The 5 Most Terrifying Civilizations In The History of the World
They say that those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it, so pay attention for Christ's sake. It turns out that many of our ancestors achieved levels of violence that take them right out of the realm of "badass" and into the less cool area of ball-shriveling atrocity.
These are the civilizations you don't want to face during, say, your next time travel adventure. And yes, the Spartans are down there.
#5.
The Celts
History is kind of spotty on the Celts (they never wrote anything down, and many of the witnesses died brutally) but what facts survived confirm one thing: They had gigantic Celtic balls.
First of all, they had a thing for severed heads. After a long and trying battle they'd all unwind at the end of the day by collecting a few souvenir heads. Then they'd bring them home and decorate the house with them. So the average Celt home probably looked like a hunter's trophy room, crossed with the scene at the end of Halloween when all the mutilated bodies start popping up around every corner. Sweet dreams kids!
If they felt that yours was a head of particular importance, they'd embalm it and whip it out at parties to brag about how awesome they were. When they were alone they'd probably wiggle your jaw around and pretend you were complimenting them.
The reason for all of these head-chopping-good-times was that the Celts believed that the head held the soul, and so if you cut a dead guy's head off before all of that juicy soul leaked out of it, it was yours. A finders-keepers sort of deal, you might say.
A modern Celt.
So, Were They Really So Bad?
Hey, remember Braveheart? And how batshit insane Wallace's army looked with their faces painted blue?
Well, the Celts would sometimes paint themselves blue and fight completely naked. Just because. One would assume that fighting in the nude would present some rather sensitive targets to one's enemies (we're talking about their nuts), but it seems that the Celts were so frigging manly that they just didn't care. It was the ultimate insult: "I am not afraid of you, and to prove it, I have just laid my dong on your sword."
#4.
The Aztecs
You remember Temple of Doom, and how that unfortunate gentleman had his heart ripped out right before they dropped him down the lava hole? Well, picture lots of that, only this time mom isn't around to turn off the VCR and stop your crying. That's the Aztecs.
The Aztecs believed that for every 52 years that passed, the world would end unless the gods were strong enough. And, as is common knowledge, the best way to toughen up a god is with a steady stream of constant human sacrifice (along with a dash of cannibalism, just for good measure).
Most of the sacrificing went towards keeping their Sun god happy, and it took place on top of giant pyramid, so at least the view was probably pretty good. Then they'd hold you down, saw through your ribs and take out your heart (which was likely still beating). Then, as if things couldn't get any worse, they'd throw you down the staircase.
So, Were They Really So Bad?
Yes. Yes they were. Did we mention the cannibalism? After they removed your heart and threw you down the stairs, they'd eat your arms and thighs, and whatever other bits looked tasty (the nuts? We do not know).
Some historians think that nourishment was the main reason behind all of this willy-nilly human sacrifice, as the Aztecs had no domesticated animals to slaughter, and as such their diet was low in fat and animal-stuff. You know how it is if you've ever had a roommate try a vegetarian diet. It's just a matter of time until you start waking up with teeth marks on your extremities.
And that's not even the bad part. The Aztecs held themselves to a high standard and for every situation they asked, "Could we make this more gut-wrenchingly gruesome?" So, for instance, during the sacrifice to the fire god, a newly-wed couple would be tossed into, you guessed it, a fire. Then, right before they finally died (from their horrendous burns), they'd drag them out, flesh still smoking, and dig out their hearts.
Wait, it gets better! There was the offering to the earth goddess, which involved a young woman's skin being removed and worn around like a Silence of the Lambs-style serial killer flesh suit.
On one hand you might ask why none of the Aztecs thought this was odd. On the other hand, if somebody had an objection to the ceremonies we're guessing they kept that shit to themselves.
#3.
The Assyrians
The thing about the Assyrians is that they were basically the ancient Mesopotamian equivalent to that loveable team of underdogs in every sports movie. They had a lot of spunk and a can-do attitude, but, try as they might, they just couldn't seem to make it into the big leagues.
