Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

DrChaos wrote:

Shady Pigeon wrote:

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.

Good point. It's getting less likely that it's Hitler, or indeed many other political dictators, they just weren't Khorney enough.

iproxtaco wrote:

DrChaos wrote:

Shady Pigeon wrote:

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

Hmm, it conflicts with what I've read about him and been told, but I'm still not convinced.

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.

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?

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.

It would make sense, that picture screams Khorne

romegamer wrote:It would make sense, that picture screams Khorne

Skulls for the skull hat!

^ Win.

+1. I agree with Gengis Khan. He killed aproximately 33 million Chinese, most of them civilians.

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.

Please read the dakka posting rules. Seriously.

No one was saying anything about this...
It's completely irrelevant...

Preparing for this thread to dissolve in;

3

2

1

Sweet Charlton Heston on a rubber crutch, what did I just read?

Ol' Khan isn't a very good choice if we're going for pure-Khorne stuff.

Genghis Khan... a pretty cool guy.

The Crusader Of 42 wrote:Wait! I got one!

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.

MountainSquid wrote:

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.

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

MountainSquid wrote:

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.

True, true. However, if he means that, he needs to not use the phrase "largest empire in history." That implies ALL of time.

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*