Hitler's Murders Compared To Roman Empire

[bernstein]

OK. so hitler killed 6 million people, in pure murder (not including POW's or any other such), just normal civilians.

It is said in this book im reading it was the most people ever killed so quickly in so short time in history.

 

I was wondering..:

 

6 million compared to 1930-1940's total world population.

 

I was wondering to what extent did the romans actually exterminate cities (or perhaps hundres of cities)

, and if they had killed more than hitler has, in shorter or equall period of time.

not in actuall numbers, but in 'relative' numbers, if you compare to entire world population.

 

Ok the question maybe a bit confusing but here is an example:

suppose hitler killed 1 out of 1000 people (in 1930'-40's total population) in 5 years or so.

while romans may have killed 1 out of 500 total world population during the roman might (?)

 

So who has killed more (relative to total world population), in shorter period of time?

 

Or if you know any other civilization that has exterminated more civilians than hitler has (again in relative numbers)

[haimore]

Hard to answer the question...you've also got to figure in time frames too. Hitler was in power...what...12 years? He was responsible in that time for the death of not 6 million...that was just the Jews...his total casualty list is closer to 50 million.

[Jimbow]

Here are links to historical population estimates to help you out:

 

Historical Estimates of World Population

 

Historical Estimates of World Population 2

 

Historicl Human Populations

 

As Rome went from somewhere around 753 BCE to 850 CE (correct me if I'm wrong) I think you can take the average estimate at 1 CE, which seems to be around 100,000,000. The problem is different estimates put it at 300,000,000. Let's say 200,000,000 then.

 

As Hitler was in power, initially as Chancellor, from 1933 to 1945 (1948 according to 'Hellboy', but I don't trust that data ) I think it's safe to use the average population of 1930 at 2,070,000,000.

 

So, at 50 million deaths, Hitler's actions caused the deaths of 2.42% of the world's population. As a yearly average, that makes it 4,166,667 per year.

 

Caesar and others seem to have been rather good at genocide also, so it would need to include those deaths. This is a link to the

Body Count of the Roman Era. The author agrees all figures are debatable, and Gibbon is used heavily. It says the body count is 8,665,000. averaged over 603 years, this makes the average annual body count to be 14,370 deaths. Put that against the 200,000,000 average population, you have 0.00007185% per year.

 

I'm not feeling too well, so my maths could be up the spout.

 

As an annual average death toll though, I reckon it to be:

 

Hitler and the Nazis; 4,166,667 pa

Rome 753 BCE to 850 CE; 14,370 pa

 

The population of 1930 CE was 10.35 times that of 1 CE. The average death toll was 289.96 times greater per annum, without population taken into account. I make it to be 28.02 times greater on average taking population numbers into account.

 

So, Hitler killed over 28 times more people than the Romans. No contest, and rather grim considering the events and death tolls from comparable situations of the last 100 years, when we are supposed to be more 'advanced' than Rome. However, advances in medicine have likely saved a lot more lives, so it may be interesting to compare it with general mortality rates as well.

 

 

Jim.

 

Correct me, expecially as I put the end of the Roman era at 850 CE, and the data is likely incorrect. Others may want to work it out to 600 CE with different data. And, my maths are awful, so I don't mind being slapped down with major corrections, I'd prefer to know the real figures.

[haimore]

Jim,

 

Thanks for the analysis.

[Ursus]

Stalin and Mao both killed more of their own people than Hitler. By far if the estimates are accurate.

 

 

I'm not really sure why the wide span of the Roman Empire is being compared to the twelve year reign of a genocidal maniac.

[Jimbow]

Doing the maths got my brain into gear on a Saturday morning. But there are those who compare the Romans as being the original fascist state. I know National Socialism was not Fascism, but ....... you know.

 

For me, it showed the Romans, on average, were pussycats to what others are possible of in very recent history, be it Nazis, Fascists, Communists, etc, etc. However, If you took an individual like Caesar in Gaul, the comparison could likely be different. That would probably be a better comparison to make.

 

1 million killed over 9 years. That would mean around 10,350,000 at 1930 population stats, making 1,150,000 killed per annum. Still around one quarter of the deaths attributed to Hitler.

 

I'm feeling a bit ghoulish now, and it's all rather depressing. I think I'd rather debate tunic and scutum colours in the Roman army.

 

Jim.

[Ursus]

I think the Romans were no more violent than the people that surrounded them. In comparison to some, they were a great deal less violent. The Celts used to cut people's heads off for religious and ornamental reasons. The Germanic hordes used to throw children in the air and run them threw with spears as they fell back to earth. The Romans were often in awe of their barbarian opponents; for the Romans may not have always fought for the most noble of reasons, but they generally didn't declare war just for the sheer heck of it.

 

Roman foreign policy was among the most liberal of the ancient world. The conquered peoples were generally allowed to run their own affairs, and the local elites became citizens and even Senators. Romans didn't resort to violence unless they were teaching a lesson to a rebellious foe. They were implacable and ruthless enemies in battle, but that's how they won wars. We should judge conquerers by how they manage the peace, and from that standpoint Rome is rather enlightened as empires go.

