remember reading that on the first day that his regiment, the List Regiment, were deployed at the front, Hitler was one of the few survivors of a bad shelling that blew apart most of his platoon.
Hitler was also a talented and effective soldier. He reveled in warfare and bloodshed. While other men in the trenches expressed a desire to return to their homes and families, Hitler absolutely loved the frontlines. He eventually became a message runner, which, contrary to what you appear to think, was an incredibly dangerous job. Hitler enjoyed putting himself in danger. He would ask other message runners to give him their messages so that he could deliver them, and they were more than happy to do it.
There are stories claiming that Hitler captured something like 17 prisoners all at once on one occasion, while in the process of running a message along the frontlines. He was a very good shot as well, and while I doubt he ever bothered to take a killcount, he certainly would have shed blood in defense of his trench. He was delighted by the bloodshed and violence all around him, and he was one of few German NCO's to receive an Iron Cross 1st Class (which some think he did not entirely deserve) as well as an Iron Cross 2nd Class. I think the 2nd Class Iron Cross was for rescuing a wounded officer caught in no-man's land (no mean feat) and the 1st Class Iron Cross was for delivering a very important message through dangerous terrain. (Which in and of itself would not entitle him to an Iron Cross. Maybe that was the same incident as the 17 prisoners thing, I'm not sure.)
Anyway. My point is that Hitler was actually a very good soldier. He was also violent, bloodthirsty, insanely charismatic and dangerous on a colossal scale. When he spoke in public, he would whip himself up into a mad frenzy. It's said that he would sometimes lose as much as five pounds a night by getting so animated during his speeches. To me, that sounds like someone driven violently mad by a love of warfare and bloodshed. So, would Khorne look down with pleasure on Hitler?
Maybe. After all, Hitler was regarded as a good soldier by his commanding officers. He was a schemer (though his propaganda ministers did a lot of the scheming for him...), but he slaughtered millions and soaked the fields of Europe with the blood of innocents. Sounds pretty Khornate to me.
I kee3p forgetting to brush up on history prior to opening my mouth on things i learned in Texas public schools.
But i think Khorne would not elevate Hitler to such a position after he showed less than Khornate behavior at the end of the war. I don't think Khorne likes to give such power to those that commit suicide when their is blood at their door to be spilled in his name.
But he COULD be a Daemon of Khorne post death; just not Doombreed because given his final actions he certainly would have left a stain on his resume. Picture Hitler and Khorne at a daemon position interview. He would not elevate him to such a monstrous position given his final moments. Light of his actual behavior during WW I he would have gone far in Khornes eyes but that last bit had to be a critical hit to his chances.
i wouldn't put it past Genghis Khan, Vlad the impaler, or some unknown nutter later on between now and the 41s millennium but with Hitlers last moment i think he got turned down for the position.
ok people, just admit it, DOOMBREAD is Mary the first, former queen of England and known also as bloody Mary due to her religious reforms which caused massacres in an already beat down country due to failed harvests and disease, and since some people say the chaos gods only really became self aware about the 1500's it makes sense that she would be a likely candidate considering she was born in 1516, and being unable to have lil'wee ones she was a very unhappy and very vicious woman at times especially on a strained marriage while ruling a country, who said DOOMBREAD had to be a man, or even own an empire for that fact, while in control of a country rife with civil unrest, unlike Hitler, she was a cow until the very end, also who says the bishops she worshipped so much couldn't of been corrupted? :3 she was devoutly religious but to which god?
Clumpski wrote:ok people, just admit it, DOOMBREAD is Mary the first, former queen of England and known also as bloody Mary due to her religious reforms which caused massacres in an already beat down country due to failed harvests and disease, and since some people say the chaos gods only really became self aware about the 1500's it makes sense that she would be a likely candidate considering she was born in 1516, and being unable to have lil'wee ones she was a very unhappy and very vicious woman at times especially on a strained marriage while ruling a country, who said DOOMBREAD had to be a man, or even own an empire for that fact, while in control of a country rife with civil unrest, unlike Hitler, she was a cow until the very end, also who says the bishops she worshipped so much couldn't of been corrupted? :3 she was devoutly religious but to which god?
Actually she did (or at least tried to). Genocide is just the intentional targeting and destruction of a specific group. Her attempts to remove protestants from the country is genocide.
4M2A wrote:Actually she did (or at least tried to). Genocide is just the intentional targeting and destruction of a specific group. Her attempts to remove protestants from the country is genocide.
4M2A wrote:Actually she did (or at least tried to). Genocide is just the intentional targeting and destruction of a specific group. Her attempts to remove protestants from the country is genocide.
I didn't think Alexander was the thug people think he is.
He only fought two or three huge battles at Issus and Gaugemela as well as a few smaller scale ones before Darius was killed by his own generals. He let the people keep their religion, he also did this in egypt, and merely installed his own governors to rule.
He had a drink problem I'll give him that but otherwise he was a great general and a great leader, hence the Great. Plus he did all of that with starting out with only something like 50,000 Macedonians.
By no means would I say he slaughtered millions, not outside of battle anyway, and certainly wouldn,t stretch to say he committed genocide as he probably preferred the Persian way to the Greek way by the end.
kind of, he was a runner for the 16th Bavarian Reserve Regiment and was wounded few times and had awards for bravery.
so he could be classed as a 'warrior'
Hitler was more than just a runner, he was a full soldier before that and won many medals.
I am a history major and all the reading I have ever done on the subject indicates that Hitler was never more than a company runner. He was decoerated for bravery, yes, because he was wounded, but I have never seen anything to indicate he would personally have any blood on his hands. I dont recall the name of the book, im sure I could find it if I had to, but here is a readable article from a reliable source. I would show you a scholarly journall too, but you have to be enrolled at a school that subscribes to them to read the internet link
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/16/new-evidence-adolf-hitler
I have always felt that all the manifestations of the 'anti-christ' throughout history were associated with 'Doombreed' not just Hitler.
