What do you think?
Who are the worst leaders of all time?
Post here the names of one or more bad leaders.

Present leaders DON't count.

Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Mugabe and all other slaughterers and hell burners. Although they did something which might some call "great" they all paid a bloody price- willingly. There are many other rulers who were mad or stupid, but they were not responsible for that terror.

Adler

I'll add to that list

that Pope that first called for the first crusade to "free" the "holy land" (I forget his name, maybe John something)

Nero one of the Emperors of the Roman Empire

I don't reckon Nero was one of the worst Roman emperors... I'd say he was middle of the range in terms of good and bad. Kublai Khan (although admitedly it is a matter of opinion), Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mussolini, Ptolemy VIII (IIRC), and Stalin were shockers.

Hi all.
A question: 'bad' leaders considering 'bad' in moral sense or meaning the leader who failed awfully theirs political designs ?
I think these2 things may be different (not necessarly, of course, but...).

Morally: Hitler, Pol-Pot, Stalin

How about the "Napoleon" of the Americas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Lopez_de_Santa_Anna

ehm, forgive:
I don't reckon the pope of the so-called First crusade was so bad.
He was Urbanus II (1088-1099, he died before receive the new that Jerusalem had been taken...), even if some other popes before him thought freeing Jerusalem, or facing the mighter and mighter Islam.
The historics have studied Urbanus better, and it's today pacific that his calling to free HolyLand had effects larger and quite differents respect to the original intentions and project.

Historically, Mohamed was the 'inventor' of 'holy' war ('jihad', but this term means more exactly the struggle every muslim has to make inside himself to become better...).

I have a book about the 100 worst people in history.

The book ranks:
Hitler ranks first.
Stalin is second.
Mao third.

Gengis Khan, Pol Pot, Enver Pasha & Talat Pasha (against Armenia) all appear in the first 10 (note this book is not restricted to rulers of countries).

I think Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Caligula and Nero were among the worst leaders ever in history.

Originally posted by Gagliaudo
Hi all.
A question: 'bad' leaders considering 'bad' in moral sense or meaning the leader who failed awfully theirs political designs ?
I think these2 things may be different (not necessarly, of course, but...).

Morally: Hitler, Pol-Pot, Stalin

Hitler fails in both the moral sense, and failed in political designs - Hitler's plans involved destroying Jews, Communist, and other undesirables, to gain a large amount "living space" for Germans in Eastern Europe & control of the rest of Europe -either directly, though puppet governments like Vichy France, or countries ran by fellow fascist. Hitler's plans failed in all three areas. (Though Spain & Portugal did remain fascist for a number of years later.)

Stalin, while one of the most evil men to walk the face of the earth, did manage to increase his country's power and influence during his reign.

@DreadCthulhu:

Totally agree with you.
That was I mean with my distinction. :)

Vlad Tepes(a.k.a Vlad the Impaler, Dracula)

I'd have to say Stalin or Mao Zedong. Hitler was at least pro-German (Aryan) and only went after certain ethnic/social groups (Jews, Gypsies, Gays, etc) while both Stalin and Mao Zedong killed their own people arbitrarily regardless of race, sex, or religion. Don't get me wrong, Hitler was bad but not the worst leader of all time.

One might also consider Genghis Khan as the worst leader of all time since he slaughtered millions of people throughout Asia, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe.

Originally posted by SuperBeaverInc.
Vlad Tepes(a.k.a Vlad the Impaler, Dracula)
Care to elaborate on that?

stolen from kafka2's thread..

Francisco Solano Lopez 1827- 1870

One of the worst rulers of all time, young Francisco watched his father steadily build up Paraguay's military power, and became over-confident. Pausing briefly to marry Eliza Lynch (an Irish prostitute) he started making aggressive interventions in the war between Brazil and Uruguay, which resulted in him declaring war and invading Brazil in 1864. When Argentina refused to allow Paraguayan troops to move through their territory, Lopez declared war on them too. Finally the new Uruguayan puppet government declared war on Paraguay, which meant that Paraguay was at war with nearly all of its neighbours simultaneously, hopelessly outnumbered and out-gunned.
Within two years, suicidal attempts to invade Brazil and Argentina had shattered the Paraguayan army and the country was being invaded from all directions. Massacres and disease decimated the population. Frantic Paraguayan Generals tried to persuade Lopez to seek peace, but he refused to stop fighting and had them all executed (usually by having them tied to anthills to be eaten alive by the ants). When his 70 year old mother and two sisters tried to make him see reason, he had them all repeatedly beaten savagely and kept them nailed into wooden crates, from which they were only removed for further beatings. His two brothers and two brothers-in-law were executed.
Finally, and mercifully, Lopez was killed in battle. The War of the Triple Alliance caused the death of an estimated 80% of Paraguay's population, making it pro rata the bloodiest war ever. By the final days, the Paraguayan army consisted of children as young as six attacking enemy artillery placements with clods of earth.