Luckily for them (and unluckily for everyone else), just as that loveable sports team will sooner or later stumble upon secret weapon, a magic dog with an unusual aptitude for kicking field goals perhaps, after a couple of hundred years of being constantly harassed by more powerful nations, the Assyrians came across their own secret weapon. No, it wasn't Emilio Estevez, but it was nearly as powerful.
It was iron. The Assyrians were the first people to start using iron weapons instead of bronze which, to put into a modern perspective, is sort of like showing up for a knife fight with the Death Star. Using iron made the Assyrians so near-invincible that, really, the other guys might as well have been swinging around bananas.
So, Were They Really So Bad?
Well, in a word, yes. Here's a cheery little quote from King Ashurnasirpal, who spent much of his spare time baking cherry pies for the homeless and teaching the neighborhood kids how to correctly adjust their bike helmets:
"I built a pillar over against his city gate, and I flayed all the chief men who had revolted, and I covered the pillar with their skins; some I walled up within the pillar, some I impaled upon the pillar on stakes, and others I bound to stakes round the about the pillar; many within the border of my own land I flayed, and I spread their skins upon the walls; and I cut off the limbs of the officers, of the royal officers who had rebelled."
"And then I was thinking about slap boxing with a lion, but only if there's time."
Ever have one of those days when you just wanted to get out of the house and flay somebody? Yep, you're probably a sociopath.
Sure, we understand that intimidation was how invading armies ended wars before they started, that this kind of psychological warfare was crucial for a conquering army. But reading that up there, we're pretty sure the Assyrians just enjoyed it.
I don't know if someone else mentioned this, but here it goes.
ReplyIron weapons have literally almost no advantage in combat over bronze weapons, the only advantage was Iron is cheaper and last's longer.
which means more weapons, which means more armed soldiers, which means a stronger fighting force.
//"the Celts believed that the head held the soul"//
ReplyWhich, given that the "soul" is just a function of the brain, means the Celts were pretty close to the mark there!
If you really want to find out how badass the Assyrians(I think it was the Assyrians) were, look up the true story of how the middle finger became an insult. Hint, hint, it doesn't have anything to do with the French or long bows, it's 1,000 times more awesome.
ReplyAbout the Spartans:
Reply Hide All See All 3 Replies#1 All Spartan men were soldiers, but they were also allowed the profession of farmer, when they were not at war. However, plots of land tended to be small(no sons to help work it) so they spent the majority of their time in fraternal lodge housings eating, drinking, and training.
#2 The thing about retrieving shields is total bs. Its a misinterpretation of a famous quote about the Spartans, "Coming home with his shield or upon it, a Spartan mother prepares her son for war". The quote did not intend that Spartans were put to death for losing their shield, it simply meant that in Sparta you were expected to either win the battle or die trying. Retreat, even tactical retreat was looked upon as cowardice, as was using any type of a missile or thrown weapon.
#3 The Spartans didn't kill slaves for fun, as is pointed out by another commenter they did it almost out of necessity. The number of soldiers in the Spartan army never numbered above 8,000, however, they generally had 200,000 - 250,000 slaves(or helots). They were constantly in danger of having the helots organize and overwhelm them(especially after they began encouraging helots to train as cavalry and missile troops to support the Spartan infantry). As a means of keeping the slaves in check, the Spartans would periodically declare war on the helots, slaughtering them in droves. This served as a means of keeping the helots terrified and subservient, checking the helot population, and giving the Spartans an opportunity to give untested youngsters some battle experience.
As for boys being encouraged to kill helots, it was not as bloodthristy or common as the article makes it out. They were encouraged to practice skills of stealth and combat more than they were encouraged to kill. These skills were most often practiced by boys below military age stealing food(they weren't fed on a regular basis and basically just roamed around in gangs looking for food and fighting each other), but occasionally some would undertake the mission of stealthily killing a helot. It was, however, intended to be secretive. The whole point, was to keep anyone from finding out who did the killing. If you were caught in the act, they beat the hell out of you(though admittedly, that wasn't for killing a helot, but for getting caught.)