As abhorent as Hitler's actions were, Joseph Stalin killed far more in the purges and nearly depopulated the Ukraine via starvation and other means. The Japanese commited widespread human genocide in China including human experimentation (Unit 731) which makes the Nazis pale in comparison. Why Doombreed would just represent Hitler for some reason is hard for me to justify even if it is canon.
Just me I guess.
Oh, and while watching the pop history/culture show 'Ancient Aliens' I saw something that made me think of ancient visitations by the Necrons. Vivid old descriptions of strange black cloaked humanoids often seen on the edge of town near fields just before they were hit by the black plague. Tall and skeletally thin beings waving something akin to a Scythe back and forth which spewed out a 'miasma' which then crept toward town.
Eventually, the description of these beings came to represent our image of Death. Interesting interpretation if a bit flawed.
purplefood wrote:it could just as easily be any other leader in a time of war.
This is the problem - the description could apply to dozens of people. The one I've heard most put forward is Ghengis Khan. Appeals a bit more to me from the point of view that Khan was a warrior himself, rather than a political leader (though again, I don't think the description makes any reference to Doombreed's previous form actually doing the killing him/herself - rather being 'responsible' for it).
Ghengis Khan did worse things than hilter. Trust me on this. He Didn't CARE WHO YOU ARE, he would kill you, This guy killed half the population of china, then killed the entire Indianian people. He went into the middle east destroyed ENTIRE cities and then he made long lines of blind people with 1 person with only one eye and he would go towards a city with all the other blind people (Who had their eyes burnt out).
Then he found the caliphate that killed one of his cousins, took the entire caliphate tortured them and made them into nice stuffed Statues for display in private war collection.
Then (Oh it gets worse), he sent the golden horde (From Russia) to attack European and slaughtered the 9,000 knights and man at arms.
Yeah I can say Doombreed is Ghengis Khan.
Hitler cannot live up to Ghengis Khan, the greatest mass murdering tactician of all time.
I would like to thank my history teacher for teaching me about Ghengis khan in the best way possible he gave us a lecture on how awesome of a tactician and leader he was.
Alexander the great was not a blood thirsty back stabber.
purplefood wrote:9000 knights and men at arms?
It's a shame that they died but considering Europes long and bloody history in the world that's a drop in the ocean...
It gets worse....
The Monguls only had 1,000............. Troops. In total fighting. Bit unfair as they have the best bowman of all time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
purplefood wrote:9000 knights and men at arms?
It's a shame that they died but considering Europes long and bloody history in the world that's a drop in the ocean...
thats around 4,000 knights From the most powerful European nation in middle evil ages.
Poland and Finland teamed up and lost every single soldier they had.
purplefood wrote:9000 knights and men at arms?
It's a shame that they died but considering Europes long and bloody history in the world that's a drop in the ocean...
It gets worse....
The Monguls only had 1,000............. Troops. In total fighting. Bit unfair as they have the best bowman of all time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
purplefood wrote:9000 knights and men at arms?
It's a shame that they died but considering Europes long and bloody history in the world that's a drop in the ocean...
thats around 4,000 knights From the most powerful European nation in middle evil ages.
Poland and Finland teamed up and lost every single soldier they had.
I think you'll find the best bowmen were English/Welsh longbowmen At any rate it's still a small number, large for the time no doubt but small in relation to later wars... or even some of the earlier ones.
purplefood wrote:it could just as easily be any other leader in a time of war.
This is the problem - the description could apply to dozens of people. The one I've heard most put forward is Ghengis Khan. Appeals a bit more to me from the point of view that Khan was a warrior himself, rather than a political leader (though again, I don't think the description makes any reference to Doombreed's previous form actually doing the killing him/herself - rather being 'responsible' for it).
Ghengis Khan did worse things than hilter. Trust me on this. He Didn't CARE WHO YOU ARE, he would kill you, This guy killed half the population of china, then killed the entire Indianian people. He went into the middle east destroyed ENTIRE cities and then he made long lines of blind people with 1 person with only one eye and he would go towards a city with all the other blind people (Who had their eyes burnt out).
Then he found the caliphate that killed one of his cousins, took the entire caliphate tortured them and made them into nice stuffed Statues for display in private war collection.
Then (Oh it gets worse), he sent the golden horde (From Russia) to attack European and slaughtered the 9,000 knights and man at arms.
Yeah I can say Doombreed is Ghengis Khan.
Hitler cannot live up to Ghengis Khan, the greatest mass murdering tactician of all time.
I would like to thank my history teacher for teaching me about Ghengis khan in the best way possible he gave us a lecture on how awesome of a tactician and leader he was.
The Khan's hordes are also responsible for the Black Plague.
Okay now he is definately one of the top if not THE top mass murderers in history... That said... the Black Plague could be said to have spurred medical advances that otherwise would not have happened.
purplefood wrote:Okay now he is definately one of the top if not THE top mass murderers in history...
That said... the Black Plague could be said to have spurred medical advances that otherwise would not have happened.
Hitler did too. He caused a huge leap in technology every single mass murderer has caused some type of technological advance.
JAck the ripper, political advance by sending everyone to australia for fun!
purplefood wrote:Okay now he is definately one of the top if not THE top mass murderers in history...
That said... the Black Plague could be said to have spurred medical advances that otherwise would not have happened.
Hitler did too. He caused a huge leap in technology every single mass murderer has caused some type of technological advance.
JAck the ripper, political advance by sending everyone to australia for fun!
Genghis beats hitler any day.
