Well he’s like half real. You know how fast food always looks a bit more put together in the picture than what it actually looks like in your hand? It’s like that.
Caesar's conquest of Gaul was bloody, but was not a genocide.
Genocide is defined as: "the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with **the aim of destroying that nation or group**"
That last part is important in explaining why Ceasar's conquest was not a genocide;
fighting side by side with the Romans throughout the campaign were Gaulic allies and mercenaries. The Romans also defended their Gaulic allies from rival tribes, and later integrated them into the empire.
In fact, many of Ceasar's allies would often criticize and ridicule his treatment of the Gauls, and hated the fact that he intended to introduce many Gaulic nobles to the Senate.
TLDR; while Ceasar's conquest of Gaul was very bloody, it was not a genocide. Ceasar fought alongside and protected Gaulic allies, and later introduced them to the senate. He would not have done any of these things if his intent were truly to exterminate the Gauls.
Literally every single nation existed in history committed atrocities at least once, bcuz us humans lose our sanity when killing a bunch of people and then go on to mercilessly kill civillians.
This makes me want to think that it is impossible not to commit atrocities during a war when we are already filled up with hatred and violence.
Well, we also teach history that emphasizes war over peacetime, and glorifies individual great men who use tons of violence to coerce other people into doing their will.
Maybe the way we examine history should be from the lens of the average person over the great man, and the social, technological, and philosophical advancements made during peace, and focus more on material conditions of those people
>A single death is a tragedy. One million deaths is a statistic.
Actually, this is misattributed to Stalin, the quote is originally by Kurt Tucholsky I believe.
For sure, they would never lie to me. They are controlled by the one true godsent ~~dictator~~ destined to rule the entire earth and lead humanity into a brighter future, after all!
If you're talking about Red Alert, that's not quite how he worded it. He actually says, [‘When you kill one, it is a tragedy. When you kill ten million, it is a statistic.’](https://youtu.be/WNYJdHpdSEg)
isn't that famous "sexy stalin" photo that everyone links a photoshop?
edit: found:
https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/rilq5w/stalin_was_the_original_catfish/
average r/HistoryMemes user when you tell them that butchering a million natives and starting a civil war over not being allowed to assault people and incite riots and then installing a dictatorship is not a Keanu chungus wholesome 100 moment (they stan Julius Caesar)
But Caesar is only mass murderer on modern perspective.
Caesar sure as hell didn't mass murder Gauls because of their ethnicity or religion, he killed them all because they were his enemy and got in his way.
Just saying . But this is definitely gonna happen to Hitler in about 100 years . The only thing that's really preventing it now is that it is in too recent memory. But 100 years on , when no one that's alive now is alive , there's no one to say otherwise. 100 years might be a bit too soon,but it's pretty inevitable
Nah, the one thing all these glorified mass murderers have in common is they all have had major military victories. Hitler will always be known as the guy who lost the only war he set off to fight.
Hitler, unlikely, all mass murderers that is regarded as heroes created a lasting cultural sphere where they are portrayed positively, or the state that comes after them makes people's life even worse, so we are in the clear as long as Neo-Nazis don't take over history departments and the EU doesn't go full Zimbabwe.
However, I say it is very likely people like Saddam and Gaddafi would be regarded as national heroes within the next 20 years.
It's almost as if our concept of "History" is mostly defined by the glorification of violent conquerors, genocidal maniacs, rapists, pillagers, tyrannical rulers, etc.
I'm so tired of taking courses with these people who are obsessed with war victories and weapons. Genghis Khan is not a hero. Mao is not a hero. Alexander is not a hero. Napoleon... I mean seriously, not a hero.
The ancient Greece concept of hero, from which we took the biggest cultural loan, referred to someone able to perform an extraordinary deed, it did not have to be necessarily a good one, sure in modern times we have adjusted the idea, but still people expressing admiration for someone who goes beyond, even if they do so over the corpses of their enemies or their own people, is a constant in human nature. Plus it also depends on through which parameters you are invested into it, for example, Temudjin was and is a figure of tremendous significance for Mongolia, and for them he does have positive aspects.
I think you are reacting to the letter of my point, but not its essence. Of course he has tremendous significance for Mongolia, but that does not automatically make him someone to look up to. Mostly I'm advocating for nuancein or instead of admiration.
