I think Spanish Coquisadors were tye most cruel ones from the options. Because they murdered all innocent Aztecs violently for gold. The Aztecs first tought that they were gods and let them enter their cities peacefully, but they didnt forgive anybody, including all villagers.

And I heard another thing about the invasion of south America. Cortez took the chief, or prince of a city and then, he promised to let the prince live if they gave all the gold and treasure of the city. And they accepted the deal. But after Cortez recieved all gold of the city, he tortured the prince and killed both the prince and the villagers of the city. Obvious cruelty...

I would day it's the SS.

On that list, I'd go with WWII-era Japanese.

Look at their track record:

Mass rapes in Korea

The "Rape of Nanking"

The Bataan "Death March"

Tojo's murder of American airmen

The release of Anthrax throughout China--germ warfare

Medical experiments on Chinese civilians and Allied POWs

***

Also, I have to laugh at those who criticize the Spanish conquistadores, who were certainly no more ruthless than any other soldiers in Europe or the Middle East at that time, let alone the Aztecs, whose entire culture was rooted in an obsession with death and human sacrifice. 

And the Ottoman Turks would certainly qualify too--both for the early modern period (the infamous Wallachian voivode, Vlad Dracula, took his preferred method of execution--impalement--from the Turks), and the 20th century (the Armenian Genocide of 1915).

A silly question. Need a timeframe, war or battle list, treatment of populace, treatment of prisoners, etc.

Nazi's and Soviets are tops in the 20'th century.

Royal Brittania are tops in the 19'th century. Must be the empires needs to use other nationalities to fight for the Brits in various wars.

American treatment of native indians is subhuman.

Spaniards are tops in cruel treatment of the southern Americas.

Roman legions deserve moore attention but don't know enough of their history. Yet their downfall is full of immoral activities.

Mongol hordes had a systematic extermination policy. Therefore, tops in their era.

Ottomans were to span a large period of history. Their main cruelty can stem from transfering of populations. Yet no population has suffered excile and the brunt of so many wars as have the Ottomans. Therefore, only marginal cruelty.

Crusades were for two causes - conquering holy lands and employement for the downtrodden. Got to love lust for luxury items or be killed, i.e. - Latin crusade agaisnst eastern orthodox Byzantines.

Id say its a tiue between WW2 era Japan and the SS, f9ollowed by the Assyrians

It may seem that the conquistadores are bad too but most of th epeople that died around them whered due to disease which may have aided them but wasn not intentional.

japanese soldiers were definitely more cruel.

so there are quite a few of russian descends in europe.

That is a Joke, the Turks ruled the Balkan (South-East-Europe) over 500 Years and 90% of all Balkanians are still Christians.

Come on buddy. SO what, the nazis ruled over the jews and almost All are still jewish. The killings prehaps are a little mopre important than the conversions..

True... but only less than 1% of those inhabiting Turkey are Christians.

It’ll be between the moguls, and the Japanese.

That is because there was a huge population exchange between Greece and Turkey

I'm afraid this thread will degenerate into another "ratio of ethnics in the forum" thread.  -.-;

Anyway, I think the worst army in terms of massacre are the mongols.  They just killed, killed, and not to forget, plunder and rape.  You just have to read their campaign on East Europe to believe their cruelty.  Well, even if they were cruel, they are the most admired in these days. 

 The least cruel would be the french army, our mission was to bring proper civilisation to the world, the light of the world. Well this can lead to excess sometime, but we only reacted violently depending on what the enemy doing.

 Damn we are so different we used to make wars just to spread the principles of freedom, this is also our weakness, you teach someone about freedom and the revolution, they will certainly revolt against you.

 I guess the yanks are just copycat in the end, a sort of french and english hybrid, they make war because they are at the same time greedy(English trait) and also to spread freedom (they borrow that from the french revolution)

 The least cruel would be the french army, our mission was to bring proper civilisation to the world, the light of the world. Well this can lead to excess sometime, but we only reacted violently depending on what the enemy doing.

 Damn we are so different we used to make wars just to spread the principles of freedom, this is also our weakness, you teach someone about freedom and the revolution, they will certainly revolt against you.

 I guess the yanks are just copycat in the end, a sort of french and english hybrid, they make war because they are at the same time greedy(English trait) and also to spread freedom (they borrow that from the french revolution)

[/QUOTE

The French army is not cruel,but not least cruel for what they did in the Ottoman Empire in the WW1

This is French fascism. First be civilised then try to spread your civilization.