#4 Men who retired from the army rather than being killed didn't receive head stones, but weren't looked down on for not dying. They were revered for their wisdom and the fighting prowess that allowed them to survive that long. The 7 oldest men to retire from the army each year, were given the title of Ephor, and these 7 men basically ran most aspects of Spartan life, as they were considered to be so wise. Realistically, the title of king in Sparta is much closer to our concept of the rank of General than it is to anything resembling royalty. They didn't rule anything really, they just kind of led the army. This is illustrated in "300" when the Ephors tell Leonidas that he cannot take the whole Spartan army to Thermopylae, but must make do with only the 300 in his personal bodyguard.
The Spartan men were not all soldiers. The Equals were soldiers. The Helots did the farming. It was like feudalism. Except with the knights occasionally chopping some peasants up for fun (Which the knights probably did too).
MatB: Helots were not Spartans.
tl;dr
...Holy s**t, we've actually improved.
ReplyWere the Celts the inspiration for Terry Pratchett's Nac Mac Feegle?
Replyyes.
Dafuq. Spartans feed their newborn kids with liquor? HOLY SHIT!! How badass they are :U and man..the thing about the pyramid made out of severed heads seems pretty awesome though.. =w=
ReplySo he built a pyramid? I guess you can say he gave a lot of head.
Replyis it me or is anyone else seeing a direct correlation between the prolithic decapitation and the amount of kick-assery of a civilization. Cut off some heads, bust them out at parties = your empire being wee on the global stage. Build a pyramid of 90000 heads just because = your empire spanning 3 continents and all but one major empire beaten (Mamaluks - warrior caste for the sultans being the only ones to have truly repulsed the mongols although a strategic death prevented round 2 from happening). Anyway, it seems the more willing you are to take and do creative things with heads the more successful you are.:)
Reply"The Aztecs believed that for every 52 years that passed, the world would end unless the gods were strong enough. And, as is common knowledge, the best way to toughen up a god is with a steady stream of constant human sacrifice (along with a dash of cannibalism, just for good measure)."
ReplySo in other words, according to the Aztecs the world should have ended a long time ago, but we all know the Aztecs were crazy bastards, the Mayans were the sane ones so they must have gotten it right.
I'm Irish so did history about the Celts in school, I remember my teacher telling us that if someone was injured in battle, they'd make them a nice dinner with lots of strong smelling herbs, onions etc, and make them eat it. Then they'd smell their wounds (or bodies, not quite sure) and if you could smell the herbs, they were clearly screwed so then their buddies just left them. Friendship :D
ReplyThis list is incomplete without the moche. They would skin captives alive and force them, while skinned, to play musical instruments and the like.
ReplyEnjoyed this but where is Attila and and his merry band of Huns who swept across Europe from Central Asia in the 5th century, burning or slaughtering everything in their way for no apparent strategic motive? They got as far as Rome then (in an uncharacteristic and disappointing show of tameness) were persuaded to turn back by the pope. Their appearance was possibly a source of the terror they evoked amongst Europeans,: "their swarthy aspect was fearful, and they had, if I may call it so, a sort of shapeless lump, not a head, with pin-holes rather than eyes" goes a contemporary observer, quoted in Wikipedia. As was possibly their hygiene - it was said that the people living in places they were approaching knew they were coming well before they could see or hear them - they could smell them!
ReplyYour history is a bit incomplete. The Huns had a motive for marauding, they wanted money. They destroyed towns in order to get at the valuables in the city. Eventually, someone figured this out, and the Huns were offered a large sum of money to turn back from Rome, as a means of cutting out the middle part where they murdered everyone.
My apologies, I was just trying to have a bit of fun with the facts, in the same spirit as most of this blog (I do know that the pope didn't literally outface the Huns into retreat). By the way, I didn't say they had no motive at all, but no strategic motive, which isn't quite the same thing.
I'll say one thing about Celts, we only get pissed off at people that aren't us. Which is a lot more than can be said for most other peoples. ;D
ReplyNothing like running into battle with a huge sword and a boner
Those people deserve it for not being exactly like us!
I am Assyrian and I am proud of my history but I think what contemporary people don't really know about us is that we are Christians and, in fact, we were the first Christians evangelizing it from Mesopotamia all the way through Japan and Philippine starting in 6th century. If you really want to see how religion shapes a nation's attitudes, you cannot find a better example than our history.