Conflict brings advances. It's human nature...
The body count isn't as necessary... though it does speed up the process.
If Hitler hadn't started WWII then i doubt we would have advanced as far as we have now...
purplefood wrote:Okay now he is definately one of the top if not THE top mass murderers in history...
That said... the Black Plague could be said to have spurred medical advances that otherwise would not have happened.
Hitler did too. He caused a huge leap in technology every single mass murderer has caused some type of technological advance.
JAck the ripper, political advance by sending everyone to australia for fun!
Genghis beats hitler any day.
Conflict brings advances. It's human nature...
The body count isn't as necessary... though it does speed up the process.
If Hitler hadn't started WWII then i doubt we would have advanced as far as we have now...
Yeah hitler, but he is not Doombreed. or DoomBread.
purplefood wrote:Okay now he is definately one of the top if not THE top mass murderers in history...
That said... the Black Plague could be said to have spurred medical advances that otherwise would not have happened.
Hitler did too. He caused a huge leap in technology every single mass murderer has caused some type of technological advance.
JAck the ripper, political advance by sending everyone to australia for fun!
Genghis beats hitler any day.
Conflict brings advances. It's human nature...
The body count isn't as necessary... though it does speed up the process.
If Hitler hadn't started WWII then i doubt we would have advanced as far as we have now...
Yeah hitler, but he is not Doombreed. or DoomBread.
Actually it's DOOMBREAD!
Hitler probably isn't Doombreed no...
Khan seems like a good bet for it...
purplefood wrote:Okay now he is definately one of the top if not THE top mass murderers in history... That said... the Black Plague could be said to have spurred medical advances that otherwise would not have happened.
Hitler did too. He caused a huge leap in technology every single mass murderer has caused some type of technological advance. JAck the ripper, political advance by sending everyone to australia for fun!
Genghis beats hitler any day.
Conflict brings advances. It's human nature... The body count isn't as necessary... though it does speed up the process. If Hitler hadn't started WWII then i doubt we would have advanced as far as we have now...
Yeah hitler, but he is not Doombreed. or DoomBread.
Actually it's DOOMBREAD! Hitler probably isn't Doombreed no... Khan seems like a good bet for it...
How about Judas? has anyone considered the master of betrayal? Judas?
purplefood wrote:Okay now he is definately one of the top if not THE top mass murderers in history...
That said... the Black Plague could be said to have spurred medical advances that otherwise would not have happened.
Hitler did too. He caused a huge leap in technology every single mass murderer has caused some type of technological advance.
JAck the ripper, political advance by sending everyone to australia for fun!
Genghis beats hitler any day.
Conflict brings advances. It's human nature...
The body count isn't as necessary... though it does speed up the process.
If Hitler hadn't started WWII then i doubt we would have advanced as far as we have now...
Yeah hitler, but he is not Doombreed. or DoomBread.
Actually it's DOOMBREAD!
Hitler probably isn't Doombreed no...
Khan seems like a good bet for it...
How about Judas?
has anyone considered the master of betrayal?
Judas?
Matt WArd is a changeling
I doubt it...
Judas tipped off the Romans for money...
The man has no honour and got others to do his work. Definately not Khorne material...
Also he isn't a warlord and didn't even try to commit genocide... though Christianity has had a good try over the ages...
purplefood wrote: I doubt it... Judas tipped off the Romans for money... The man has no honour and got others to do his work. Definately not Khorne material... Also he isn't a warlord and didn't even try to commit genocide... though Christianity has had a good try over the ages...
Actually, he tipped off the PRIESTS and was rewarded with money(he didn't ask for payment), not the Romans. As well, he did it not as a betrayal, but to save his homeland(Jesus' followers were pushing for rebellion, which would have destroyed the region as seen when the Hebrews DID rebel). And if you're a Christian, he was also carrying out his ordained part in the death of Jesus.
So in truth, NOT going to the priests would have been a betrayal, by not doing what he was supposed to.
Only if you restrict yourself to the books chosen for the Bible do you get the story as Judas was a traitor to Jesus because MONEY.
Vulpes89 wrote:Well i looked it up on the lexicanum and it said he commited a genocide on a wide scale.
i think that re-enforces the Hitler idea a little more.
Not really, the mongols under Genghis killed a greater percentage of the earth's population than the nazis. Julius Caesar committed genocide against the Gauls, Tamerlane wiped out the Avars amongst others, the Turks carried out two genocides against the Armenians and at least one against the Greeks. History is full of genocides and mass murders, we only hear about Hitler these days - Stalin killed more for instance.
Since then there have been genocides in Serbia, Bosnia, Congo, Zaire, Cambodia, Zimbabwe, Sudan (that I can think of) and there will be more in the future. So take your pick, there are plenty of warlords, dictators, religious leaders to choose from.
purplefood wrote:
I doubt it...
Judas tipped off the Romans for money...
The man has no honour and got others to do his work. Definately not Khorne material...
Also he isn't a warlord and didn't even try to commit genocide... though Christianity has had a good try over the ages...
Actually, he tipped off the PRIESTS and was rewarded with money(he didn't ask for payment), not the Romans. As well, he did it not as a betrayal, but to save his homeland(Jesus' followers were pushing for rebellion, which would have destroyed the region as seen when the Hebrews DID rebel). And if you're a Christian, he was also carrying out his ordained part in the death of Jesus.
So in truth, NOT going to the priests would have been a betrayal, by not doing what he was supposed to.
Only if you restrict yourself to the books chosen for the Bible do you get the story as Judas was a traitor to Jesus because MONEY.
Which book does it say Judas betrayed Jesus to save his homeland?
cadbren wrote:
Vulpes89 wrote:Well i looked it up on the lexicanum and it said he commited a genocide on a wide scale.
i think that re-enforces the Hitler idea a little more.