Originally posted by Aphex_Twin
Care to elaborate on that?

Just ask all those people he impaled, and you will find out why he was a terrible leader.

Vlad the Impaler was truely vile and loathsome. He learned how to impale from the Ottoman Empire (he himself was tortured by the Ottoman prision guards and watched people being impaled). He later invented new types of tortures and would frequently round up people just to watch them be executed. He took sadistic delight in watching people die in very agonizing ways.

:hmm: I opened a thread on this.:hmm:

George W Bush, for his inability to get a result in iraq war, even though he has a superior military

Originally posted by Amenhotep7
:hmm: I opened a thread on this.:hmm:

Really? :confused: I must have forgotten. :crazyeye:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=79686

Sorry, Stalin was not anything like a bad leader. There were costs to his policies, but he defeated Germany, conquered Eastern Europe and made the Soviet Union a superpower. He was the most powerful European ruler of all time. You just can't call someone like that a bad leader. He simply wasn't...what you can say is that he valued political success for his state more than the lives of many of it's inhabitants.

Originally posted by calgacus
Sorry, Stalin was not anything like a bad leader. There were costs to his policies, but he defeated Germany, conquered Eastern Europe and made the Soviet Union a superpower. He was the most powerful European ruler of all time. You just can't call someone like that a bad leader. He simply wasn't...what you can say is that he valued political success for his state more than the lives of many of it's inhabitants.

If a state lost that much population as it did under Stalin (at least 20 million) is it hard to conceive of anything other than the thought that Russia could have been more powerful than it was under Stalin. Stalin did not defeat Germany alone. No, indeed it seems impossible the Soviet Union could have done that. The Soviet Union mainly conquered Eastern Europe because of the vaccum and willingness to insert puppet states in the region rather than its realistic power. The Soviet Union relied a lot on Eastern European industrial power that was sitting on a silver platter which was siezed during the war. Russia's potential was so great yet it seems that it did not reach what it could have been. The Russian economy definitely could have been much better than it was.

:hmm: Hmm... maybe people should be categorising them into two categories: Worst Morally and Worst in every other way.

Originally posted by Mongoloid Cow
:hmm: Hmm... maybe people should be categorising them into two categories: Worst Morally and Worst in every other way.

I concur with that! :) Then it would be much easier to construct a list.

Nehru, Indra Ghandi, Rajiv Ghandi, Argunzeb, Shah Jhan.

Originally posted by Mongoloid Cow I don't reckon Nero was one of the worst Roman emperors... I'd say he was middle of the range in terms of good and bad. Kublai Khan (although admitedly it is a matter of opinion), Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mussolini, Ptolemy VIII (IIRC), and Stalin were shockers.


Originally posted by Gagliaudo
[B]ehm, forgive:
I don't reckon the pope of the so-called First crusade was so bad.
He was Urbanus II (1088-1099, he died before receive the new that Jerusalem had been taken...), even if some other popes before him thought freeing Jerusalem, or facing the mighter and mighter Islam.
The historics have studied Urbanus better, and it's today pacific that his calling to free HolyLand had effects larger and quite differents respect to the original intentions and project.

Historically, Mohamed was the 'inventor' of 'holy' war ('jihad', but this term means more exactly the struggle every muslim has to make inside himself to become better...).


