1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Top 5 WORST Leaders ever

Discussion in 'World History' started by carmen510, Jan 27, 2008.

  1. sydhe

    sydhe King of Kongs

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2001
    Messages:
    2,426
    Location:
    Norman Oklahoma
    I figure that since he lasted 14 years in Rome, he must have been doing something right. Same with Domitian. The Romans were generally pretty quick to get rid of incompetents and tyrants, at least before the fourth century.
     
  2. Huayna Capac357

    Huayna Capac357 Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Messages:
    8,194
    Location:
    Boston, Massachusetts
    Worst for US:
    1. Reagan
    2. Bush
    3. Nixon
    4. Buchanan
    5. Harding

    Best:
    1. Lincoln
    2. FDR
    3. Washington
    4. Jefferson?
    5. ?????
     
  3. Azale

    Azale Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Messages:
    18,723
    Location:
    Texas
    Reagan & Bush Jr. are waaaay to recent to judge on a historically.
     
  4. Cutlass

    Cutlass The Man Who Wasn't There.

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2008
    Messages:
    45,334
    Location:
    US of A

    ????? = Truman :p
     
  5. Cutlass

    Cutlass The Man Who Wasn't There.

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2008
    Messages:
    45,334
    Location:
    US of A
    Not really. Compare them to the competition. Most of the other "bad" presidents of the US actually have next to nothing in terms of actual accomplishments.
     
  6. LightSpectra

    LightSpectra me autem minui

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2007
    Messages:
    5,518
    Location:
    Vendée
    Hardcore liberal, eh?

    He decreased inflation, produced something of 16 million jobs, tripled the budget, and prevented Nicaragua from becoming totalitarian. His accomplishments severely outweigh the negatives (Iran-Contra, debt increase), at least enough that he is nowhere near the worst president ever.
     
  7. Angst

    Angst Rambling and inconsistent

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2007
    Messages:
    13,041
    Location:
    A Silver Mt. Zion
    Christian IV was an idiot.
     
  8. Swedishguy

    Swedishguy Deity

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2006
    Messages:
    7,257
    Location:
    Eskilstuna, Sweden IQ: N/A
    I think you forgot to mention that 1 out of 7 Americans poor thing.
     
  9. Cutlass

    Cutlass The Man Who Wasn't There.

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2008
    Messages:
    45,334
    Location:
    US of A
    Not only did Reagan take no actions to reduce inflation, but he tried to talk Paul Volker out of taking actions to reduce inflation. In fact, Reagan's other policies were intended to increase future inflationary pressure. And Reagan did not "create jobs", the jobs came back up as a normal reaction to the reduction of inflation and the end of anti inflation policies.

    You need to seperate what happens on someone's watch with thing that happened as a result of their policies. ;)
     
  10. Traitorfish

    Traitorfish The Tighnahulish Kid

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2005
    Messages:
    32,001
    Location:
    Scotland
    :dubious:

    The Sandinista overthrew a totalitarian regime- one backed by the US which Reagan actively attempted to re-install- and introduced democracy. The closest thing to "totalitarianism" was the provisional government which lasted from 1979-1984, after which democratic elections were introduced. After that, the only "totalitarian" measures were attempts to suppress the Contras, measures no more severe- and, given the situation, far less drastic- than those undertaken by western nations, such as those enacted by the UK to combat the IRA or by the USA to combat Al Qaeda. Remember, the Contras were not legitimate revolutionary armies, they were terrorists who refused to participate in the democratic process and instead attempted to seize power through violence and fear, all the while backed by the self-declared Protector of Democracy himself.
    If anything, Reagan's support of the Contras hampered the development of Nicaraguan democracy, giving the FSLN a credible reason to suppress radical opposition groups.
     
  11. Azale

    Azale Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Messages:
    18,723
    Location:
    Texas
    You know, Abraham Lincoln was not well liked as a President at first. Calvin Coolidge looked like a godsend for years until he was scraped with some of the blame from the Great Depression. Andrew Jackson had a freaking era named after him and was wildly popular for a time, but many more of his flaws have come out with time.

