From what I have heard, Bram notwithstanding, he was pretty brutal.
History's most Brutal Dictators?
- Thread starter dutchking
- Start date
Mirc
Not mIRC!!!
Brutal yes, of course, but saying he impaled 20,000 people is just being extremely guillable.
Julian Delphiki
Anton's key
Those impaling and cruelty legends originate from medieval pamphlets, not from Bram Stoker's Dracula.
I didn't get my information from a fantasy book.I didn't know fantasy books were considered historic sources these days...
Sorry but this is extremely stupid, he learned the impaling technique while he grew up in the Ottoman Empire, where it was MUCH more widely used! Much more! He managed to stop Ottoman expansion into Europe while being the ruler of a country that was about 15 times smaller than the Ottoman Empire... The impaling legends are all only myths inspired by Bram Stoker.
You said that he "learned the impaling technique while he grew up in the Ottoman Empire", but then you said that "The impaling legends are all only myths". Which is it? Did he learn the techniques in the Ottoman Empire and put them to use in keeping the Ottoman's at bay, or is it all a myth that was made up by others? Before you attack me for my position being stupid, perhaps you should examine your own for consistency.
The medieval pamphlets that talk about his mass executions and torture were indeed a form of tabloid/propaganda - but despite being printed all over Europe over a period of decades, most of them agree on the most important details. I wouldn't be surprised if at least some of the stories about his methods are exaggerated, but dismissing it all as a "myth" or saying that he didn't kill many people or wasn't brutal is simply naive. Was he as bad as everyone thought? Maybe not. Did he impale thousands, if not tens of thousands of people? Almost certainly.
Thorvald of Lym
A Little Sketchy
Bah, she'll have to work hard to top Thatcher!
Hmm...
There are a lot of bad guys there, but I voted for the number 1 mass murder of humankind: Mao. You can't be responsible for the most deaths of any person on the planet Earth without being seriously evil, deranged, and brutal.
Percentage is another way to go about it, but I don't have a list of the brutal men who killed X% of all the people they could, so I can't make a reasoned argument there. I would be interested in seeing it, however.
There are a lot of bad guys there, but I voted for the number 1 mass murder of humankind: Mao. You can't be responsible for the most deaths of any person on the planet Earth without being seriously evil, deranged, and brutal.
Percentage is another way to go about it, but I don't have a list of the brutal men who killed X% of all the people they could, so I can't make a reasoned argument there. I would be interested in seeing it, however.
Sorry to double-post, but I had to call attention to King Leopold II. Slaughtering half of the population in the Congo (roughly 10 million out of 20) in the late 19th century while keeping a good humanitarian image is both chilling and definitely in the running for being a brutal dictator. If you have the chance, read King Leopold's Ghost.
Yeah, in my opinion good old Leo doesn't get enough attention called to his misdeeds.
Mirc
Not mIRC!!!
Hahaha.... You just can't be serious.
Examine my own for consistency?
You said that he "learned the impaling technique while he grew up in the Ottoman Empire", but then you said that "The impaling legends are all only myths".
I obviously meant that those tens of thousands of victims of impaling are simlpy legends made up over the centuries. Not that he never impaled anyone.
And I don't believe you really didn't understand this.Hmm? Most of them have just pictures who show impaled people... Did you count those people or something?
Who said he wasn't brutal? I'm saying he wasn't in any way more brutal than any average medieval ruler.
And you draw this conclusion from where?
Sorry but if you believe in this I'm surprised you don't believe in Santa too...
austin2359
Chieftain
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2007
- Messages
- 13
Pol Pot is a hero. He saved more people than he killed...if he killed anyone.
That's the first time I ever heard that claim. Who did he save and how did he save them, and from what?
austin2359
Chieftain
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2007
- Messages
- 13
the fighting between Vietnam and America on the border killed many Cambodians, along with the invading Viennese and "Republic" army.
Julian Delphiki
Anton's key
Are you coming from parallel universe or something? Claims like those sound like really lacking knowledge of history or trolling.
austin2359
Chieftain
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2007
- Messages
- 13
BTW, I voted for Saddam. Other people were brutal, but at least they thought they were fighting for a greater cause. Hitler thought he was fighting Marxism by going after Jews, Stalin thought he was unifying class division, Mao thought he was advancing the economy...but Saddam killed for no reason but to stay in power. He had no ideology or reason behind it...I have mixed feelings though, as I think the type of people who ruled over had to be treated with brutality.
Well how did Pol Pot then save the lives of all those Cambodians? How was it not due to the end of the war?
Heretic_Cata
We're gonna live forever
^
He sent them to a better place.
He sent them to a better place.
Viennese? Is this a typo? Are you referring to Vienna or the Austrians? Or to a faction of Vietnamese?
On Saddam...there are plenty of murders in power that do it for themselves. The truly delusional ones that think they are divine prophets or are otherwise on some great mission...those are the ones that send chills down my spine.
cybrxkhan
Asian Xwedodah
thuogh they wouldn't be as dangerous as the ones who just do it for fun or at least know they are doing it. because those are the ones that you can't manipulate at all if you have to.
Similar threads
