Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Small scale. Such as Sudetenland.But if we are talking about a conquerer, assuming a competent one, it is not very probable that such would ever happen.
All great conquerers have killed a vast amount of people.People generally tend to fight back.
So instead, the distinction is intention?
Originally posted by lorddreamer
A mass murderer just kills a mass amount of people, while a conquerer takes over a large amount of space. A conquerer doesn't need to kill everyone, and if he does, he's doing it for a reason.
Wait? conquerer kills for a reason, and mass murder kills for fun? That does't really sound right.
Can you give examples.
Originally posted by Alliance
So instead, the distinction is intention?
Im not saying im right, im just saying from historical perspective (that I am familiar with) there isn't a great distinction.
For a conquerer to actually conquer something, he will encounter countless oppositions, life threats, from external as well as internal subjects...etc.
Invading, if you will, is hardly no kill job. Maybe somewhere it is, but at some point resistance is bound to happen, no?
Admittedly, mass murderers are murderers with no true intention, but conquerers on the other hand are mass murderers WITH true intention. They kill large amounts of people to gain a large amount of land or some other resource. Quite simply conquerers are GREEDY mass murderers but murderers all the same.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Wait? conquerer kills for a reason, and mass murder kills for fun? That does't really sound right.Can you give examples.
I see what he is saying. Conquerors might not kill for a good reason, but a reason nonetheless. However, that isn't really even relevant. A conqueror might have "fun" taking over a large amount of space. A mass murderer on the other hand, might kill someone without the desire to build an empire. All conquerors are mass murderers, but not all mass murderers are conquerors.