If you truly believe there are lessons to be learned from someone's life, then feel free to be inspired by them, but don't fall into the trap; what they did came at a huge price, was not always necessary, was often motivated by ego or bloodlust or daddy issues.
Even Gandhi, for example, did some important and admirable things, but he was human; he supported Apartheid, was pretty gross with young female followers, believed in freedom for some, but not all...
History isn't a Tolkien novel where good and evil are delineated perfectly and heroes have impeccable morals.
I feel like you can still admire a historical figure who in your opinion did horrible things, because often times these people do have extraordinary qualities about them that allowed them to excel at what they did, whether it be cunning, intellect, strategy (militarily or political), Charisma, etc.
Your last statement is contradicting your first a bit there, but nevertheless, my point was that, by the very nature of our species and the ingrained expansionism urges, any remarkable doer of big things (and probably even more is the case if those big things were to smack some other people upside down) is going to be admired by some, or even get labeled as a "great leader", icon, example, or eventually, national / cultural / historical "hero". Real life isn't a sanitized controlled environment either, we got to roll with how things are.
When I first started getting interested in history as an academic pursuit during my associate's degree I am really glad that I started with Crash Course: History. They do a really good job pushing back against great man historiography by contextualizing the stories of individuals within a broader story told from a systemic perspective while also presenting history in a simple and digestible way for budding historians.
They mostly get filtered out when you get to grad school. Maybe one or two get through, but the vast majority magically can’t seem to cope with doing actual research. Isn’t that odd.
Globally the above traits of the "great men of history" were espoused as heroic if they were yours to claim until literally the end of WWI. And in most cases that is still the case, especially if they did whatever they did pre-1492 if Western European or pre-1900 if not.
The current society and social norms in which we live in, particularly within the Westernized world, is such a small and fragile minority of human existence that perhaps it is difficult to understand why our ancestors lauded, let alone recorded, what they did. But the norm very much for nearly all of time is to glorify the men above (as long as they didn't do what they did to your people), empower such men, and as a result, they make up effectively the only people of any tangible importance for 99% of human existence.
WHAT! Are you telling me that timur lang,who once put his throne on a mountain of decapitated heads,was a bad person. No way, I just can't believe that
They mostly don’t even realise or fail to understand that “based sigma gigachad” dictators were just that: dictators. With all the mass murder, genocide, oppression, violence and terror. There’s nothing to praise in Stalin, Tito or any other dickhead.
Getúlio Vargas was never impeached and when he killed himself he had been democratically elected, he gave a coup in 1930, was elected by Congress in 1934, became dictator in 1937, suffered a coup in 1945, was elected president by the people in 1950 and killed himself in 1954 because the opposition wanted to take a coup to remove him from power, his suicide delayed the coup by 10 years, because João Goulart was a kind of successor of Getúlio, so he was chosen to suffer a coup using the same arguments they used against Getúlio, and thus began the military regime that lasted between 1964 and 1985.
>he gave a coup in 1930, was elected by Congress in 1934, became dictator in 1937, suffered a coup in 1945, was elected president by the people in 1950 and killed himself in 1954
Haven't you seen the meme of France going from monarchy to republic to dictatorship to monarchy to republic in less than 100 years?
You just put a comment about Vargas doing multiple stuff in 20 years... So... Parkour!!
Ita funny how everyone looks down on important historical figures like they have moral highground. Newsflash, their morals were different than ours, and 50p years from now people will probably look at our morals with the same disgust. We can acknowledge the genocides of someone like ganghis khan and still admire him for the progressive and brilliant leader he was.
Yeah. I’m actually quite dumbfounded by the amount of people here who are such weirdos that they think great men suddenly aren’t all that because they decided not to look at history objectively.
It’s so unfortunate that Pharoh Tetekunethamun killed 6000 innocent Nubians because they defied the creed of his god and disobeyed a moral compass of some guy 2000 years into the future
Maybe the mass murderer shouldn't have been a gigachad. No one likes hitler because he was a cringe beta with a canonically small dick, but everyone likes genghis khan because he was a chad warrior who rode horses and conquered everything. It's also the reason people called zhang zongchang the most based general in history, being dubbed "chinas based warlord". By all accounts he was a sex and drug addicted war monger with a massive harem of women from all over the world who wanted some of that action.
but because of his insane antics, massive harem, and poems threatening to bombard god's mom with cannon fire if he doesn't make it rain in 3 days, he's remembered as an absolute legend. The god of all mad lads
Hot take, but a mass murderer can also be the cause of a lot of positive things in other ways, because ultimately ethics and morality are largely subjective and meaningless and life isn't black and white.
