Carthage by the Romans does not make sense because the city was inhabited pretty much continuosly after the conquest and more importanlty there are Punic inscriptions in the area many generations after the end of the 3rd Punic War.
Island populations are often quite vulnerable.
Consider Christopher Columbus’s (and sons’) conquest and enslavement of the inhabitants of Hispaniola (and other Carribbean islands)–some reports of a population of possibly over 1 million reduced to tens of thousands in only a little over twenty years, and to fewer than 500 in a little over fifty years. Smallpox had no small role to play, but so did the inhuman, brutal treatment of the native people.
Here’s another cite for the genocide of the Taíno people by the Spaniards.
I thought it was increasingly believed that the Anasazi did not disappear, but were the ancestors of the present Pueblo. (Utah History to Go)
I’m bookmarking the page for later perusal.
The Caribs are actually the only indigenous group in the Caribbean that survived with some cultural identity intact.
The Taino of the Greater Antilles became extinct as a culture not long after the arrival of the Spanish, although many modern inhabitants are their descendants.* The Lucayans of the Bahamas, a Taino group, are essentially completely gone.
ETA. I see Knorf and KarlGrenze already mentioned this.
There’s one Jew left in Afghanistan. So not quite 100% successful, but pretty close. Don’t think there are many Jews left in places like Egypt or Syria, but can’t say if they’re completely gone. Christians have also been greatly religiously cleansed in the same region, but not quite gone yet.
Germans in East Prussia and the other regions where they used to be a sizeable minority. Pretty much gone, but not completely.
What is this list supposed to show?
Does it show how many civilians died or did NOT die in comparison to how many soldiers died?
Of course not.
This list also shows, from the beginning of mankind, until 1945, 20major conflicts :smack: .
I am not saying that there is something wrong with this list.
But it’s not supposed to prove something.
It just shows some figures and some estimates, for those interested.
It’s not a catalog of the human history, as you are trying to portray it…
You think there were more than 15 million soldiers involved in the Mongol conquests?
You do realise it’s a sorted list of the largest (deaths >1 000 000) wars/genocides, not a comprehensive list, right? I mean, it even says so in the description (Volhynia shouldn’t be on that list by it’s own standards, but that’s Wiki for you). :smack: is right.
If only there was some sort of way to get from that list to more comprehensive articles that discuss each item in detail. If only…
Alessan doesn’t have to have his one link be a catalogue, when such words as “all the people, both men and women, were driven out onto the plain, and divided in accordance with their usual custom, then they were all slain” and “For example, after the conquest of Urgench, each Mongol warrior – in an army group that might have consisted of two tumens (units of 10,000) – was required to execute 24 people” are available to anyone with a working browser capable of following hyperlinks.
You’re completely wrong about “most cultures” giving a damn about killing women and children - it’s a modern nicety you really don’t find much of, historically. But by all means, double down on your error.
I think you are drastically mixing up the concepts of “genocide” and “migration” or “population transfer”, with some “ethnic cleansing” thrown in.
When a particular ethnic/cultural group or a large part of it is effectively wiped out in its native location specifically by mass murder, that’s genocide. When most of them relocate somewhere else, even if they are spurred on to do so by oppression and persecution including some killings, that’s not genocide.
Some people are denying this but I say it’s roughly true. I was at a party and discussing this with some lady, and I took the dreary position, and she pointed out that deliberate, planned total annihilations were the exception. Yes, it hapens, but doesn’t mean it’s common. It needs to be noted that such endeavors are very resource-consuming, and ultimately even those who want to kill know that they need the other side for economic purposes. They might not trade like crazy, but an entire people gone sure as hell reduces the productive capacity of the world.
If you’re talking Nazi-style death camps, yes. But that’s not the sum of genocide by any means. Everything from forced migration to wastelands to induced famine to stolen generations of children to genocidal rape are included. And that shit isn’t really the exception, it’s the norm.
I disagree. I mean, the fact that you wouldn’t find a single decade in the last century where there hasn’t been at least one ongoing genocide somewhere, gives the lie to that notion.
You think génocidaires are rational people doing fucking cost-benefit calculations?
Of course, the 20th was a highly unusual century in many ways.
This does raise an interesting question - why do some people genocide, and others not?
I would argue that most do it for what they perceive to be “rational, cost-benefit” reasons. All of which of course implies people acting without reference to any form of morality.
In particular, the usual reasons may include:
(1) Terrorism - to induce others to surrender to the killers in hope of better treatment (or at least, to not oppose the killers). This clearly is what motivated the Mongols. Defy the Mongols - or worse, kill a Mongol ambassador - and your entire population would die; surrender and pay tribute, and you live.
(2) Displacement - to take the other population’s lands. This may be deliberate (kill everyone on the other person’s lands, and no-one is left to oppose you) or it may simply be an effect (take all the other person’s lands, that they need to live on, and you are condemning them to death). This is a common fate of technologically primitive peoples faced with European settlers - like the Tazmanians.
(3) Ending an ancestral feud - the ‘Hatfield and McCoys’ writ large. This is the realm of “Final Solutions” to the “[Other Ethnicity] problem”. This one is the most likely to show a wide divergence between actual and perceived benefits - the Nazis, for example, simply invented an “ancestral feud” with the Jews that did not, in point of fact, exist.
In general, genocide of a technologically-equal people is actually pretty uncommon: there is, usually, more to be made by enslaving them, or simply displacing them, or ruling over them and extracting tribute. For example, allegedly at one point the Mongols considered genocide against the Northern Chinese, to expand the range of their grasslands; they were persuaded that ruling the Chinese “paid”.
Oh, genocide was constant in the preceding centuries, too, I shouldn’t wonder. But EdwinAmi was using the present tense, and it’s ridiculous to suggest that it’s not common. I mean, other people may have forgotten the Darfur genocide is ongoing, I haven’t.
It should perhaps be added that in Empires of the Silk Road, Beckwith claims that razing cities that refused to surrender - and in the process killing off a majority of at least the male population - was standard practice back then, and in no way a uniquely Mongol quirk.
He considers it a great historical injustice that the Mongols and other Central Asian peoples have been burdened with a reputation for excessive cruelty, while the “littoral cultures” - the Romans to the West, and the Chinese to the East - have gotten off the hook.
Yes, Nature, and including of course, human nature, is a practical “person” and a realist.
I dunno, the Romans at least certainly have a reputation for being - well, slightly harsh - with defeated cities. The legend of what happened to Carthage and Jerusalem lives on.
The Chinese get off lightly in the West, mostly out of a near complete ignorance of Chinese history in the West.
Nonetheless, your point is a good one - lots and lots of folks used genocide-for-terrorism. The Mongols are just, rightly or wrongly, a good example - partly because, being so alien to many of the places they took, other issues (like pre-existing ethnic feuds) are simply not involved. When the Mongols attacked Europe, few knew who they were or where they came from - or if they were even human! 
Yeah, I knew I should have thrown a “relatively speaking” in there - or rather, a “compared to the Mongols.”
I think there is also this - that much of the imagry associated with “the Mongols” more properly belongs to the later, and in many ways nastier, Tamerlane (the historic military leader, not the SD poster 
).
Also, there appears to be a sort of revival of interest in the Mongols recently, with them being viewed more as custodians of the “pax Mongolica” and opening up the east-west trade routes, than as merciless barbarians.