ReplyMay Assur (G-d) bless all of you,
That's a good example. I, too, am Assyrian.
>And you know what? It wasn't just a movie. That thing at the beginning of 300 where they'd toss all imperfect babies off the cliff, letting them splatter on the rocks below? They really did that.
ReplySo that link has nothing that proves his point but I tend to agree with most professors and textbooks, that Spartans threw malformed or defective children off of cliffs. Until someone puts a link to some study showing otherwise, I'll go with reputable sources.
Nice articel anyways, and damn Mongols, you scary.
The part about the Spartans is filled with crap. The Spartans did not throw their babies of a cliff. Many archaeologists have inspected the site where the Spartans allegedly threw sick or deformed infants, and not even one has found bones belonging to a person below the age of 15. Moreover, the author of this article has twisted facts to make his badly researched article more sensational and appealing to idiots. Spartans lived in an area where they were surrounded and extremely outnumbered by Helots (their slaves). They did not attack or subdue the Helots out of superstition or joy, but out of necessity. Moreover, let us not forget that the Americans (i.e. the European settlers) almost completely wiped out the Native Americans, and beat their slaves more than 1000 years after the Spartans beat their own (African) slaves...which is even more terrifying considering the fact that the Americans did so out of an inferiority complex and greed, and not out of necessity.
Reply Hide All See All 7 RepliesSorry, I meant to write that the Americans had African slaves, not the Spartans.
The correct text is as follows:
" Moreover, let us not forget that the Americans (i.e. the European settlers) almost completely wiped out the Native Americans, and beat their (African) slaves more than 1000 years after the Spartans beat their own slaves... "
There are these magical things called sources, you might wanna use them before saying what other people say is crap, and with a name like PoopMonster I doubt you have any.
The Americans barely ever beat their slaves. Would you beat something that you spent half of your life savings on? I think not. I don't know where you're from, but I'd appreciate it if you stopped spreading your propaganda attacking the US.
In an attempt to be humorous I would like to point out that the "defective" spartan babies had the characteristics of 15 year old people today.
No one really knows for sure if the spartans actually did throw their defective babies off cliffs, it may be a rumor spread to show Spartan superiority. But considering that spartan males were bred to kill, sent to the agoge at age seven, and even encouraging them to steal food from other spartan boys, I'd say the whole "throwing babies off a cliff" is not really far off. Also, they beat the kids who tried to steal but was caught.
Oh and, while the Helots thing was out of necessity, the attacks were somehow religiously legalized by the Ephors which eliminated the risk for ritual pollution for killing the Helots.
Another thing, the Spartans had another reason for beating the s**t out of the Helots and making them do the most unimaginably horrible jobs possible...not just out of necessity but because they wanted them to feel disgraced and honor Spartan superiority. In any case, there are black boxes to all unknowns. We never know for sure.
The argument that American slavers hardly ever beat their slaves is a complete fallacy, that has recently become popular as a justification for slavery, and a means of trying to convince people that slavery wasn't all that bad. In truth, most slaves lived in inhuman conditions from the time they were captured in Africa until their deaths. And while some slave owners took the view that slaves were too valuable to be beaten and even took care of their slaves, they certainly didn't represent an overwhelming majority of the slave owning population. Most slave owners did in fact beat their slaves, sometimes savagely, and every area had a hand full of slave owners who were specifically known as slave breakers. These individuals would beat their slaves savagely on a regular basis, often without cause, as a means of psychologically breaking slaves. Even those who personally professed a no beatings policy often sent slaves they believed to be disobedient or hard-headed to the slave breakers for as long as one year. In fact, in some cases very large or strong slaves were sent to slave breakers before they even reached the plantation as a precaution for no other reason than their physical presence was seen as terrifying. So while some could claim that none of their slaves were beaten by their employees, they still allowed their slaves to be beaten horrendously by others.
And this doesn't even begin to touch on the multitude of rapes that were perpetrated against slave women, or the number of American plantation owners who held their own children by those same women in bondage for much of their lives.
Also let's not forget about all of the slaves who were drowned or starved because the slavers who ran the ship they were on got greedy and took on more slaves than they could support.
