Ghengis Khan might have the highest bodycount in history, no matter which definition you use. amirite?

Yes

by Candid_Jaguar 1 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 lucas76 1 week ago

rick and mort refrence!

by Distinct-Print3174 1 week ago

What was their name again I kinda forget...

by Anonymous 1 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 Anonymous 1 week ago

I mean I'm sure his dead body count was sizable too

by Anonymous 1 week ago

And that venn overlapped I'm sure.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Mosquito: "Hold My Beer"

by Anonymous 1 week ago

By percentage of people alive at the time, he had to.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

"Body count" means people killed, not people slept with

by Elmoreswift 1 week ago

That's a nice way of putting biggest serial rapist in history.

by hermina98 1 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 Anonymous 1 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 Anonymous 1 week ago

Please explain

by Elmoreswift 1 week ago

Who dat

by Anonymous 1 week ago

I mean MAO beats khan in one category for sure.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Not likely. The Mongol conquests killed tens of millions of people, and .5% of the world population is descended from Genghis.

by Anonymous 1 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 Anonymous 1 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 melba74 1 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 Anonymous 1 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 Anonymous 1 week ago

I've heard that Mao had some mad rizz

by Own_Storage 1 week ago

Being the leader of hundreds of millions offers some amount of social advantage.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Funny enough he literally did. That's how he got an army.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Idk man Johnny Sins gotta be up there

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Definitely not

by Anonymous 1 week ago