+24
Ghengis Khan might have the highest bodycount in history, no matter which definition you use. amirite?
by Anonymous1 week ago
Yes
by Candid_Jaguar1 week ago
Ah there it is! Quality history right here folks. So come back tomorrow when we tell you how the dinosaurs really died and the truth might shock you…it was meth
by lucas761 week ago
rick and mort refrence!
by Distinct-Print31741 week ago
What was their name again I kinda forget...
by Anonymous1 week ago
This is great because it highlights the fact that anyone who uses the term to refer to their sexual adventures makes themselves sound like a necrophiliac. "Body count"=dead bodies, always and forever.
by Anonymous1 week ago
I mean I'm sure his dead body count was sizable too
by Anonymous1 week ago
And that venn overlapped I'm sure.
by Anonymous1 week ago
Mosquito: "Hold My Beer"
by Anonymous1 week ago
By percentage of people alive at the time, he had to.
by Anonymous1 week ago
"Body count" means people killed, not people slept with
by Elmoreswift1 week ago
That's a nice way of putting biggest serial rapist in history.
by hermina981 week ago
Yeah. He's a cool symbol and all but no, he was a horrible creature. Regardless of what side your on or what you care about more we should all be agreeing on this
by Anonymous1 week ago
If your definition of "body count" includes "people who died as a result of one's actions" then Thomas Midgley Jr. has that man beat by far
by Anonymous1 week ago
Please explain
by Elmoreswift1 week ago
Who dat
by Anonymous1 week ago
I mean MAO beats khan in one category for sure.
by Anonymous1 week ago
Not likely. The Mongol conquests killed tens of millions of people, and .5% of the world population is descended from Genghis.
by Anonymous1 week ago
And what do you know of maos china? If you normalize by percentage of world population maybe but... on raw numbers it isn't khan. To be fair he was handicapped by being many generations of exponential population growth behind.
by Anonymous1 week ago
There is also the whole WW2 thing. Something like 70 million dead. If we're pinning the entirety of the deaths associated with the Mongol conquests on Khan, we may as well do the same to say.. Hitler. Mao's China also seems to have lost a comparable number due to starvation, persecution, or other such things. So.. yeah.
by melba741 week ago
It really depends on what estimates you look at. All we can really do is speculate since we don't have firm numbers. If I was a betting man, and we were including starvation in Mao's totals, I would say that Mao is probably responsible for more deaths. But likely not by much. As a percentage of the world population, it's obviously no contest.
by Anonymous1 week ago
Well If I were a betting man and we were including starvation I would take a 10:1 bet on Mao. Also I am a betting man.
by Anonymous1 week ago
I've heard that Mao had some mad rizz
by Own_Storage1 week ago
Being the leader of hundreds of millions offers some amount of social advantage.
by Anonymous1 week ago
Funny enough he literally did. That's how he got an army.
by Candid_Jaguar 1 week ago
by lucas76 1 week ago
by Distinct-Print3174 1 week ago
by Anonymous 1 week ago
by Anonymous 1 week ago
by Anonymous 1 week ago
by Anonymous 1 week ago
by Anonymous 1 week ago
by Anonymous 1 week ago
by Elmoreswift 1 week ago
by hermina98 1 week ago
by Anonymous 1 week ago
by Anonymous 1 week ago
by Elmoreswift 1 week ago
by Anonymous 1 week ago
by Anonymous 1 week ago
by Anonymous 1 week ago
by Anonymous 1 week ago
by melba74 1 week ago
by Anonymous 1 week ago
by Anonymous 1 week ago
by Own_Storage 1 week ago
by Anonymous 1 week ago
by Anonymous 1 week ago
by Anonymous 1 week ago
by Anonymous 1 week ago