What does France do in Ivory Coast? Apart from massacring and inflicting internal war..... Just look at Algeria. You have massacred 1,5 million Algerians to spread "French principles of freedom".  You have to be ashamed istead of talking about ridiculous French opinions.

Did they ask you "come and teach us about freedom"?

You are giving a task to yourselves. I hope France can cure herself from this mental illness.

I ceartainly agree.(Lafý yedirdin adama)

 The ottoman Empire deserved a worse fate if you tell me.

 You don;t know what facism is. .

 You know little about thee Ivory coast. We are there to protect, without us that country will fall apart in a civil war. We have no pretention here. We are not occupying the bloody country, the President asked us to come here. If we are told to go, we will be obliged to live the country. Brave soldiers are protecting the country from a civil war and that's all you got to say.  

Yeah,sure

 we didn't punish anyone you punish yourself, your blood on your own hands. The ottomans shouldn't have joined the war on the enemies side they should have stayed neutral. Not only you didn't learn your lesson during WW1, you further allied the worst regime the world has ever seen during the WW2, a regime hell bent on the annilation of France and to restore tyranny in the world.   Now I sound like a total bigot I know, but this is the truth.

 Japanese the worst, follow closely by the mongols hordes. But the mongols can be forgiven, because in those time tyranny was common practice..

The ottomans did not exist in the WW2

We were on your side in the WW2

You do sound like a bigot

"We were on your side in the WW2"

What did Turkey do during the war?

Werent you neutral?

I think the crusaders were the most bloodthirsty and cruel.They left nearly nothing alive on their way to Jerusalem.Jerusalem had been invaded many times before but had never seen such slaughter.

We joined towards the end of the war.

Well said Gazi.

So few votes for the Red Army???

No

Yes.As Gazi said the crusaders massackered everywhere,killed everyone.

It wasnt just muslims they killed either. Their first act was to sack Byzantium, the so called eastern capital of Christianity. After they had actually gotten to the Holy Land the crusaders killed many Jews and also some Armenian and Syrian Christians who were living in the levent.

Likewise when th Teutonic Knights invaded Poland and the Baltic states they slaughtered pagan and converted christian indiscriminately.

I know,

And the Red Army has so few votes , because none of the Read Army "friends" is here! lol. I see you voted for them. I voted, i think for the Red Army, because i saw the crusaders too lately.

The Serbians, especially the Arkanovci or Arkans Tigers.

The serbian Unit was founded of a Serbian-American (Arkan Zeljko Raznatovic), who was a serial bankrobber and Theaf in Western-Europe, then gots tha Mafia Boss of Belgrade.

As the the Secession-Wars in Croatia and Bosnia 1991 begun, he formed a Unit which consists of Mafiosi, Hooligans, Prisoners and other socipaths. His Unit commited the Most of the Serbian War Crimes like Killings of Civilians (even children), rape, and Louting... he louted so much in Croatia and Bosnia later  that he gots one of the richest Men of South-East Europe. He also led Concentration-Camps for Non-Serbs...

He forced the best known Yugoslaw Diva to marry him, or else he would kill her. He behaved like a King. After the Attack of Nato-Forces on Serbia due to the Genocid in Kosovo, the regime of Milosevic (His Boss) troubled, he was "shooted".

Nearly everybody believes that this Monster is still alive.

 First sorry about my mistake concerning turks during WW2 allying the axis.

 About crusaders please note, crusaders were only christians by name and they were acting contrairy to the christian doctrine of peace and love. Again this was medieval time. I'm a catholic, but I have no pretention haven't been to church for years and certainly don't behave like a catholic is supposed to do. It's not christianism the fault, it's me and the  society sure do encourage my behaviour.

 Now let have a look on the other side, the muslim. They are invaders and destroyer of civilisation, the once mighty and civilised Persian went under their swords, proving my point. What a loss to mankind this was. Now  can argue the muslims weren't following the Islamic doctrine. Invasion and conquest of other people to impose thei religion is in their doctrine, Mohammed was a warrior himself. So the fault doesn't lie in the people but in their doctrine. And this is a far worse reality.

 Please note I'm not talking from a religious POV (I'm more an atheist anyway and I'm not a racist ) but from historical POV. Now all muslims were supposed to be warriors weren't they, but since they couldn't follow their doctrines, their behaviour changed and they rather settled down. my point can "Christians" and muslims coexist, possible, but don't you politicians take the bloody risk of trying it. 