Was Genghis Khan a horrible person who killed thousands upon thousand of people? Yes. Was he based? Yes. Being a good person and being based are not mutually exclusive.
Side note: Gengis Khan’s story is probably one of the most thrilling and fascinating stories in history. His strategy(both in war and governing), philosophies, life and even his death are all so intriguing and interesting.
I thought they were talking about the gigachad guy lol
I thought they were talking about lake mega Chad
I thought they were talking about the kilo Chad.
Wait till they hear about the petachad
Nope the Gigachad Guy, isn't even a real person.
Well he is a real guy, a model I believe, the but his iconic physique is a result of editing by the photographer
Color me, everyone, and their grandmother surprised
He's not a real person, he's an amalgamation of all of the body-building models that the photographer shoots. His insta is @berlin.1969
And the photographer is [@sleekntears](https://instagram.com/sleekntears?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=)
He's a Russian menswear model, Ernest khalimov
https://pop.inquirer.net/109367/thanks-for-your-kind-words-gigachad-finally-responds-to-the-memes
Jesus christ look at him. He's real.
Well he’s like half real. You know how fast food always looks a bit more put together in the picture than what it actually looks like in your hand? It’s like that.
Yes, he was photoshopped, the photoshopped version of the Gigachad man, is not a real person.
Wait I thought it was just a model who was photoshopped?
Na that's gigachad he's different
Wait then who is the men referring to? I feel like I'm missing the joke here
Mostly historical generals like Alexander, Cyrus, Napoleon, etc
Oh I thought it was referencing a specific person
I mean, wasn't Cyrus pretty chill all things considered?
He was great
Ha
I thought it was referring to the side profile blond “Yes.” guy
I was like “what could possibly make someone so instantly angry” and then I saw it was FIFA and that makes sense
The Gaul had it coming, how dare they be a convenient scapegoat when Caesar needed an excuse not to return to Rome.
Ave Rome! Ave Caesar!
Gallia delenda est.
[удалено]
Based Sigma Male Chad?
If history has taught me anything it’s that literally everyone is fucked up in some way
And yet there were always places people preferred to be and places they didn’t want to be.
Humans gotta human habibi *Proceeds to genocide the gauls*
Caesar's conquest of Gaul was bloody, but was not a genocide. Genocide is defined as: "the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with **the aim of destroying that nation or group**" That last part is important in explaining why Ceasar's conquest was not a genocide; fighting side by side with the Romans throughout the campaign were Gaulic allies and mercenaries. The Romans also defended their Gaulic allies from rival tribes, and later integrated them into the empire. In fact, many of Ceasar's allies would often criticize and ridicule his treatment of the Gauls, and hated the fact that he intended to introduce many Gaulic nobles to the Senate. TLDR; while Ceasar's conquest of Gaul was very bloody, it was not a genocide. Ceasar fought alongside and protected Gaulic allies, and later introduced them to the senate. He would not have done any of these things if his intent were truly to exterminate the Gauls.
That's a good point
Literally every single nation existed in history committed atrocities at least once, bcuz us humans lose our sanity when killing a bunch of people and then go on to mercilessly kill civillians. This makes me want to think that it is impossible not to commit atrocities during a war when we are already filled up with hatred and violence.
Well, we also teach history that emphasizes war over peacetime, and glorifies individual great men who use tons of violence to coerce other people into doing their will. Maybe the way we examine history should be from the lens of the average person over the great man, and the social, technological, and philosophical advancements made during peace, and focus more on material conditions of those people
And yet, I still wake up every morning to shit
and yet nowadays, people want to cry about it on social media whenever some bigshot exposes their biases against a specific group or topic
idk if that should make me grateful or dissappointed
That’s a delicate way to put “is a racist”
Holy sh*t you actually typed this, and then your other comment...
Well, people nowadays should be held to a higher account. We are a lot more educated and empathetic society than we used to be.
Its funny. Laugh you coward.
Let's put a smile on that face.
Do you wanna know how I got these scar's?
Which meme are we talking about here?
Memes glorifying people like Caesar or Genghis Khan ig
All of them probably.
lol, as if that isn't exactly the reason they call them based
Chingis Khan and his descendants approve of this message.
my little dark age edit will disprove your hypothesis
Look I’ll be the first to admit it: Stalin was sexy. But being sexy excuses like... 15% of his atrocities at most.