    I am personally split on what to think of when it comes to Reagan and pretty jaded against Bush Jr. and it's not LIKELY that they will redeem themselves in some spectacular fashion...but I think to rate them against the Presidents of hundreds or even half a hundred years ago is kinda silly when we have had barely any time to really reflect on what they did wrong or right.
     
  12. LightSpectra

    LightSpectra me autem minui

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2007
    Messages:
    5,518
    Location:
    Vendée
    Excuse me, I meant Grenada. My bad :blush:

    It was worse under Carter.

    Evidence? The immense tax cuts are what eventually resulted in the inflation decrease. It wasn't just Volker's brilliance.
     
  13. Cutlass

    Cutlass The Man Who Wasn't There.

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2008
    Messages:
    45,334
    Location:
    US of A
    What tax cut? Reagan raised taxes 7 out of 8 years and still produced record deficits. What cut inflation was that the price of oil dropped at a time of high unemployment.

    Investment remained under the post WWII average throughout the Reagan Administration, and unemployment stayed way above the average.

    And seriously, even the "supply siders" don't have a theory that tax cuts would cut inflation :rolleyes:
     
  14. Traitorfish

    Traitorfish The Tighnahulish Kid

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2005
    Messages:
    32,001
    Location:
    Scotland
    Ah. Well, now my colossal rant looks like a hugely disproportionate reaction. Whoops.
     
  15. sydhe

    sydhe King of Kongs

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2001
    Messages:
    2,426
    Location:
    Norman Oklahoma
    Here are some of my worst French leaders, of which there are a truckload. (I start my history of France with Charles the Bald, which lets the Merovingians off the hook.)

    1) Charles the Fat. Here's the scenario. Paris is heroically withstanding siege from Vikings. Charles the Fat arrives with his army, and instead of fighting the Vikings, buys them off and sends them off to raid Burgundy. He was overthrown in short order and the hero of the siege became the new King of France. (Charles the Simple may belong here as well.)
    2) John II, most famous for being catastrophically defeated at Poitiers after having learned the capabilities of the longbow. He got captured, France was forced to pay a ruinous ransom and a one-sided treaty, and, having been released after part of the ransom had been paid, went voluntarily back into captivity when his son Louis escaped, leaving his son to deal with a peasant uprising. Fortunately, his son was Charles the Wise. John is known as John the Good, among other four-letter words.
    3) Charles VI and his ministers. Charles has the excuse of being insane during much of his reign, and his country was under the control of quarreling regents as the country descended into civil war and proved itself totally incapable of defending itself against the British. Agincourt was the major battle in this war. The dauphin Charles is one of those who contributed to the chaos by arranging the murder of the Duke of Burgundy. This is one of the reasons Charles was disinherited and Henry VI of England became the "king" of France. However, the dauphin Charles made good his claim to be king of France and was actually pretty good after a rough start.
    4) Charles IX, who, with the advice of his mother, Catherine de Medici, thought the St. Bartholemew's Massacre was a good idea. Charles, Catherine, and Charles' successor, Henri III, all proved incapable with dealing with the wars of religion, which were finally healed through the hard work of Henri IV.
    5) Marshall Philippe Pétain, for obvious reasons. A genuine hero of the First World War, he was sentenced to death for treason after the second. (De Gaulle commuted the sentence due to Pétain's past heroism, age and possible senility. Another traitor, Pierre Laval, actually was executed.

    Other candidates:

    Henri II, perhaps the most bigoted of French kings, who is remembered for his vicious persecution of the Huguenots, leading to 30 years of civil wars.
    Louis XV, whose repeated wars and ignoring of economic warnings did much to cause the Revolution in his successor's reign. Created a 59-year vacuum at France's heart which was filled by people like Mme. Pompadour. Really not spectacularly awful at any moment, but 59 years of mediocrity is time for a lot of internal rot.
    Louis XVI failed to deal with the French Revolution and through his weakness helped make it worse. He had more than his share of bad luck, too, and I'm not sure anyone could have dealt with all his problems, and we do have him to thank for helping out the American Revolution.
    Charles X, who was a reactionary thug who managed, after much hard work, to get himself overthrown in 1830. Actually worse than Louis XVI, but more fortunate in that he got to keep his head. In some ways comparable to James II of England.

