Who Was The Most Useless Ruler Ever?

[Locutus]

Actually, I think the person you're describing is Kublai Khan, he moved the Mongol capital from Karakorum to Dadu (now Beijiing). Although this was a bad move and caused the various Mongol khanates to grow further apart, it was in itself not something that made the Mongol empire collapse (although it did contribute to the collapse, which occured 70 years after Kublai's death). Kublai is generally seen as the second greatest Mongol ruler who ever lived (after Genghis of course) and although the economic policies of him and (especially) the rest of the Yuan Dynasty did do China much harm in the long run, he certainly wasn't a bad ruler who spent all his money on entertainment. Some of his accomplishments include: defeating the Sung dynasty, rebuilding the Grand Canal, repairing public granaries, extending highways, promoting the creation of trade routes throughout the Eurasian continent (e.g. by reinstating the Silk Route), building magnificent palaces in Dadu and Shangdu, fostering Chinese scholarship and arts.

Ligdan Khan ruled much later, in the early 17th century, and was the last of the great Khans. He is generally also seen as a capable leader. He united many Mongol tribes to defend their homeland (roughly present-day Mongolia plus Inner Mongolia) against the rising power of the Manchu; he put up a good fight and only after Ligdan's death were the Mongols subdued by the Manchu.

 

[SKILORD2]

Emperor Nero of Rome!!!!

Hands down.... there were many other Emperors who were nuts too but Nero was by far the most destructive.

 

[SKILORD2]

Originally posted by Case
I think that Adolf Hitler and Emperor Hirihito are also worth mentioning. Both of them started unwinnable wars that destroyed their nations.

Adolf came damn close to winning that war..... if it wern't for the Japs bringin the US into the War he probley could have (although he screwed up on the eastern front)

Hirihito really had little choice but to attack the US and hope for the best

 

[MrPresident]

Hirihito really had little choice but to attack the US and hope for the best

If the Japs had destroyed the American air craft carriers and got to the Dutch oil supplies in the East then the ending may have been very different.

Emperor Nero of Rome!!!!

Surely Caligula was a worst Roman emperor than Nero. At the beginning of Nero's reign he was a pretty good ruler, albeit he was just doing what his advisors told him. Also the Roman people loved Nero because he kept throwing festivals and games, thus getting them out of work.

 

[Case]

Originally posted by MrPresident

If the Japs had destroyed the American air craft carriers and got to the Dutch oil supplies in the East then the ending may have been very different.

The Japanese did capture the Dutch East Indies in early 1942. In the event, it didn't do them much good because American subs sank most of the Japanese tanker fleet in 1943/44

Also, even If the Japanese had sank every American carrier at the Battles of the Coral Sea and Midway, and then gone on to complete their building program, the Americans would still have been able to field a hugely more powerful fleet in 1944.

SKILORD2: How was Hirihito forced to attack the US? The trade off between pulling out of the Chinese quagmire in return for escaping economic and millitary defeat at the hands of the US seems pretty good to me.

 

[Jersey Joe]

How about, the 10th chief executive of the USA.
In between President W. Harrison & President J. Tyler was speaker of the House Chattanooga.

It was reported that he spent his 1 day (Sunday) as leader of the USA sitting on his porch drinking lemonade. Hmmmmm.... maybe that makes him one of our more effective leaders

 

[Ozz]

How about that Romanian Dictator executed by his own people
after the Berlin wall fell. (can't remember his name). Big time Tomb builder, was always telling his people he was meeting
with Queen Elizabeth. Perhaps someone from Europe can
help me out with his name.

 

[Hamlet]

Nicolae Ceausescu.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I vote for Kin Jong Il, North Korea's (hereditary) Communist leader.
If you dissagree, this is the place for you...

 

[CrazyScientist]

My wife is something of a russian history connoiseur, and would be upset with me if I didn't put in a plug for Stalin here. He killed every experienced high ranking officer he had right before entering a major war.
Then, to keep his country from destruction in said war, he blitz-industrialized a nation that wasn't ready. Sure it may have saved them from the nazis, but Russia is still in a hell pit to this day because of Stalin's policies.
Oh, and lets nto forget the mass slaughter of millions of his own people.

 

[Sargon of Akkad]

What about Louis XVI?

To my knowledge all he did was throw balls D). Unfortunatly, my knowledge isn't exactly the best.