I meant morally bad

oh and Nero was also a bad leader maybe not the worst but certain a bad one

Mohamed didn't invent holy war in the way most peoples have used it, religious wars have been going on long before Islam, conflict between religions is as old as religion itself

Originally posted by Free Enterprise
If a state lost that much population as it did under Stalin (at least 20 million) is it hard to conceive of anything other than the thought that Russia could have been more powerful than it was under Stalin. Stalin did not defeat Germany alone. No, indeed it seems impossible the Soviet Union could have done that. The Soviet Union mainly conquered Eastern Europe because of the vaccum and willingness to insert puppet states in the region rather than its realistic power. The Soviet Union relied a lot on Eastern European industrial power that was sitting on a silver platter which was siezed during the war. Russia's potential was so great yet it seems that it did not reach what it could have been. The Russian economy definitely could have been much better than it was.

Russia lost 20 million? Well, blame Hitler, not Stalin.

Oh yeah, the Soviet Union would have won the war, as they were already doing before the Western Hyenas came in to grap a piece of the Lion's kill. :king:

Originally posted by Revolutionary

conflict between religions is as old as religion itself

WRONG.

name me ONE religious war before the advent of monotheism, by a polythiestic power.

Originally posted by Xen
WRONG.

name me ONE religious war before the advent of monotheism, by a polythiestic power.

Assyrian conquests, the conquests of Asoka, mesoamerican wars of sacrifice...the list could go on... :crazyeye:

@Mongoloid Cow, Free Enterprise:
Glad to see you notice that the distintion I proposed before may help for a more useful order in this thread :D ;)

@Revolutionary:
I'm not agree: I think it would be more correct to say that religion is a part inside human being, so whe humans make war, they can choose using religion to enforce themselves. The fact that, through the history, christian peoples fought wars, not means that Christianism is a war religion, cause Christ's message is so far from war... Not the same about some (not all) Mohamed adfirmations... And that's a fact, too. Then... >>>

>>>
@Xen:
name me a religion war before the rise of Islam (expansion of jihad at the cry: "Allah Akbar!" is a fact...). Battle of Pons Milvius, too, wasn't between
Christians and Pagans, but before two political leaders, Costantinus vs Massentius, and there were christian troops in Costantinus' army, that's all.

@calgacus:
I don't know well Asoka's conquest, I'm quite sure Assyrian conquests weren't religion wars, I accept - in a certain sense - that Mesoamerican intestine wars to catch prisoners for sacrifices can be considered 'religion wars', this is aninteresting and original observation... :goodjob:

Calgacus, the number of Stalin´s victims is correct. Remember the famines and the deportations. They´re additional to the 20 million in the war, which died because of the war. And nobody knows how many of them are victims by Stalin! And without the US bombings and the German troops in the west he would have suffered much more losses. And I do not think he would have been able to win.

Adler

@calgacus:
I don't know well Asoka's conquest, I'm quite sure Assyrian conquests weren't religion wars, I accept - in a certain sense - that Mesoamerican intestine wars to catch prisoners for sacrifices can be considered 'religion wars', this is aninteresting and original observation... :goodjob:


Assyrian conquests do seem to have been religious. Assyrian inscriptions attribute almost every action to their semi-monotheistic war-god Asshur. I recall Toynbee speaking of this period as seeing as Rise of National Gods, in the middle east...which includes the Jehovah of Israel.

At any rate, virtually every society in history except the post-medieval Roman West, did not distinguish between society and religion , so to say that religion causes wars is slightly missing the point.

At any rate, virtually every society in history except the post-medieval Roman West, did not distinguish between society and religion , so to say that religion causes wars is slightly missing the point.


Yes, agree, quite las I wrote ('I think it would be more correct to say that religion is a part inside human being, so whe humans make war, they can choose using religion to enforce themselves').

Assyrian conquests, the conquests of Asoka, mesoamerican wars of sacrifice...the list could go on... :crazyeye:


Asoka's wars were not over religon in fact he stopped war becuase of religon.

Asoka's wars were not over religon in fact he stopped war becuase of religon.

Well, I'm not going to believe that. Buddhism was a great propaganda tool. :eek:

Gengis Khan and Tamerlame were some of the worst leaders. The depraved Gengis Khan was the cause of the fall of the Khwarizm Empire. They also severely set back commerce, wealth, and technology in many regions.

The leaders in the Khmer Rouge also rank very high in the worst list.

Oh yeah, the Soviet Union would have won the war, as they were already doing before the Western Hyenas came in to grap a piece of the Lion's kill. :king:

Is this certain? The Axis was developing powerful new military technology that would have posed serious problems for the Soviet Union.