NO.Muslims are not destroyers and plague bearers blahblahblah....Ý'm an atheist.nOt muslim not christian.But i know that the original religion said to love charish and use sciece,enlightment.Ýt changed over the years of the prophet's death.And the persian empire;the CÝVÝLÝSED GREEKS burned it down too.Guess they asked for it.

The Arabs did spread Islam by forcing the people they conquered   but it was still more tolerant than Christian Europe at that time (or up to the early 17th century)

In WW2,Turkey agreed a pact with Britain and France at the start of the war.According to this pact,Turkish Army would be an allied country when Germans if had done sth dangerous for Turkey.And USSR,Britain and France would have used Turkish bases and harbours.

When it comes to the crueliest;Crusades were really maniac.They weren't fierce only against the Muslims,they killed so many Jews and Orthodoxes.

• In the first crusade,near Iznik,they even killed the new born babies and they grilled those babies on fire.
• In the same Crusade,in Antioch they killed the everyone they saw in the city.
• While they were on the road to Jerusalem they murdered everyone they see;Historian Radulfus Cadomensis said that:"Our soldiers cooked Muslims in meal cauldrons and they stabbed the children on the fire."

  There are lots of like these;if you want I will write;but these are already disgusting enough I think.

The ones who don't like Turks did this.Ottomans couldn't be the crueliest.

The fault is adding Ottomans to this list,Ottomans were always tolerant against the ethnic minorities in the empire.

Conquistadores weren't all that bad.They did conquer the native people,and killed many,but you forget,they didn't go and force the Native Americans to total isolation.The Native American population stayed there in South America,and evolved into the form of Creoles and Mestizos.The Americans were more cruel to Natives than the Spanish,the Spanish did not force an entire population to almost certain extinction by pushing them to the sea like the Americans did with the plains indians.Not only that,but the Americans fought the Natives more than the Spanish did with their South American Natives.The Spanish didn't make the Natives go on a "Trail of Tears",in which the Americans did,which killed thousands of Native Americans.

The Conquistadores were also followed by priests and such,which tried to convert the Natives before they attacked.Plus,the conquistadores actually gained allies within these Natives,and in American case,you have the Natives fighting against them in the war of 1812,the Plain War in the mid to late 19 century,and countless others.The Aztecs were involved in Human Sacrifice.This disgusted the Spaniard Conquistadores.The Incas were pretty much the same,only slightly more mild.

I`m south american and i can say:

The Spanish not even tryed to understand the native culture,

for astecs, to be sacrifised was an honor,

And it´s truth,

in counties like argentina and cuba they killed everyone

true

alas we're telling in vain fellow,

these crusaders are blinded with the "modern civilization" motto

its true about the sacrifice and they don't understand this, use it the reason for the massacres they re responsible of

The Soviet army raped half of European women during the great invasion, split people into four pieces with horses and then did some really awful things too, by their scale i mean. Some smarter people, like my grandmothers father hid anything female on the farm when a soldier of the Red Army was insight.

From what I can say,the Spaniards used the sacrificing and cannibalism as a justification to conquer them.But there are more Natives in South America then in the US.In the US,the Native population is almost non-existent,most are up in the northwestern and southwestern.The Americans nearly wiped out all the Natives,by killing their source of food and clothing such as the buffalo,in whom the settlers just shot those animals down.

Because what he writes about is honour and culture of an old and far nation, but not ideological(!) reasons for sacrificing civilians in squares.

Like IMPALEMENT.

A technique they copied off Vlad of Tepes "the Impaler" that literally horrified them as we see in the Turkish Chronicle "Tursun-beg".
So knowing of it's great results on the army's moral, they  put it into full force on the conquered lands and ôhe unarmed non-believers of Islam

Phallanx good point.But one thing wrong,we hung them at the end of the day.They stood there from sun up,to sundown

But the ones that were impaled were criminals(horrible ones)

So knowing of it's great results on the army's moral, they  put it into full force on the conquered lands and ôhe unarmed non-believers of Islam.

I may need to say you are wrong there.Vienna?constantinople?belgrad?All unarmed?We let them keep their religion

How could someone be so horny??

Gregorios was hanged because he supported the Greek rebellion with his follower Greek beys of Istanbul. He always idealised the new Christian Byzanthine Empire and he saw the Greek rebellions against the over tolerant Ottoman government as the only way to eliminate Muslim Turkish barbarians from history.

