Amogos
P.R.A.S.C.O.
Who do you think caused the most self-helping or unnecessary cruelties in history?
Who is the cruelest person in history?
- Thread starter Amogos
- Start date
Dragonlord
Fantasy Warlord
Going not by how much cruelty was caused in sum by the person, but by the sheer inventiveness and sadism with which he had enemies tortured to death, I'll go with the Assyrians: Ashurbanipal II. BTW, unless you mean another king of which I've never heard, you misspelled the name.
Edit: I'd love to know who voted Dick Cheney here...
Edit: I'd love to know who voted Dick Cheney here...
LightSpectra
me autem minui
Vlad Tepes, assuming that what was written of him was not in fact a demonization (admittedly, it's a bit unclear).
SpiritWolf
Warlord
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2006
- Messages
- 255
lol at Cheney. I voted Genghis for killing whole cities.
Cynovolans
Not in my dimension.
Where is Queen Ranavalona of Madagascar? The woman who is referred to as Female Caligula, and Most Mad Queen of History should be on the list. She killed nearly half of the population of Madagascar, and everyone of them died in some cruel way. She would have soldiers toss people over hills until they were dead, some people were taken out to dense jungles where they would become strangled in the undergrowth, others would have the blood of animals poured on their clothes and then have hunting dogs released on them, and her personal favorite was boiling the people alive. Her palace was a wonderful place, except for the 1600 bodies in the dungeon.
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
Anyone depicted with flames in the background while O Fortuna is playing.
RalofTyr
King
I am the cruelest person in history.
Also, why isn't, God in the poll?
Also, why isn't, God in the poll?
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Josif V. Stalin without question.
By the number of killed (ranging from some 20 to 70 million) and by his psychopatic nature (how many of his relatives and close co-workers ended up being tortured and shot?). That man is as close to "evil" as one can possibly get, and Dolphy doesn't even get close in this respect.
I read somewhere that if it wasn't for Communism and its endless purges, democides and imbecilic prosecution of WW2, Russia would now have about 300 million people instead of 140 million. Yay for communism - keeping the world's population from rapid growth since 1917
(seriously, if Russians are so obsessed with their greatness and power, I don't get it how can they adore Stalin - a man who gutted Russia alive and left a hollow shell of traumatized nation to vegetate on an illusion of being a superpower)
By the number of killed (ranging from some 20 to 70 million) and by his psychopatic nature (how many of his relatives and close co-workers ended up being tortured and shot?). That man is as close to "evil" as one can possibly get, and Dolphy doesn't even get close in this respect.
I read somewhere that if it wasn't for Communism and its endless purges, democides and imbecilic prosecution of WW2, Russia would now have about 300 million people instead of 140 million. Yay for communism - keeping the world's population from rapid growth since 1917
(seriously, if Russians are so obsessed with their greatness and power, I don't get it how can they adore Stalin - a man who gutted Russia alive and left a hollow shell of traumatized nation to vegetate on an illusion of being a superpower)
attackfighter
Emperor
oh sweet I guessed right
Harvin87
The Youth
if we are talking of the "operational" side of torture and cruelty ... I will go for Vlad...
Dragonlord
Fantasy Warlord
That was easy
... Winner is like a broken record. Mind you, I more or less share his opinion of Stalin - but we don't need to hear it in every thread. Sorry Winner, nothing personal...
Winner
Diverse in Unity
That was easy
Broken record? That's a bit insulting, don't you think? I have a clear opinion on Communism, sure, but I think there is a plenty of historical evidence that Stalin definitely qualifies for the most cruel ruler in history.
And give me a list of threads where I OT ranted about Stalin, otherwise take back that broken record remark
Leopold II. Stalin had a more powerful state and more people to play with, as well as a dehumanising war to cover himself and excuse things as "necessary", but the actual character of his crimes was too impersonal and too tied up with a twisted notion of the "greater good." Stalin was the head of a huge and terrible killing machine... but the USSR probably still would have been a charnel house without Stalin and it wasn't so much sadistic as brutally "efficient". The entire state was sociopathic.
The same can't be said of the Congo Free State, which reduced the population by half in some insanely heinous ways based on one man's personal greed. The whole "quotas of human hands" thing in particular is utterly diabolical.
The same can't be said of the Congo Free State, which reduced the population by half in some insanely heinous ways based on one man's personal greed. The whole "quotas of human hands" thing in particular is utterly diabolical.