Not really, the mongols under Genghis killed a greater percentage of the earth's population than the nazis. Julius Caesar committed genocide against the Gauls, Tamerlane wiped out the Avars amongst others, the Turks carried out two genocides against the Armenians and at least one against the Greeks. History is full of genocides and mass murders, we only hear about Hitler these days - Stalin killed more for instance.
Since then there have been genocides in Serbia, Bosnia, Congo, Zaire, Cambodia, Zimbabwe, Sudan (that I can think of) and there will be more in the future. So take your pick, there are plenty of warlords, dictators, religious leaders to choose from.
Nazi Germany should still be viewed as unique though. They were the first, and fortunately so far the only, case of someone actually industrialising genocide.
EF- The sytle the Nazis used may have something to do with the technology available to them. Most large scale genocides happened hundreds of years ago. Tracking, capturing and handling such large numbers of people just wouldn't have been possible. They would have had to use soldiers to track down each person. There haven't been any other way. The Nazis are the only modern group to try a large Genocide. Being a powerful country also makes a large difference. They had the control and influence to make the process possible.
If any of the other leaders had the ability to commit genocide like the Nazis they would have done. It wasn't a concious decision not be as effective as possible.
4M2A wrote:EF- The sytle the Nazis used may have something to do with the technology available to them. Most large scale genocides happened hundreds of years ago. Tracking, capturing and handling such large numbers of people just wouldn't have been possible. They would have had to use soldiers to track down each person. There haven't been any other way. The Nazis are the only modern group to try a large Genocide. Being a powerful country also makes a large difference. They had the control and influence to make the process possible.
This isn't true. There are plenty of modern cases of genocide in the previous century. That the Nazis committed genocide isn't unique. That they did it on a level never before imagined, using a systematic process that could have evntually actually have lead to the extermination of a whole people (other genocides tend to be harsh, yet not as well planned or executed) is what is unique.
If any of the other leaders had the ability to commit genocide like the Nazis they would have done. It wasn't a concious decision not be as effective as possible.
Not really. Other countries, especially at the time, fully had the means to commit the same act as the Nazis. But no-one, not the even the Russians or Japanese who did commit genocide during the war, had tried (let alone succeeded) in utilising such an extensive and effective method of doing so.
I was talking about GK or some of the other more Crazy leaders. If Genghis had the ability to commit genocide like the Nazis he almost certainly would have done. While quite extreme (even in terms of genocidal groups) the Nazis weren't that special. There have been groups as obsessed with Genocide as the Nazis- they just haven't had the ability to so effectively exterminate people.
The Nazis were more effective than others but that is more down to being well planned and trying to be more effecient than having worse feeling towards the group they intended to destroy. Chaos is about the intention not just the act. The Nazis intentions weren't any worse than other people who committed Genocide they were just better at it.
4M2A wrote:I was talking about GK or some of the other more Crazy leaders. If Genghis had the ability to commit genocide like the Nazis he almost certainly would have done. While quite extreme (even in terms of genocidal groups) the Nazis weren't that special. There have been groups as obsessed with Genocide as the Nazis- they just haven't had the ability to so effectively exterminate people.
I don't think Genghis Khan would have done so, unless it suited him somehow to systematically wipe out a particular ethnicity. His aim was conquest. The Nazi's aim was also conquest, but the genocide of the jews had little to do with that.
The Nazis were more effective than others but that is more down to being well planned and trying to be more effecient than having worse feeling towards the group they intended to destroy. Chaos is about the intention not just the act. The Nazis intentions weren't any worse than other people who committed Genocide they were just better at it.
I haven't said that Nazi Germany should be remembered becuase they were just more hostile to the Jews than than other genocidal powers. I said Nazi Germany was unique becuase they were so frightenly effective in exterminating thier hated race, far more so than any other genocidal power.
Automatically Appended Next Post: BTW, thought you were talking about Grey Knights for a second. It's a little scary tht it's still applicable.
4M2A wrote:I was talking about GK or some of the other more Crazy leaders. If Genghis had the ability to commit genocide like the Nazis he almost certainly would have done. While quite extreme (even in terms of genocidal groups) the Nazis weren't that special. There have been groups as obsessed with Genocide as the Nazis- they just haven't had the ability to so effectively exterminate people.
The Nazis were more effective than others but that is more down to being well planned and trying to be more effecient than having worse feeling towards the group they intended to destroy. Chaos is about the intention not just the act. The Nazis intentions weren't any worse than other people who committed Genocide they were just better at it.
You really shouldn't post about academic subjects unless you know what you're talking about. This applies to the whole thread really, popular history and totally false assumptions to the extreme.
Well as far as I've read about and been taught about Genghis Khan, he didn't have the intention of wiping out a certain race. Whilst The Mongol Empire managed to conquer the largest single land mass empire yet seen, killing countless millions, they didn't discriminate against race or religion anywhere near as much as Hitler.
Recent studies (Bible sotries apart) mark him as a great warlord, brilliant tactician and a genocide, exterminating whole settlements and even one of their own tribes. He ended being killed by his own people because of his ruthlesness. Very Khornate for me.
iproxtaco wrote:Well as far as I've read about and been taught about Genghis Khan, he didn't have the intention of wiping out a certain race. Whilst The Mongol Empire managed to conquer the largest single land mass empire yet seen, killing countless millions, they didn't discriminate against race or religion anywhere near as much as Hitler.
How many Jews or Allies did Hitler kill by his own hand? Im pretty sure none. Hitler was a politician and a leader, but not a warrior. Khorne would have no interest in him. Tzeench would have more interest in hitler than Khorne.