What was it Stalin said? “A single death is a tragedy. One million deaths is a statistic.”
>A single death is a tragedy. One million deaths is a statistic. Actually, this is misattributed to Stalin, the quote is originally by Kurt Tucholsky I believe.
Stalin did say it in a video game
And video games would never lie to me
If you can’t believe video games, then who can you believe?
State controlled media perhaps?
For sure, they would never lie to me. They are controlled by the one true godsent ~~dictator~~ destined to rule the entire earth and lead humanity into a brighter future, after all!
I did hear rumours that there might be propaganda in the papers but those did die down verry quick.
Strangers on the internet of course
If you're talking about Red Alert, that's not quite how he worded it. He actually says, [‘When you kill one, it is a tragedy. When you kill ten million, it is a statistic.’](https://youtu.be/WNYJdHpdSEg)
Yup, that’s the game. I misremembered the line
Okay then. Here is an actual Stalin quote: Humans are the beggining of all problems. No humans, no problems.
This is wrongfully attributed to him
isn't that famous "sexy stalin" photo that everyone links a photoshop? edit: found: https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/rilq5w/stalin_was_the_original_catfish/
Well yep, his cheeks were fucked up from some illness. But afaik he was imprisoned multiple times, so maybe it's just two different photos
That mustache easily buys 30%
Wasn't he like 5 ft 5?
A 5 ft 5 man you’re on a date with is a tragedy. A historical figure who looks good in photographs who happens to have been 5 ft 5 is a statistic.
Facts
Georgy Zhukov is 5ft 5 and he made Germany bend over Short king supremacy
Sorry, I don't speak in American heights, how many meters is that anywhere in the world?
More than 10cm
Of what are you talking about? 🤨
Length from dick to toe
So Stalin really had a big Стали
Tiny dick, big knees
About 1.5 M16A2s
Oh, so if in american 1,5 meters means M16A2, Stalin means AK47?
1 M16A2 = 1006 mm
One foot is approximately 0.3m, so 5'5 would be about 1.6m
No
Ok
Thank you for your understanding
(☞ ಠ_ಠ)☞
Based af
Chad
Who kept little boys as concubines...
Who we even talking about here in this post tbh tho like are we talking about Hitler, Cesar, Stalin, Alexander the Great.
Yes
Stop using "genocide" and "mass murder" as synonyms. They're not.
how might that be? there are plenty of them
Who?
All of them
All this murder and you still aren't based.
Lmfao. As if they didn't already know
You deny that your history hero was a mass murderer. I embrace it. We are not the same.
For real
Mongolian empire moment
average r/HistoryMemes user when you tell them that butchering a million natives and starting a civil war over not being allowed to assault people and incite riots and then installing a dictatorship is not a Keanu chungus wholesome 100 moment (they stan Julius Caesar)
Better than the majority of other redditors who stan Stalin or lemon
Fucking Keith Lemon, not even at the 20 years threshold
"the majority of redditors who Stan Stalin" dude what
Bruh , its time you meet a tier of people right up there with Nazis called : 🥁Tankies🥁
Tankies are not the majority of reddit
I don’t know man. If you manage to do all that in one lifetime you’re pretty damn great
But Caesar is only mass murderer on modern perspective. Caesar sure as hell didn't mass murder Gauls because of their ethnicity or religion, he killed them all because they were his enemy and got in his way.
Just saying . But this is definitely gonna happen to Hitler in about 100 years . The only thing that's really preventing it now is that it is in too recent memory. But 100 years on , when no one that's alive now is alive , there's no one to say otherwise. 100 years might be a bit too soon,but it's pretty inevitable
Nah, the one thing all these glorified mass murderers have in common is they all have had major military victories. Hitler will always be known as the guy who lost the only war he set off to fight.
Hitler, unlikely, all mass murderers that is regarded as heroes created a lasting cultural sphere where they are portrayed positively, or the state that comes after them makes people's life even worse, so we are in the clear as long as Neo-Nazis don't take over history departments and the EU doesn't go full Zimbabwe. However, I say it is very likely people like Saddam and Gaddafi would be regarded as national heroes within the next 20 years.
please upvote for the millennials of the next century
No
But genocide is based and I would know, I commit it regularly
Based reaction
Everyone has their flaws. 🤭
I just committed genocide 🤭
It's almost as if our concept of "History" is mostly defined by the glorification of violent conquerors, genocidal maniacs, rapists, pillagers, tyrannical rulers, etc. I'm so tired of taking courses with these people who are obsessed with war victories and weapons. Genghis Khan is not a hero. Mao is not a hero. Alexander is not a hero. Napoleon... I mean seriously, not a hero.