Well, I'm not going to believe that. Buddhism was a great propaganda tool. :eek:


You do realize that after the battle of Kalinga Asoka was so tramuatized by the amount of people dead that he converted to Buddhisim gave away his wealth to the people and never waged another war again?

You do realize that after the battle of Kalinga Asoka was so tramuatized by the amount of people dead that he converted to Buddhisim gave away his wealth to the people and never waged another war again?

Constantine saw a vision in the sky...Muhammad got visions of the archangel Gabriel

You make up your own mind :goodjob:

Constantine saw a vision in the sky...Muhammad got visions of the archangel Gabriel

You make up your own mind :goodjob:

:confused: What? I fail to see how that relates to what I said.

Nehru, Indra Ghandi, Rajiv Ghandi, Argunzeb, Shah Jhan.


Why? Are they because they wanted peace with Pakistan.

Nehru was an idealist not a realist he stopped Ali Bhai Patel from destroying Pakistan because he wanted to live " in peace" with them. Patel was a realist and knew that Pakistan would forever be a thorn in India's side and he wanted to remove it. Also it was because of Nehrus incomptence we lost the 1962 war with China plus there is the fact that he is Congress Party
Indra Ghandi was Nehru's daughter she became a pratical dictator declared emergency and martial law and had political opponents jailed. Also she was hoplessly curropt and part of Congress Party which is well known for their curroption. Also there was that thing where she sent troops into the Sikh tempal and hundreds were killed.
Rajiv Ghandi is Indhra's son as you can see they were practically a dynasty he was curropt and Congress Party as well.
Argunzeb was Mughal Emperor the worst while he waged war while millions died in famines and suffered under poverty. He alinated his allies and subjects gave the British their first foothold in India to conquer it. He was responsible for the downfall of the Mughal Empire
Shah Jahn built extragvent buildings while the common people straved and suffered living in mud huts. After the Taj Mahal was built he had all the laborers and artisans who made it hands cut off so no one could ever duplaciate it.

:confused: What? I fail to see how that relates to what I said.

Perhaps I'll explain it to you when I can be assed... :p

Silver 2039, Shah Jahan also had their tongues cut of so they could never describe it, and their eyes pulled out so they might never see anything more beautiful. Him, Indira Ghandi and Aurangzeb all deserve to be listed as amongst the Worst Leaders of All Time too.

WHo are the worst leader sof all time!?

why anyone mertinign an article- or even a paraghraph, or merelly a sentence in an article by Kafka2 ofcourse ;)

Hitler will always be the first name that comes to my mind when it comes to horrible people and leaders. Mainly because it happened just over a half-century ago.

Hitler killed millions, but isn't the only leader to carry that distinction.

The worst leader of all time is Pope Innocent II, He killed called up for a childrens crusade and is responsible for almost as many murders as hitler. He killed Jews and musilms alike, not to mention the murders of 666* (ironic isn't it) Templar Knights, and scienctists.

why has no one metioned Harding, considered to be america's worst president. or Robespierre.

@Teknalee: are you sure???
Innocent II (1130-43) wasn't related with any crusade: he fought with Normans in South Italy (and he didn't won); he fought agains anti-pope Anacletus II (whose roman family origins were ebraic, not other), and was helped by S.Bernard de Clairvaux (who wrote the 'manifest' of the Templars, the "Laude novae militiae"...), and didn't kill any Templar.
Perhaps you intend Innocent III (1198-1216), but things don't change:
he disapproved Frenc-Venetian conquest of Costantinopolis in the so-called 4th crusade (1202-4), cause his intention was to free Holy Sepulchre; he never exorted to persecute Jews; he gave input to Crusade against Albigensian cathars, but only after cathars killed his envoys (nobody at those time wanted be a papal inquisitor, cause it was very dangerous, many of them were killed), and after he saw that the crusade was beginning a 'personal affair' of the barons, he changed his mind. Surely he had political interest linked to his papal power - but this was the political idea of those times (we always think with today's mentality, forgetting that mentality changes trough the centuries...).
So I really wonder how you can say Innocent III (who made his error as every man) was the worst leader... in front of Hitler, Stalin, Pol-pot and other 'so-beauty' guys...
I didn't read those things neither in Templars websites...