Ghengis Khan was a great warrior, and a great bringer of violence. He is the perfect servant for Khorne.
Recent studies (Bible sotries apart) mark him as a great warlord, brilliant tactician and a genocide, exterminating whole settlements and even one of their own tribes. He ended being killed by his own people because of his ruthlesness. Very Khornate for me.
Varrick wrote: Seeing as as started above Khorne hates the weak, tricksters, schemers, and would never elevate a non warrior. Hitler was at best a courier or a runner or something; low combat doubt he ever killed someone.
HHitler was not a warrior, he WAS a trickster, a schemer, a politician and a coward. Khorne would never even give him the time of day.
Actually, what most people don't know about Hitler is that he WAS a warrior. He was a WWI veteran. He had amazingly good luck in the trenches. There was one time when he was eating lunch in a particular trench, and he heard a voice saying to him "get up and go over there". So he got up, left the trench, and not three minutes after he was gone, the trench was blasted apart by an artillery shell. I also remember reading that on the first day that his regiment, the List Regiment, were deployed at the front, Hitler was one of the few survivors of a bad shelling that blew apart most of his platoon.
Hitler was also a talented and effective soldier. He reveled in warfare and bloodshed. While other men in the trenches expressed a desire to return to their homes and families, Hitler absolutely loved the frontlines. He eventually became a message runner, which, contrary to what you appear to think, was an incredibly dangerous job. Hitler enjoyed putting himself in danger. He would ask other message runners to give him their messages so that he could deliver them, and they were more than happy to do it.
There are stories claiming that Hitler captured something like 17 prisoners all at once on one occasion, while in the process of running a message along the frontlines. He was a very good shot as well, and while I doubt he ever bothered to take a killcount, he certainly would have shed blood in defense of his trench. He was delighted by the bloodshed and violence all around him, and he was one of few German NCO's to receive an Iron Cross 1st Class (which some think he did not entirely deserve) as well as an Iron Cross 2nd Class. I think the 2nd Class Iron Cross was for rescuing a wounded officer caught in no-man's land (no mean feat) and the 1st Class Iron Cross was for delivering a very important message through dangerous terrain. (Which in and of itself would not entitle him to an Iron Cross. Maybe that was the same incident as the 17 prisoners thing, I'm not sure.)
Anyway. My point is that Hitler was actually a very good soldier. He was also violent, bloodthirsty, insanely charismatic and dangerous on a colossal scale. When he spoke in public, he would whip himself up into a mad frenzy. It's said that he would sometimes lose as much as five pounds a night by getting so animated during his speeches. To me, that sounds like someone driven violently mad by a love of warfare and bloodshed. So, would Khorne look down with pleasure on Hitler?
Maybe. After all, Hitler was regarded as a good soldier by his commanding officers. He was a schemer (though his propaganda ministers did a lot of the scheming for him...), but he slaughtered millions and soaked the fields of Europe with the blood of innocents. Sounds pretty Khornate to me.
Right when I was going to whip out all that info I see this ^
Emperors Faithful wrote:
Nazi Germany should still be viewed as unique though. They were the first, and fortunately so far the only, case of someone actually industrialising genocide.
The means may have been unique but that is all. The Mongols appear to have been some early form of extreme environmentalists. They viewed civilisation as a plague that was a blot on the landscape. As a result of their ignorance/point of view they wiped out millions for simply living in cities; they depopulated vast areas of asia.
The lighting campaign across the plains that wipes out all the little villages on the way is one form of genocide. Another is taking the food supply so that those who grew it have nothing left to eat because of politics or business; that happened in Ireland during the potato famine and in Russia and the Ukraine when the communists took over. Certainly the English had no problem with Ireland being depopulated as it saw the people as a threat, Ireland had 8 million people at the time, over a hundred years later and it still only has 4 million and is weaker politically because of that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Chowderhead wrote:
Devastator wrote:
Asherian Command wrote:WHAT? Noooo Moses died of old age.
That is what THEY want you to think.
No, that's what happened.
The Gods became self aware around 1500-1550. Moses, our prophet, was born in the time of the Egyptians.
I think Moses still lives, he just changes his name from time to time, at one time he was known as Elvis Presley, true story.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Omegus wrote:All that crap has been invalidated as propaganda. Someone already posted the appropriate links previously in this thread.
People are going to play match up with what they know so as Hitler is the big bogey man in history class these days it's no surprise that people are going to think it has to be him as he's the only one they know about. I'd like to think that 40K fluff is a little less generic than that AND that it can go beyond what we currently know and have "history" from our future - ie stuff that happens between now and the Age of the Imperium.
Emperors Faithful wrote:
Nazi Germany should still be viewed as unique though. They were the first, and fortunately so far the only, case of someone actually industrialising genocide.
The means may have been unique but that is all. The Mongols appear to have been some early form of extreme environmentalists. They viewed civilisation as a plague that was a blot on the landscape. As a result of their ignorance/point of view they wiped out millions for simply living in cities; they depopulated vast areas of asia.
The lighting campaign across the plains that wipes out all the little villages on the way is one form of genocide. Another is taking the food supply so that those who grew it have nothing left to eat because of politics or business; that happened in Ireland during the potato famine and in Russia and the Ukraine when the communists took over. Certainly the English had no problem with Ireland being depopulated as it saw the people as a threat, Ireland had 8 million people at the time, over a hundred years later and it still only has 4 million and is weaker politically because of that.
you do reliaize we are talking about the guy wiped out half the population of china right?
cadbren wrote:Why are you addressing this to me? I thought it obvious that I know what Temujin and his merry band of psychos did.
Yes, but you didn't really address my argument.
Your argument was that people being rounded up and killed in a building was somehow different from people being killed in their own homes. It's irrelevant as the end result is that they're still dead.