 

I've heard the comparison to facism before and I just don't buy it one bit. True, they had a rather hardcore sense of civic duty to the State, which sometimes runs afoul of citizens of modern liberal democracies. The first Consul sentencing his own sons to death for conspiring against the Republic I think perfectly demonstrats the steel of the Roman soul. If we don't understand and appreciate that steel, I don't think we can understand and appreciate the Romans and their empire.

[Jimbow]

Forgetting fascism, I had a quick search for figures from the whole of the 20th Century. That really is depressing.

 

Average world population: 3,400,000,000

 

Total deaths caused by war, rebellion, civil war and genocide/democide:

Take your pick between 167,000,000 and 258,000,000.

D T McBride

 

In Rwanda in 1994, pop. 8.1 million, death toll from genocide on Tutsis was 800,000. And let's not forget Cambodia under Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge (est. 21% of the population over 4 years). The list goes on: raw figures

And; 30 Worst Atrocities of the 20th Century

 

Jim

 

I'm off to scutum and tunic colours.

[bernstein]

Ok thanks!

[haimore]

Stalin and Mao both killed more of their own people than Hitler. By far if the estimates are accurate.

 

 

I'm not really sure why the wide span of the Roman Empire is being compared to the twelve year reign of a genocidal maniac.

Stalin and Mao both killed more of their own people than Hitler. By far if the estimates are accurate.

 

 

Yep, Stalin was responsible for more deaths, over all, than Hitler, and Mao, even more than Stalin.

 

The Romans were indeed quite liberal for their day...among the most liberal. I think we get our jaundiced view of them from our christian back ground...what we read in the New Testament and the exaggerated (but still very real) persecutions.

[Jimbow]

Yep, Stalin was responsible for more deaths, over all, than Hitler, and Mao, even more than Stalin.

 

 

Within context of the original question, though, on an average annual basis Stalin and Mao pretty (tentatively) much killed the same amount of people, depending on which figures are used.

 

Mao: between 0.69 million, and 1.72 million a year.

Stalin: between 0.69 million, and 2.41 million a year.

 

However you look at the figures for Hitler, he pretty much surpasses them both by a long way (though how do you compare one murderous evil psycopath to another?) :

 

Between 1.67 and 4.16 million a year (20 or 50 million people 1933-45)

Between 2.86 and 7.14 million a year (20 or 50 million people 1938-45)

 

To me, it just makes me feel even more strongly against a single person having complete rule over any nation. Forget the abstract legal technicalities of their system of government, all of the above three held practical absolute power and autocracy. It makes me question whether intelligence levels have also dropped over the centuries, considering the authority the Roman emperors held, thinking of Marcus Aurelius and Vespasian in particular. I don't think Caligula or Caracalla even factor into the topic.

 

Then again, if they had the communications and transportation capabilities of the 20th C. who knows? I dare say a statistical mathematician somewhere could paint a different picture. And we have no statistics for slaves.

 

Jiim.

[Augustus]

The Romans never preached racial superiority, I think? Also most of their killing was done in battle, and the troops didn't seek reprisals on native towns. Remember too that thinking was different then, if an enemy lost a battle the Romans took the oppertunity for a free for all.

But I think they sought to mittigate any unnecesary slaughter (wouldn't make good policy when you are trying to occupy a land).

[Ursus]

The Romans tried to outlaw fighting as a way of life in the conquered Celtic and Germanic territories. The conquered tribalist societies often rebelled merely to assert their right to fight. I think Rome was rather mild compared to its neighbors. if they occasionally cracked down violently to supress a rebellion, well boo hoo.

 

 

And yes, the Christian and Jewish sources who have colored perceptions of Roman history are not exactly the most objective people.

[TMPikachu]

I think the Romans were no more violent than the people that surrounded them.  In comparison to some, they were a great deal less violent.  The Celts used to cut people's heads off for religious and ornamental reasons.  The Germanic hordes used to throw children in the air and run them threw with spears as they fell back to earth.  The Romans were often in awe of their  barbarian opponents; for the Romans may not have always fought for the most noble of reasons

 

Like getting more slaves to run their slave based economy. It's best to just take things at a neutral stance.

 

Slaves, yeah, but the Romans were pretty civilized

paved roads, haircuts, wild orgies and all that other cool stuff.

[bernstein]

The Germanic hordes used to throw children in the air and run them threw with spears as they fell back to earth. "

 

ok thats kind of funny in a sick way. im just curious what year is this in, and was this a typical tradition or an isolated event?

Also, was it something like the myth/fact (??)..the spartans let their babies into the forrest and if it came back..it was fit, if it didnt

then they let it die. (seem like a myth, but is the german one also a myth?)

 

could you mention a source where you found that the germans did such thing im just curious!