Someone is spreading propaganda about the 'Mericans beating slaves? How ingrateful. 'Merican slave owners did nothing but spend half their money on slaves, and being a slave was like being a celebrity. I'd go as far as to say it was fun. How dare you attack the US with your words, wherever you are from. Nah, just kidding. What i mean to say is that I'd appreciate if indiana1 would go sit on an iron stick jutting from the ground
Come on, no Imperial Japan? Those guys were terrifying. When the United States was gearing up to invade Japan, the Japanese drafted literally every citizen. School children were trained to attack American soldiers with bamboo spears, and to slit their own wrists if that didn't work. They had mass suicides among civilians when the Americans captured Okinawa. They committed some of the most brutal war crimes ever in their invasion of China, especially the Rape of Nanking and Unit 731. The officers had contests to see who could murder the most civilians with katanas, and the score was kept in the Tokyo newspaper. On top of all this, after the US dropped two atom bombs on them, and the Emperor wanted to surrender, the rest of the brass STILL didn't. They tried to stage another coup (they failed) and many committed suicide even after the war.
Reply Hide All See All 6 RepliesNot to mention, besides the horrific Rape of Nanking, what occurred to Korea and many of the Southeast Asian territories captured by Japan. Those were extended incidents of the Japanese imperialistic cruelty.
Most of your rant is typical WWII American war propaganda. The Japanese people were not fanatics hell bent on butchering Americans. In fact, the very case of Okinawa (which you mentioned yourself) is proof that the Imperial Japanese army, and the citizens of Japan (and especially Okinawa) were two completely different entities. In Okinawa, the people spoke a local dialect that was unknown to the Japanese soldiers. Fearing that the Okinawans might try to contact the Americans and expose Japanese positions and plans, thus they started terrorizing and killing the local populace. The Japanese also carried out a propaganda campaign to make the Okinawans think that the Americans were savages that would kill and rape them, and this is why they committed mass suicides; not because they were fanatics.
The bullshit about keeping death scores is pure sensationalism on your part. everyone kept such scores (especially pilots).
In regards to the A-bombs, the Americans were going to drop both regardless of the Japanese response. If the Americans had ten A-bombs, they would have dropped ten. The attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not meant to force a surrender, they were meant to scare Stalin and keep the Red Army out of Japan. They were also scientific experiments.
Read 'Bomb Power' by Garry Wills. It's quite illuminating.
So basically what you're saying is that the Japanese got to be that terrifying through propaganda, but how they got that way is irrelevant; the point is that they really were that fanatical. The government trained literally every citizen in Japan to attack invaders, even children, and the kill counts you mention were mostly kept to military losses, not executed civilians like the Japanese had. And were those scores put in the capital cities newspaper, which sold like hotcakes? The Japanese were so fanatical, that they pretty much invented suicide bombing as we know it. The average citizen was probably just brainwashed by a fanatical government with a god complex, but how does that matter? So were most civilizations on this list, like the Aztecs. The point is, the Imperial Japanese Army were a horde of barbarians who brought a level of brutality to Asia not seen since the Mongol Hordes. They were arguably even worse, since at least the Mongols gave relative freedom to those they conquered, and let you go on peacefully if you surrendered. Not the Japanese. In retrospect, the Japanese were damn lucky that the Americans ended up occupying Japan alone, rather than a vengeful China or the Soviets being the occupying force.
Also: The Japanese used germ warfare in China, so they had no right to complain about WMDs. Besides, the atom bombs, regardless of their intentions, saved millions of lives, and actually were less lethal than what the Americans were doing at the time (i.e. firebombing Tokyo).
I think this article focuses on the ancient civilizations.
PoopMonster, you completely fail to look at both sides of the story. One, imperialistic Japan was really batshit insane, and the events which showed these were already mentioned by Random. Also, even if the Okinawan dialect is different from the main japanese language, it had to share some similarities with the main language since all dialects are based on some kind of root dialog. Besides, did you think the ALL japanese soldiers were from the city? Some had to come from countrysides or provinces, thus making the whole "local dialect being unknown to the Japanese soldiers" thing pure fantasy.