You went off on your own tangent, where Ghengis was actually an enviromentalist.
Why not, Hitler was a vegetarian and modern greenies love Stalin and other commie mass murderers. Does that have a point either? Not really, I just felt like putting it in there.
Besides, Khorne is all about the blood flowing. I don't think Gas Chambers quite fit the rule.
Hitler didn't attack other nations with gas chambers, he sent his armies into them with good old guns and bayonets.
cadbren wrote:Your argument was that people being rounded up and killed in a building was somehow different from people being killed in their own homes. It's irrelevant as the end result is that they're still dead.
No, my argument was that no genocide had ever been do so systematically, so effectively, so extensively, that the targeted minority could actually have been entirely wiped out if it had continued. Indusrtialising the process of genocide had never been done before, and it put it on a whole other level.
Why not, Hitler was a vegetarian and modern greenies love Stalin and other commie mass murderers. Does that have a point either? Not really, I just felt like putting it in there.
Right, I don't want to get into Ghengis Khan being an Mongolian Captain Planet, becuase that's way OT. It's also ridiculous.
Hitler didn't attack other nations with gas chambers, he sent his armies into them with good old guns and bayonets.
Asherian Command wrote:WHAT? Noooo Moses died of old age.
That is what THEY want you to think.
No, that's what happened.
The Gods became self aware around 1500-1550. Moses, our prophet, was born in the time of the Egyptians.
CSM Codex says "during the Middle Ages". The Middle Ages were a bit longer than 50 years, especially considered that part of the time period between 1500-1550 might not even be Middle Ages, depending on which historian you ask.
purplefood wrote:it could just as easily be any other leader in a time of war.
This is the problem - the description could apply to dozens of people. The one I've heard most put forward is Ghengis Khan. Appeals a bit more to me from the point of view that Khan was a warrior himself, rather than a political leader (though again, I don't think the description makes any reference to Doombreed's previous form actually doing the killing him/herself - rather being 'responsible' for it).
hitler was a soilder himself in WW1
kind of, he was a runner for the 16th Bavarian Reserve Regiment and was wounded few times and had awards for bravery.
so he could be classed as a 'warrior'
Hitler was more than just a runner, he was a full soldier before that and won many medals.
The fact of the matter is that GW hasn't and won't specify who Doombreed was before. If they ever were to, Stalin, Hitler and other political despots are ruled out due to a negative image they have generally. As Khorne rose around the middle-ages, it rules out anyone before that. It would also likely be someone with a better known profile, which would rule out the lesser known Warlords like Moctezuma, although he logically fits very well. After that, it narrows down to a select few, which includes Genghis Khan, Attila the Hun, Vlad the Impaler, all of which are fairly well known and are likely simply due to the novelty. I vote Genghis Khan. He was ruthless, blood-thirsty, but also a proven general as well as warrior. When he conquered the Russian steppe and stormed Kiev, he put wooden planks over the bodies of captured Russian generals and princes and slowly crushed them to death by eating dinner on top of them.
I am a history major and all the reading I have ever done on the subject indicates that Hitler was never more than a company runner. He was decoerated for bravery, yes, because he was wounded, but I have never seen anything to indicate he would personally have any blood on his hands. I dont recall the name of the book, im sure I could find it if I had to, but here is a readable article from a reliable source. I would show you a scholarly journall too, but you have to be enrolled at a school that subscribes to them to read the internet link
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/16/new-evidence-adolf-hitler
so.........was i right?
not that it matters really, what exactly is a runner btw?
cadbren wrote:
You went off on your own tangent, where Ghengis was actually an enviromentalist.
Why not, Hitler was a vegetarian and modern greenies love Stalin and other commie mass murderers. Does that have a point either? Not really, I just felt like putting it in there.
Hitler was not a vegetarian, it is a common piece of mis-knowledge.
'modern greenies'? don't quite know what tiny group you are talking about, but if you ask most people about Stalin, you won't get many positive opinions of him.
Asherian Command wrote:WHAT? Noooo Moses died of old age.
That is what THEY want you to think.
No, that's what happened.
The Gods became self aware around 1500-1550. Moses, our prophet, was born in the time of the Egyptians.
CSM Codex says "during the Middle Ages". The Middle Ages were a bit longer than 50 years, especially considered that part of the time period between 1500-1550 might not even be Middle Ages, depending on which historian you ask.
Anyone after about 1500, up to when Doombreed led his Black Crusade, or his first appearance in Liber Chaotica. It's still likely to be someone from our past, pre-gunpowder probably.
cadbren wrote:Your argument was that people being rounded up and killed in a building was somehow different from people being killed in their own homes. It's irrelevant as the end result is that they're still dead.
No, my argument was that no genocide had ever been do so systematically, so effectively, so extensively, that the targeted minority could actually have been entirely wiped out if it had continued. Indusrtialising the process of genocide had never been done before, and it put it on a whole other level.
And I disagree, the Albigensian crusade and other campaigns against non-Catholic christians in Europe during the Middle Ages were designed to wipe them out or at least force them back into the main church. History is rife with such genocides, I'd also include the depopulation of the Scottish Highlands during the clearances. The only novel difference with the jews was that the Europeans under the lead of the Germans conducted a pogrom against the jews on a larger scale than any that had gone before and that it happened after the Industrial Revolution. I don't consider that a unique thing, simply a product of timing.
I'm arguing this from a comparative positive in that I'm comparing the actions to those of the past, you appear to be making a moral judgment as though this was the first time one group has tried to do away with another. My point is that it is the first obvious instance of an industrialized power doing this and that the industrial part of it was merely a result of them being an industrial power and not because they wanted to specifically industrialize mass murder. No one talks about the industrialized killing of civilians as a result of carpet bombing do they but the process is the same.