    (Napoleon III was generally an okay leader; his big problems were bad diplomacy, and he had the misfortune to spectacularly lose a war to Bismarck's Germany. The Mexican expedition wasn't too successful either.)
     
  16. mrpwn3r

    mrpwn3r Stereotypical Asian

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    990
    Location:
    California
    How can guys choose Hitler as one of the worst leaders ever? Sure he committed the Holocaust and started World War II in Europe and killed only tens of million of people. :o But he was so frighteningly effective that it was scary.

    In my honest opinion, if Hitler died in 1938-1939, he would be regarded as one of the greatest heroes in modern history. Which is kind of frighteningly sad. :(
     
  17. Adler17

    Adler17 Prussian Feldmarschall

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2003
    Messages:
    5,341
    Location:
    Schleswig- Holstein. Germany
    You're right. Or even more if he died in 1940 after the fall of France. At this moment he would have become a hero like napoleon. The man, who lead his nation again to glory. Against the odds to revenge Versailles.
    At this moment Hitler did not commit so many crimes to be recognized as monster. And of the ones he committed there were many "excuses". "The Reichskristallnacht was done by Goebbels. The SA was a band and Hitler could not be made responsible for all of the crimes his officials did. He didn't know that and would have acted if he did. The things against the Jews were bad, but they had even worse times before." And so on (that is indeed what the population believed!). His other major crimes were not even planned. No Holocaust, no attack on Russia.
    With Hitler dead no one in the party could have hold the power for long. Most likely soon the Wehrmacht would have taken over the power and elections would have followed soon. But Hitler would have been remembered as hero!
    Frightening? Sad? Yes!
    However all "heroes" in history have their dark sides. And some are darker than others. If you want to be strict you would have to throw down many great man.
    As examples:
    For China Mao and Chin- Chi- Huang- Di. Both made China big, but both were committing huge crimes. Mao is even one of the worst leader ever but still celebrated.
    Napoleon ordered some of his opponents to be killed!
    Churchill and his actions concerning the bomb war against German cities is also not the yellow of the egg.
    Truman and the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are also debatable.
    I could go on. But you see. They all have their dark sides. If it isn't too dark it is forgiven by most.

    Adler
     
  18. Azale

    Azale Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Messages:
    18,723
    Location:
    Texas
    Truman is hardly a great president even if your the head of the Atomic Bombs are Awesome club :p
     
  19. Dachs

    Dachs Hero of the Soviet Union

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    32,588
    Location:
    Moscow
    His diplomacy wasn't actually that bad. He managed to get friendly with Britain for a long time because of the Crimean War, and his Franco-Russian dual alliance dominated European politics as the only real alliance on the Continent for a decade. He also got a whole lot of influence in Italy when he supported Piedmont's grab in 1859. Thing was, as soon as he hit the 1860s he sort of fell apart. Italy turned into a nightmare with Garibaldi's invasion (albeit that was something over which he had little influence), making him support the Papal States against his former ally Cavour (if he hadn't the French Catholics would have gotten more than a little pissed). Germany didn't work out because Napoleon thought that Austria would last longer against the Prussians, but Sadowa spoiled that. The results of the Seven Weeks' War still looked favorable to Boney III on the surface though: Germany was theoretically rid of its nationalism problem because the North German Confederation, predominantly Protestant, had no real reason to go after the southern German states, who were predominantly Catholic and who just fought a war with the Prussians. Napoleon actually thought that he would be able to extend his influence in those states and make them a viable opponent to von Bismarck. Unfortunately for him, as we all know, Berlin meant more to the southern German states than Paris did, and as it turned out Austria-Hungary didn't care to renew the fight in 1870. Napoleon wasn't a terrible ruler; he just didn't get better as he got older, and he made a few mistakes, but then again who doesn't? Frankly I think he was slightly better than mediocre for France; but for 1870 he would actually be ranked among one of the better French monarchs.
     
  20. Cutlass

    Cutlass The Man Who Wasn't There.

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2008
    Messages:
    45,334
    Location:
    US of A
    But Hitler declared war on so many powerful nations at once that his country was all but destroyed in the aftermath.
     

Share This Page