Dragonlord
Fantasy Warlord
Broken record? That's a bit insulting, don't you think? I have a clear opinion on Communism, sure, but I think there is a plenty of historical evidence that Stalin definitely qualifies for the most cruel ruler in history.
And give me a list of threads where I OT ranted about Stalin, otherwise take back that broken record remark
All right, all right, I'll take it back. I didn't meant to be insulting.
I have seen you rant about Stalin in quite a number of recent threads, though - more or less on topic, I'll admit.
Off the top of my head:
- The 'Patton's Plan' thread
- The 'Warsaw Uprising' thread
I'm certain there were a couple more, mostly in the History forum.
Edit: The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact
My point - trying to be humorous and obviously failing - was that it was no great feat to predict whom you would choose as most cruel ... I'd have bet money on it.
Edit: ... and mind you, I do agree that Stalin was one of the greatest mass-murderers and criminals in history ... though not necessarily 'most cruel'. While he killed (had killed) millions of people, I don't remember any descriptions of him having them gratuitously tortured to death. As I see it, he was totally ruthless, but not necessarily sadistic. It was enough for him to see his 'enemies' dead or neutralized in a labor camp, he didn't necessarily get satisfaction from their suffering... though I doubt he ever shed a tear for it either.
Compare that to the Assyrians... we had a quote on a thread here recently, but I couldn't find it again just now. The Assyrians made a point of killing people in the most gruesome ways they could imagine.. flaying them alive, impaling etc. - as a way of intimidating their subject peoples.
I seem to be the minority opinion on the Assyrians, though... a lot more find Dick Cheney the most cruel person in history...
... makes me think they don't know much history.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
All right, all right, I'll take it back. I didn't meant to be insulting.
I have seen you rant about Stalin in quite a number of recent threads, though - more or less on topic, I'll admit.
Off the top of my head:
- The 'Patton's Plan' thread
How did I rant about Stalin there? I simply argued that the Soviet Union would be pretty screwed if it had to fight the Western Allies right after the defeat of Germany. I might have mentioned the incompetent Soviet leadership which led millions of Russians (and other Soviet nationalities) to a senseless slaughter, but that's hardly a rant, IMO.
I made a single post in that thread in which I didn't mention Stalin at all.
Seems like you're confusing me with someone else
I'm certain there were a couple more, mostly in the History forum.
My point - trying to be humorous and obviously failing - was that it was no great feat to predict whom you would choose as most cruel ... I'd have bet money on it.
Yes, I predictably chose the greatest villain who happens to be a Commie - that's not that hard to guess, you know.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Stalin and his regime effectively killed half of the Russian population too, and their reasons were much more heinous. In Belgian case, it was negligence and carelessness which is of course despicable, but in the Soviet case, it was done on purpose. Widespread terror, endless purges, surveillance, totalitarian rule. It screwed Russia much more that Leopold's enterprise screwed Congo (basically because there was little to screw in the first place).
I maintain that cruelty implies intentional desire to cause suffering and death, which means Stalin is certainly the worst example.
Dragonlord
Fantasy Warlord
x-posted here.
See my opionion on cruelty and Stalin in my edited post, please. Guess I should have made a new post.
I don't doubt Stalin intentionally caused death - but the suffering was a by-product. Compared to Ashurbanipal, Genghis Khan and Vlad the Impaler... no, Stalin doesn't cut it as 'most cruel', IMO
See my opionion on cruelty and Stalin in my edited post, please. Guess I should have made a new post.
I don't doubt Stalin intentionally caused death - but the suffering was a by-product. Compared to Ashurbanipal, Genghis Khan and Vlad the Impaler... no, Stalin doesn't cut it as 'most cruel', IMO
Winner
Diverse in Unity
AFAIK he forced his comrades to literally dance during their visits, people were terrified by his mere presence (he ordered people killed because of a single remark), he had his relatives imprisoned, tortured or shot because they were a possible danger... He was well-aware of what he was doing and he did it anyway. Stalin thus looks like an epitome of cruelty.
You seem to be mistaking sadism and brutality with cruelty, which is IMO wrong. I already mentioned my definition of cruelty which is similar to the dictionary definitions of cruel (1 : disposed to inflict pain or suffering : devoid of humane feelings <a cruel tyrant>; 2 a : causing or conducive to injury, grief, or pain ) and it precisely fits on Stalin.
I'd say that he was in fact much more cruel as a person than Hitler, who usually left the dirty work to others.
Similar threads