Hitler didn't attack other nations with gas chambers, he sent his armies into them with good old guns and bayonets.
And now you're no longer talking about genocide.
Of course I am, you are the one who suggested that Hitler was all about gas chambers and therefore had nothing to do with blood being shed. Hitler was the leader of a nation that went to war, whatever went on in the camps was a sideshow to the war, not the other way around. In that regard he could be seen as a warlord albeit stretching the term. I don't regard him as the person in question but dismissing him because Khorne isn't into gas chambers as you suggested is not actually relevant given the massive war that was being waged at the time.
sure it was genocide, but from memeory at the end of the war it was like a self inflited genocide, hitlers forces were being wiped out faster than they could pull the trigger
Tyranic Marta wrote:sure it was genocide, but from memeory at the end of the war it was like a self inflited genocide, hitlers forces were being wiped out faster than they could pull the trigger
Germany's forces were completely wiped out in the end, but Hitler wasnt doing so badly at the start of the war. He had basically all of Europe, and if it werent for the fact that he opened a 2 front war with Russia he most likely would have won.
cadbren wrote:Your argument was that people being rounded up and killed in a building was somehow different from people being killed in their own homes. It's irrelevant as the end result is that they're still dead.
No, my argument was that no genocide had ever been do so systematically, so effectively, so extensively, that the targeted minority could actually have been entirely wiped out if it had continued. Indusrtialising the process of genocide had never been done before, and it put it on a whole other level.
And I disagree, the Albigensian crusade and other campaigns against non-Catholic christians in Europe during the Middle Ages were designed to wipe them out or at least force them back into the main church.
The complete anhillation of these people through such methods was never a feasible goal in the time frame (and they also had another goal than their extermination). Sure, plenty of people died, but the method undertaken by Nazi Germany could very well have wiped out the Jewish race in a matter of years.
History is rife with such genocides, I'd also include the depopulation of the Scottish Highlands during the clearances. The only novel difference with the jews was that the Europeans under the lead of the Germans conducted a pogrom against the jews on a larger scale than any that had gone before and that it happened after the Industrial Revolution. I don't consider that a unique thing, simply a product of timing.
Bollocks, there have quite a few genocides since the Industrial Revolution. The exterminations in Germany was the first, and only, case of Genocide being Industrialised though. It's not a matter of timing, it's a matter of method. And it could also be considered a matter of goals. Most cases of genocide point to an attempt to cull or pacify a population through bloody retribution, there are few cases of genocides that I can definitely point out that the extermination of the targetted race was the sole goal, rather than taking or preserving territory/wealth/slaves/resources.
I'm arguing this from a comparative positive in that I'm comparing the actions to those of the past, you appear to be making a moral judgment as though this was the first time one group has tried to do away with another. My point is that it is the first obvious instance of an industrialized power doing this and that the industrial part of it was merely a result of them being an industrial power and not because they wanted to specifically industrialize mass murder. No one talks about the industrialized killing of civilians as a result of carpet bombing do they but the process is the same.
I'm not approaching this from a moralistic stance at all. People have been killing each other en masse for a long time now. I'm just pointing out the uniqueness of the Holocuast. There really isn't anything else in history that quite matches up to it, not in body count but in the way it was executed. Soviet Russia was an industrial power, and it also committed acts of genocide. But it didn't industrialise the process.
And carpet bombing civillians, which I would still consider a war crime, is not genocide.
EDIT: Unless you were killing civilians for the sake of them being civilians of a particular race/nationality/group, rather than these civilians getting cuaght up in an act of war. And it still wouldn' have meant it was an industrialised form of genocide.
Hitler didn't attack other nations with gas chambers, he sent his armies into them with good old guns and bayonets.
And now you're no longer talking about genocide.
Of course I am, you are the one who suggested that Hitler was all about gas chambers and therefore had nothing to do with blood being shed. Hitler was the leader of a nation that went to war, whatever went on in the camps was a sideshow to the war, not the other way around. In that regard he could be seen as a warlord albeit stretching the term. I don't regard him as the person in question but dismissing him because Khorne isn't into gas chambers as you suggested is not actually relevant given the massive war that was being waged at the time.
I'm just pointing out that the genocide of the Jews wouldn't have necessarily contributed to Hitler's ascension into Daemonhood. (It's... something special to be able to say that sentence and remain on topic ).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BluntmanDC wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:
cadbren wrote:
You went off on your own tangent, where Ghengis was actually an enviromentalist.
Why not, Hitler was a vegetarian and modern greenies love Stalin and other commie mass murderers. Does that have a point either? Not really, I just felt like putting it in there.
Hitler was not a vegetarian, it is a common piece of mis-knowledge.
'modern greenies'? don't quite know what tiny group you are talking about, but if you ask most people about Stalin, you won't get many positive opinions of him.
History is rife with such genocides, I'd also include the depopulation of the Scottish Highlands during the clearances. The only novel difference with the jews was that the Europeans under the lead of the Germans conducted a pogrom against the jews on a larger scale than any that had gone before and that it happened after the Industrial Revolution. I don't consider that a unique thing, simply a product of timing.
Bollocks, there have quite a few genocides since the Industrial Revolution. The exterminations in Germany was the first, and only, case of Genocide being Industrialised though. It's not a matter of timing, it's a matter of method. And it could also be considered a matter of goals. Most cases of genocide point to an attempt to cull or pacify a population through bloody retribution, there are few cases of genocides that I can definitely point out that the extermination of the targetted race was the sole goal, rather than taking or preserving territory/wealth/slaves/resources.