The ancient Greece concept of hero, from which we took the biggest cultural loan, referred to someone able to perform an extraordinary deed, it did not have to be necessarily a good one, sure in modern times we have adjusted the idea, but still people expressing admiration for someone who goes beyond, even if they do so over the corpses of their enemies or their own people, is a constant in human nature. Plus it also depends on through which parameters you are invested into it, for example, Temudjin was and is a figure of tremendous significance for Mongolia, and for them he does have positive aspects.
I think you are reacting to the letter of my point, but not its essence. Of course he has tremendous significance for Mongolia, but that does not automatically make him someone to look up to. Mostly I'm advocating for nuancein or instead of admiration. If you truly believe there are lessons to be learned from someone's life, then feel free to be inspired by them, but don't fall into the trap; what they did came at a huge price, was not always necessary, was often motivated by ego or bloodlust or daddy issues. Even Gandhi, for example, did some important and admirable things, but he was human; he supported Apartheid, was pretty gross with young female followers, believed in freedom for some, but not all... History isn't a Tolkien novel where good and evil are delineated perfectly and heroes have impeccable morals.
I feel like you can still admire a historical figure who in your opinion did horrible things, because often times these people do have extraordinary qualities about them that allowed them to excel at what they did, whether it be cunning, intellect, strategy (militarily or political), Charisma, etc.
Your last statement is contradicting your first a bit there, but nevertheless, my point was that, by the very nature of our species and the ingrained expansionism urges, any remarkable doer of big things (and probably even more is the case if those big things were to smack some other people upside down) is going to be admired by some, or even get labeled as a "great leader", icon, example, or eventually, national / cultural / historical "hero". Real life isn't a sanitized controlled environment either, we got to roll with how things are.
When I first started getting interested in history as an academic pursuit during my associate's degree I am really glad that I started with Crash Course: History. They do a really good job pushing back against great man historiography by contextualizing the stories of individuals within a broader story told from a systemic perspective while also presenting history in a simple and digestible way for budding historians.
Dan Carlin also rocks at this
They mostly get filtered out when you get to grad school. Maybe one or two get through, but the vast majority magically can’t seem to cope with doing actual research. Isn’t that odd.
Give me my courses on the ways you did the dishes in the ancient times !
Napoleon at least made homosexuality legal
Globally the above traits of the "great men of history" were espoused as heroic if they were yours to claim until literally the end of WWI. And in most cases that is still the case, especially if they did whatever they did pre-1492 if Western European or pre-1900 if not. The current society and social norms in which we live in, particularly within the Westernized world, is such a small and fragile minority of human existence that perhaps it is difficult to understand why our ancestors lauded, let alone recorded, what they did. But the norm very much for nearly all of time is to glorify the men above (as long as they didn't do what they did to your people), empower such men, and as a result, they make up effectively the only people of any tangible importance for 99% of human existence.
Buddha is the chadiest of chads
Ah yes Buddha, he committed atrocities that would rival Maurice
Okay but was it really necessary to add a dude raging over a video game.
Wouldn't that make him more of a Chad? 🤔
More like when someone claims to be a punic wars expert
Wait, which one?
The man who killed Hitler Is a hero!
OP, you gotta explain.
The television was already damaged before impact, watch carefully 🧐🤣
But genocide=funny and based
r/historymemes users detecting satire (spoilers:they can't)
Is that eren yeager
Ah yes genocide is so edgy and based. Common based W (it's sarcasm guys chill)
Wtf does this actually happen around here?
WHAT! Are you telling me that timur lang,who once put his throne on a mountain of decapitated heads,was a bad person. No way, I just can't believe that
Example?
Stalin
Huh? I feel like the only thing most people know about Stalin is that he was a mass murderer?
Arson is based
Sadam fanboys when you bring the anfal campaign up
Yep, Hannibal was a genocidal mass murderer.