And yeah, we are humanity hater asian barbarians and we massacred 1,000,000,000 civilian Greeks. Satisfied?

Ahh, so the Patriarch allegedly supported the rebelion (always according to you!!!!)
I know you guys hate ZAMAN.COM simply because even though yours(turkish) it seems to be the only site you people have that see's thing under a more "western" perspective.

"When Patriarch Gregorios II could not prevent the Mora revolt in 1821, and thus could not fulfill his duties as "head of millet," he was hanged."
http://www.zaman.com/include/yazdir.php?bl=columnists& alt=&trh=20050418&hn=14636

As you see even "your" sources give no support to your ficticious historic views. There is absolutely NO reference of support, it clearly says that he could not prevent.
BIG difference if you ask me.

Even if this site is biased and you are right, did he really have to hang HIGH for dreaming and wanting to see his country free????

Man you got me wrong, I find no pleasure in you saying :
"we are humanity hater asian barbarians and we massacred 1,000,000,000 civilian Greeks"

But I do demand that you do show some respect to the proven MASSACRED Hellines, Assyrians, Armenians and Hellinic Pontians.
No mockery, accept what all historic sources prove. Not asking for much am I?

Sure you may be part of the "opposing" to the conquerers Albanians, sorry but in my "twisted" logic things a really different.

 First of all. I shouldnt even respond to that. You show disgraceful animosity toward my people.

I know my peoples history in the Ottoman Empire. But I also know Greece and Serbia's plans for Albania after they had just freed themselves from an oppressor. 

 And your acting like I should be angry at my past for it taking part in the empire. Im not. At all. We were able to rule ourselves and breach and take high rank and power in a foreign empire. Should I see a problem in that? However I wont act like I am proud of falling into the Ottoman Empire. Im not, my people fought hard to keep them out. and here is a quote from a Ottoman historian on Albanians Ibn-Kemal 1468-1531)

"The Albanians, these tigers of mountain warfare, have as their religion rebellion. Even their worst warrior is one of the strongest and bravest on the battle-field, just as if he was a knight on a legendary horse. But he has no horse, nor proper weapon for battle. "

It goes to show something that Albanians were still the ones free from Ottoman rule when all of the Balkans was being taken over.

Anyway, I did not sign up to this site for nationalistic disputes with people. So if your trying to get me into one. Please don't.

Phallanx and his spirited mind, tell us if you know of any Greek atrocities towards conquered peoples. You know, the ones that you never mention. I guess you could count your lucky stars that those 'hated' Turks never did in your ancestors enough.

 My condolences,

p.s.-Hope you get over your illness soon.

What is wrong with wanting to enlarge their state with more greeks/serbs/ or bulgarians after they broke away from the oppressor? Albania was not a state, it was more of a region with less than 2 million Albanians at the time, with considerable Greek, Bulgarian, and Serbian minorities, of course they "dreamed" of incoorperating them into their state, but today their is an Albanian state, so I guess these peoples plans were unaccomplished, to "destroy" the Albanian "state"

Originally posted by Phallanx What kind of wet dreams of atrocities do you have? I've seen no one in this topic question why the Hellines aren't in the poll so why don't you provide some info. Hell we just might top the list providing you are right As for this "do them in", man where are your manners???? I suggest you take a goooooood and looooong look in a mirror and when you see NO mongoloid facial characteristics, you know what I'm talking about, the high cheekbones and the inner eyelids, then dear friend, think twice about WHO you were allegedly supposed to "do in" and who can say that he is trully lucky.

Phallanx don't be so shocked when someone shows equal allegations against Greeks. You think you could just get away with your disjointed views on history? Try looking up any book on Greek atrocities in the Balkans, Anatolia, Cyprus to name a few. If you want something more recent: 

Hmm...I wonder why no one put the German Army during World War II!

They definitely deserve a spot on this list,seeing as how they nearly caused World War II Europe to destruction by waging war against so many of those countries,and thereby provoking the Red Army to come in,and do more destruction.

It's forbidden now,i think because we get angry and say things we don't actually mean.The discussions get too hostile.

And correction,adress the islamist ottoman empire,not Turkey

the assyrian when they destroyed babylon ,the babylonian when they destroyed jerousalem ,the mongol in the siege of baghdad ,the crusader they killed in one day more than 70000 muslims in holyland,the soviet army in the invasion of poland  and hitler army in masacared of jewish