History is rife with such genocides, I'd also include the depopulation of the Scottish Highlands during the clearances. The only novel difference with the jews was that the Europeans under the lead of the Germans conducted a pogrom against the jews on a larger scale than any that had gone before and that it happened after the Industrial Revolution. I don't consider that a unique thing, simply a product of timing.
Bollocks, there have quite a few genocides since the Industrial Revolution. The exterminations in Germany was the first, and only, case of Genocide being Industrialised though. It's not a matter of timing, it's a matter of method. And it could also be considered a matter of goals. Most cases of genocide point to an attempt to cull or pacify a population through bloody retribution, there are few cases of genocides that I can definitely point out that the extermination of the targetted race was the sole goal, rather than taking or preserving territory/wealth/slaves/resources.
Bosnia? Tibet? Sudan? Iraq? Iran? Jerusalem?
Pick one
I don't recognise Jerusalem. It has a long history, after all. As for Iraq and Iran, they're also ancient. Are you reffering to Saddam's gassing the Kurds, or Alexander's purge of the Persian nobility?
Tibet = Territory
Bosnia = Very complex, lower levels were religously driven, overall theme was 'cleansing' or securing territory.
Yes, you could say that the people participating in these wanted their victim's race to be wiped from the face of the Earth, but it was always mixed up with wealth or inequality at its roots, such as Rwanda, where the Hutu working-class majority believed the Tutsi's (who made up a larger amount of the middle/upper class) were behind a conspiracy to take over the country. The massacre that followed could be described as a class upheaval (if you can stomach the murder of 800,000 people by calling it that), rather than a quest for racial purity. This is the difference, often genocides are born out of fear or retribution, the moments where it's about 'racial purity' are few and far between.
The Final Solution was much more concentrated in it's roots, driven by the desire for racial purity.
I dont give a damn whether you dont recognise them or not, genocide has been a part of the modern world, just because you dont recognise it doesnt mean it diddnt happen
And you say Tibet was over territory? it doesnt have anything to do with China shutting down the Dali Lama and removing him from power bedfore they invaded? That they crushed their religious system? That countless people, innocents died
what about the amritsa massacre, Mahatma Ghandi called for a peaceful protest and i dont know the exact number but over 200 people were shot, innocents all of them, in cold blood.
What about the recent war crimes tribunal about that turd of a man who sieged that town in northern europe and deprived them of thier basic human rights for years before rocketting them to death
No genocides? Pffft, just because you cant see them, i repeat, because YOU cant see them, doesnt mean they arnt there
Tyranic Marta wrote:I dont give a damn whether you dont recognise them or not, genocide has been a part of the modern world, just because you dont recognise it doesnt mean it diddnt happen
And you say Tibet was over territory? it doesnt have anything to do with China shutting down the Dali Lama and removing him from power bedfore they invaded? That they crushed their religious system? That countless people, innocents died
what about the amritsa massacre, Mahatma Ghandi called for a peaceful protest and i dont know the exact number but over 200 people were shot, innocents all of them, in cold blood.
What about the recent war crimes tribunal about that turd of a man who sieged that town in northern europe and deprived them of thier basic human rights for years before rocketting them to death
No genocides? Pffft, just because you cant see them, i repeat, because YOU cant see them, doesnt mean they arnt there
<comment removed>
I haven't said that there havn't been any genocides in the modern world, I'm saying that there hasn't been a genocide quite like the Nazi Holocaust.
Genocide-the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group.
genocide =/= mass killing. While both are bad genocide is the utter destruction while mass killings are that but to a lesser degree and likely localized. Ceases to be mass killing when it is no longer a localized event.
And i am not using websters dictionary again since genocide was apparently first used in 1944.
Tyranic Marta wrote:I dont give a damn whether you dont recognise them or not, genocide has been a part of the modern world, just because you dont recognise it doesnt mean it diddnt happen
And you say Tibet was over territory? it doesnt have anything to do with China shutting down the Dali Lama and removing him from power bedfore they invaded? That they crushed their religious system? That countless people, innocents died
I don't think you understand the timeline of China re-annexing Tibet and when the Dalai llama left the country.
what about the amritsa massacre, Mahatma Ghandi called for a peaceful protest and i dont know the exact number but over 200 people were shot, innocents all of them, in cold blood.
That isn't "genocide".
What about the recent war crimes tribunal about that turd of a man who sieged that town in northern europe and deprived them of thier basic human rights for years before rocketting them to death
"The Dude who did this thing in that place". Geez, do you even read what you're writing?
No genocides? Pffft, just because you cant see them, i repeat, because YOU cant see them, doesnt mean they arnt there
Just man up and admit that you don't even know what "Genocide" means. That you chose examples that were categorically NOT genocides kinda shows it.
Not that the rest of the thread is better. I'm surprised no one has mentioned Rwanda, Darfur, Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, East Timor etc.
Tyranic Marta wrote:I dont give a damn whether you dont recognise them or not, genocide has been a part of the modern world, just because you dont recognise it doesnt mean it diddnt happen
And you say Tibet was over territory? it doesnt have anything to do with China shutting down the Dali Lama and removing him from power bedfore they invaded? That they crushed their religious system? That countless people, innocents died
what about the amritsa massacre, Mahatma Ghandi called for a peaceful protest and i dont know the exact number but over 200 people were shot, innocents all of them, in cold blood.
What about the recent war crimes tribunal about that turd of a man who sieged that town in northern europe and deprived them of thier basic human rights for years before rocketting them to death
No genocides? Pffft, just because you cant see them, i repeat, because YOU cant see them, doesnt mean they arnt there
You're an idiot. Or you've misread my post.The latter is much more likely.
I haven't said that there havn't been any genocides in the modern world, I'm saying that there hasn't been a genocide quite like the Nazi Holocaust.
Actually, given the examples he employed, the former is all but certain.