However: bye.
I apologize for this long post, I think I wrote without offend anyone.

I forgot:the so-called children crusade was in 1212, and Innocent III wasn't related with it; more, when he saw what was happening, he disapproved cause it was a non-sense. Children crusade was popular-originated (by 2 boys: Etienne, french, and Nicholas,german).

The worst leader of all time is Pope Innocent II, He killed called up for a childrens crusade and is responsible for almost as many murders as hitler.

I find that hard to believe, there were far less people alive back then. Do you mean in proportion to the population of the world?

Im really sorry for that i ment Clement. My bad.

I wasnt really paying attention to what i was writing, I was watching that 70's show :) I ment to more or less include the catholic church not just one pope. Im not trying to insult anyone but between 1000 and 1700 the Catholic church was responisble for more deaths than Hitler. The childrens crusade plus all of the others were not just one pope but a couple. And they didn't disaprove of the crusades. In that time the growing threat from the Muslims was more than the church could bare. With fighting also in the European community the church saw a perfect opertunity to both rid the world of the Islamic threat and spread the power of the church through Europe. This lead to Kings and just about every one who was European for 400 years to be deaply involed with the Church.

Bush! There are some others, but, there are too many. ;) :rolleyes:

why has no one metioned Harding, considered to be america's worst president. or Robespierre.

I wouldn't rank Harding quite as the least effective President on a list although he definitely would not rank very high. James Buchanan perhaps was less effective (for both refusing to take an effective stand against slavery and not taking action to avert or quell the separatist movement leading to the Civil War) and in terms of atrocities Andrew Jackson did some pretty gruesome things.

Grant was a pretty horrible president too, under Harding corruption was more rampant than ever, since he couldn't say "no" to any of his friends, unfortunately all his friends were incredibly corrupt.

The last Babylonian king (Napolish..I think) failed to maintain the bowman formation and the massive fortification of the great city. :lol:

Or did persia and Babylon have an agreement to change the course of power! ;)

Nabonidus is the one you meant.

And IIRC, the guards opened the gates of Babylon to Cyrus the Great.

@Revolutionary:
I'm not agree: I think it would be more correct to say that religion is a part inside human being, so whe humans make war, they can choose using religion to enforce themselves. The fact that, through the history, christian peoples fought wars, not means that Christianism is a war religion, cause Christ's message is so far from war... Not the same about some (not all) Mohamed adfirmations... And that's a fact, too. Then... >>>

>>>
@Xen:
name me a religion war before the rise of Islam (expansion of jihad at the cry: "Allah Akbar!" is a fact...). Battle of Pons Milvius, too, wasn't between
Christians and Pagans, but before two political leaders, Costantinus vs Massentius, and there were christian troops in Costantinus' army, that's all.

@calgacus:
I don't know well Asoka's conquest, I'm quite sure Assyrian conquests weren't religion wars, I accept - in a certain sense - that Mesoamerican intestine wars to catch prisoners for sacrifices can be considered 'religion wars', this is aninteresting and original observation... :goodjob:


I meant religious conflict I didn't necessary mean wars, and by religious I don't mean the "real perpose" or teachings of the religions I mean there institution or church.

and there has been countless conflicts and wars caused by these in pursuit of power and influence

and what are you trying to say about Mohamed? are you saying that he promoted wars and that Islam is a war religion, because if you are then your logic can also be used about Christianity considering that countless acts of genoside have been committed in the name of the Christian Church, much much more then in the name of the Islamic Church

Islam is not a "war" religion anymore then Christianity or any other religions, it is human beings that use these ideologies in order to justify there crimes

and religion is not "a part of inside of human beings" it is nothing more then a belief or idea and there institutions are nothing more then a means to control peoples actions and impose there beliefs and values on people

religions are created by human beings, war is created by human beings, all wars are the fault of human beings, religious institutions are nothing more then groups of human beings that have the same beliefs created by human beings, religious institutions are responsible for there wars which are caused by the human beings that run these institutions

1. Fieldmarshal Hague - Complete damned moron.
2. Admiral Churchill - Arrogant fool who couldn't learn from history.
3. Whoever was responsible for the British engaging the Germans at Jutland, he also deserves the title.
4. Any idiot who could have prevented the revolutionary war but didn't ;)