Another thing, in WWII about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was truly to force a surrender. But, that's my opinion. If they had ten atomic bombs, they wouldn't drop all IF by your reason they meant to scare Stalin. They would have needed some in case Stalin actually decided to go all over US.
Oh and, by WWII the americans were too busy trying to beat Japan in the pacific than having to worry about the Soviets. The Soviets suffered the most military casualties in the whole war, so they needed time to recuperate and bounce back from the war. Most americans, by this time, did not believe the domino effect until AFTER the Soviets actually showed signs of spreading communism.
Mr.Shister
the thing about okinawa being of a different dialect of japanese thats not true because okinawa wasnt always part of japan at one time it was its own nation and had its own completly different language it wasnt until japan invaded the ryoku islands that japanese began to be taught in okinawa
being more scottish than anything else, and part irish too, I am proud to say that my ancestry lies with the Celts. If I were a mortal kombat character, I would decapitate my enemy and stomp foot-shaped holes in the corpse.
ReplyActually, the Scots were originally Irish, and the Irish were pre-Celtic natives; it's a common misconception.
Our modern age of debt-slaves is more dreadful than those before, when there were many nations free of central banks. The relatively recent murder of Ukranians and Russians by the jewish communist movemtent alone is worse than any of the things recorded or linked to in this article.
Reply Hide All See All 7 Replies#4
The Aztecs were degenerate primitive savages. The Celts taking trophies from conquered enemies and the Assyrians punishing rebels doesn't compare to horrifically murdering people for no good reason.
Saying, "they needed to eat peopl b/c they didn't have cattle" is some all-cultures-are-equal liberal bullshit. An anthropologist is not an apologist.
The Aztecs aren't the scariest civilization on this list but they are the one most cruel for cruelty's sake.
#2
Messed up your links.
Yes, being in debt is much worse than being kept as human shields by the army that burned down your city and killed your family. f**k your Anti-Semitic ass, no one gives a f**k what you think.
Urm .. I don't think it was for "no good reason". They firmly believed the world would end if the gods weren't provided with regular sacrifices. Also, many historians claim that the "sacrifices" were in fact willing and not forcibly taken. Add to this the constant famines and people being clueless as to why their gods have forsaken them. I'm not defending them. It is indeed, incredibly stupid, I'm just pointing out it was not "torture for toruture's sake and they were enjoying it" thing. It is born out of pure desperation, kind of like when the black plague spread to Europe, peoplle did crazy things like flogging themselves to appease god, or even later on go on to burn witches at stake, which is in fact happening even now in African villages. So yeah, f**k superstition.
I don't know how people like you may express such stupidities without having read and learning with objectivity about the theme you are talking. Aztec people were cruel, in fact, but their legacy is in many aspects, still beyond that the one that european and "civilized" contemporany countries left. And Europe and the USA were as cruel as the worst civilizations in history, making the life of native american people a real hell
You call them "degenerate primitive savages" but the Aztecs built what was, by some estimates, perhaps the most populous city on earth at the time, complete with palaces, canals, temples, markets, schools and even refuse collection in the MIDDLE OF A LAKE. Of course,they are most famous for their human sacrifices and fecorcity towards their enemies in battle, traits shared with other mesoamerican cultures to varying degrees, the Aztecs being simply the dominant faction in the region at the time of their encounter with the West. In contemporary sources, they were usually stereotyped as either primative deranged savages, or innocent and simple minded sheep, but of course as always you need to take these views with a bucketful of salt. The 'civilized' Spanish, like pretty much all other conquerors of far flung lands in history, were quilty of their own acts of savagery, presumably because, like you, they barely thought of the 'natives' as human. That the Aztecs most likely existed in some kind of middle-ground is not some 'liberal bullshit' but analysis of the evidence at hand. I could call your line of thinking primitive and and naiive colonialist bullshit but I wouldn't be so petty.
Oh, wait you seem to have referred to something called "the jewish communist movemtent"...
I guess the world is controlled by these dastardly Commie-Jews using the international banking system and hollywood to steal all teh monies to line their nests, right?
Man...
You are the worst.
come on guys don't feed the troll.
I just took a big prowonderful and it smells horrible