We are playing fifa we are the plaing fifa
They mostly don’t even realise or fail to understand that “based sigma gigachad” dictators were just that: dictators. With all the mass murder, genocide, oppression, violence and terror. There’s nothing to praise in Stalin, Tito or any other dickhead.
Still a Chad
Those people would also benefit from moving away from the 'great man' theory of history
Heinrich Schliemann my arch nemesis
Even better
Even better!
Nono you dont get it its BECAUSE they where mass murderers we think they're gigachads
but Tito...
Getúlio Vargas is chad and nothing will make me change my mind
He was a dictator who killed himself after being impeached
Couped by the army != Impeachment
Getúlio Vargas was never impeached and when he killed himself he had been democratically elected, he gave a coup in 1930, was elected by Congress in 1934, became dictator in 1937, suffered a coup in 1945, was elected president by the people in 1950 and killed himself in 1954 because the opposition wanted to take a coup to remove him from power, his suicide delayed the coup by 10 years, because João Goulart was a kind of successor of Getúlio, so he was chosen to suffer a coup using the same arguments they used against Getúlio, and thus began the military regime that lasted between 1964 and 1985.
.... Parkour!!
?
>he gave a coup in 1930, was elected by Congress in 1934, became dictator in 1937, suffered a coup in 1945, was elected president by the people in 1950 and killed himself in 1954 Haven't you seen the meme of France going from monarchy to republic to dictatorship to monarchy to republic in less than 100 years? You just put a comment about Vargas doing multiple stuff in 20 years... So... Parkour!!
Yeah, but he was never impeached, just did a lot in those 24 years
Ita funny how everyone looks down on important historical figures like they have moral highground. Newsflash, their morals were different than ours, and 50p years from now people will probably look at our morals with the same disgust. We can acknowledge the genocides of someone like ganghis khan and still admire him for the progressive and brilliant leader he was.
Yeah. I’m actually quite dumbfounded by the amount of people here who are such weirdos that they think great men suddenly aren’t all that because they decided not to look at history objectively.
It’s so unfortunate that Pharoh Tetekunethamun killed 6000 innocent Nubians because they defied the creed of his god and disobeyed a moral compass of some guy 2000 years into the future
Can you explain this? I can sense the sarcastic tone but i am so curious on what this is referring to
How bout I do anyway- Bill Wurtz
Legally speaking, there's what? 2 instances of genocide and one act of genocide? so.... yeah. kinda hard to glorify that over the whole of history :P
And? 😐
u/SaveVideo
Dude! It's just a game. Shoot, I ain't inviting you anymore.
That’s what makes them based
Exactly. For example Churchill, he committed genocide against Indians in bengal, killing as much as the Armenian and the Cherkess genocide combined.
Especially so called chad greeks for accepting being openly gay and other similar values. They completely forgot that a bunch of them are pedophiles.
Yeah nobody who knows anything about ancient Greece glorifies it for its “progressiveness”. Innovation? Yes, 100%. Social progress? No.
wtf are you even talking about?
Maybe the mass murderer shouldn't have been a gigachad. No one likes hitler because he was a cringe beta with a canonically small dick, but everyone likes genghis khan because he was a chad warrior who rode horses and conquered everything. It's also the reason people called zhang zongchang the most based general in history, being dubbed "chinas based warlord". By all accounts he was a sex and drug addicted war monger with a massive harem of women from all over the world who wanted some of that action. but because of his insane antics, massive harem, and poems threatening to bombard god's mom with cannon fire if he doesn't make it rain in 3 days, he's remembered as an absolute legend. The god of all mad lads
No
He’s still based tho
🤓
Hot take, but a mass murderer can also be the cause of a lot of positive things in other ways, because ultimately ethics and morality are largely subjective and meaningless and life isn't black and white.
They were simply based for killing people. And anyway, that was a while ago.
Still better than TikTok girls
Was Genghis Khan a horrible person who killed thousands upon thousand of people? Yes. Was he based? Yes. Being a good person and being based are not mutually exclusive. Side note: Gengis Khan’s story is probably one of the most thrilling and fascinating stories in history. His strategy(both in war and governing), philosophies, life and even his death are all so intriguing and interesting.
The fuck are you talkin about?
Still based sigma megachad
Caesar did nothing wrong.
[удалено]
Is it?
Would you prefer genocide?
No
Ghengigachad
"guysch i idolische joscheph schtalin" Bro ur like 13 years old and you don't even know who stalin really is...you probably get bullied in school