1. Fieldmarshal Hague - Complete damned moron.
2. Admiral Churchill - Arrogant fool who couldn't learn from history.
3. Whoever was responsible for the British engaging the Germans at Jutland, he also deserves the title.
4. Any idiot who could have prevented the revolutionary war but didn't ;)

To point 3.: It was the Danish vessel N.J. Fjord which was spotted by German destroyers and stopped. Because of the smoke the ship made the British sent a CL to the ship spotting the two German DD. So the battle began. The British comander was Admiral Jellicoe, while the BC were under the command of Admiral Beatty. Both did their job not very good, especially Beatty. Oh also Room 40, the Naval Secret Service, made mistakes in not telling Jellicoe, that the whole Hochseeflotte is awaiting him. Well we all know the result as strategic draw but tactical German victory :D . I have discussed this alot in other threads so please read there before.
To point 4: It was the British king George II. He wasn´t able to make a compromise.
They are all bad leaders but the worst leaders of all time I doubt sincerly.

Adler

I thought the Prime Minister called the shots? I know the Americans had some supporters, or at least advocates, in the House of Commons so a compromise was probably doable.

How about Mugabbe, the racist warmonger of southern Africa who destroyed his nation through arrogance and worse.

Mugabe is also one good candidate, but he is only in the 3rd or fourth league playing at the moment. If he could he would play in the first league, this Hitler of the third world. But indeed he is one of the worst still in power.

Adler

@Silver: I read the paper earlier today. It looks like there might be another Ghandi to add to the list soon.

Actually i think to classify as worst leader is very broad. A more appropriate title will be "Miserable Failure". Leader who failed to expand their country interest, lead it into decandant, murdering own citizen, lied, tricked, and lost of whole civilisation.

My top pick:
Pol pot
Shah of Iran
Hitler
Hirohito
Chiang Kai Shek
Mao
Emperess Cixi
Saddam Hussien
Ferdinand Marcos
Joseph Estrada
Suharto
Sukarno
Yeltsin
Mussolini
Kim yong ii and his father
Idi amin
And many more~~~

Disputable:
Ronald Reagan and George H W Bush and other celebrities leader
Chen Sui Bian of Taiwan

Ramius

Hirohito had no power. He was the emperor, this meant he couldn´t say anything. He indeed helped his empire to heal with his politics after the war. George W. Bush on the other hand is a must on this list!

Adler

Napoleon III has to be up there for sheer incompetence, spinelessness and being a pale reflection of his more successful ancestor!

I would give George bush the nobel prize! for going into iraq an turning 95% of the moslems in iraq with bin laden..... and Ariel Sharon for creating a new holocaust!

How about Mugabbe, the racist warmonger of southern Africa who destroyed his nation through arrogance and worse.

I second the nomination. Mugabe is a real moron.

it depends how one defines "worst" but in terms of corruption, inefficiency and inability to properly govern with a ton of resources at his fingertips, Ngo Dinh Diem of South Vietnam comes to mind.
this guy was truly a boob and plunged south vietnam further into the abyss that was the second indochina war.
now, i'm aware that Diem can't be put into the same category as Hitler, Stalin et als. but for someone that was hand-picked by the eisenhower admin., he was terrible. when i think of "worst" leaders, diem fits the bill for me.

I would give George bush the nobel prize! for going into iraq an turning 95% of the moslems in iraq with bin laden..... and Ariel Sharon for creating a new holocaust!

Present leaders don't count... you never know how bad they'll get or are (that also includes Kim Jong Il in North Korea).

PS: It's a bit over-reactionary; 95% and holocaust.

Present leaders don't count... you never know how bad they'll get or are (that also includes Kim Jong Il in North Korea).

PS: It's a bit over-reactionary; 95% and holocaust.

i agree. enough of the bush-bashing already.

Hitler
Hussein
Stalin
Castro (does this count?)
Nero
Diocletian
Mussolini
Pol pot
Mao

More people I probably can't think of now...

When I think of this topic, I mostly thought of tyrants, not our current president (how can he be more evil than, say, Adolf Hitler?)

Castro doesn't count. I'll edit the introductory post methinks.