 

[History_Buff]

I recently read a post about a German group that thried to stage a koup on the government of the Wiemar republic, Putch something. Those guys were pretty useless, and yes, Dan Qualye pretty bad. Hey, he has his own section here at CFC.

 

[Nahuixtelotzin]

Caligula, definitely. In contrast to Nero, he was already mad when accessing the rule

20th century: Pol Pot and probably some african dictators like Bokassa or Idi Amin

 

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by Nahuixtelotzin
Caligula, definitely. In contrast to Nero, he was already mad when accessing the rule

That's debatable. The very early part of his rule was actually rather good, with him winning favour with the people by abolishing an unpopular tax, and all was generally not that bad.

However, I recall his sister died soon afterwards, and that was the trigger for him really going mad. (Allegedly they had been in an incestuous relationship.)

I would personally go for Nicholas II or Stalin. One was utterly incompetant, and the other was a butchering maniac.

 

[Mîtiu Ioan]

Originally posted by sysyphus
2. Charles de Gaulle

Sorry ??

This man have a crucial role in XX century France history !!

I bet that you are a "opponent" of him !!

Regards

 

[Archbob]

Most of the last rulers of every chinese dynasty were pretty crappy.

Although the 1 month in office of William Henry Harrison isn't impressive either.

 

[philippe]

i forgot his name but the nazi ruler after hitler killed himself.
in his speech:the german reich will never fall!
a few weeks later the russians captured berlin

 

[Mats Norrman]

Originally posted by Juize
Without really much of pondering, I give the honor to another Civ 1 Leader:
Emperor Nero.

Nero, Caligula and Commodus were victims of very much claumnity due to that their politics were impopular in certain ways (though that dosn't mean that their politics was necessarily downright bad). It is not always the leaders who give candy to the people who are the most useful eladers either. Antoninus Pius totally refused, and Marcus Aurelius refused as long he could to engage in military campaigns against the Germanic tribes because they were to lazy and too feminine to just do it. And those guys were in charge for a very long time. This respite allowed the Germanic Tribes to organize themselves undisturbed and build up their forces, which made them a much more dangerous threat to later Roman Emperors then they had needed to be if these two gentlemens had done their duties instead of having philosophical conversations in Rome, which they got so much good acclaim for. And the son of marcus Aurelius who had to raise taxes and scribe out men to military service to fight the stronger Germanic tribes was....oh no! It was Commodus!

Nero then, he was a great artistic talent. Some of the finest poems we know from the Roman aera were actually written by Nero. We know this because we had a witness to it: Seutonius(?) tells that his father saw the drafts to several of those poems at an audience at Nero. And this historian was in general very critical to Nero (and the Monarcy in general), therefore if he says something positive about Nero, we have reason to belive it is true.

But the Romans were also a bit unconventional when they judged which Emperor did a good job and who did not. One very important criteria was that the Emperor should be a good speaker. This was a tradition since longer back then Cato and probably something that made the Romans feel the Republican traditions alive. Augustus then was a very good speaker, and the Romans were satisfied. Tiberius always spoke dubious meanings with many bottoms, but the Romans loved it. Claudius could talk in eternities about just everything. Even the stuttering Caligula could hold speeches effectfully.

But Nero; The Emperor insisted to sing falsely on the theatre and payed people for applausing, but that was Ok the Romans thought; the Emperor went to the Olympic games in Greece and bribed everybody with state funds to let him win, but that was Ok the Romans thought, The Emperor runs around in Rome in the nights and destroys things and bash windows, but that was Ok the Romans thought; The Emperor harrass political opponents, but that was Ok the Romans thought; The Emperor burns down Rome to be able to build a city of marble, but that was Ok the Romans thought; But when the Emperor shall hold a speech and he starts laughing there is the limit reached, the Romans thought.

Mats Norrman
mats.norrman@home.se

 

[Mîtiu Ioan]

Originally posted by Mats Norrman
The Emperor burns down Rome to be able to build a city of marble

Sorry - but recent historians reject the theory that Rome was burned following Nero's orders.

This seems to be a big manipulation of history ...

Regards

 

[Mats Norrman]

Originally posted by Mîtiu Ioan


Sorry - but recent historians reject the theory that Rome was burned following Nero's orders.

This seems to be a big manipulation of history ...

Regards

I know. And I don't think so either. My point was just to be a little humourous in the last section. Therefore I violated - in Ancient manner - the truth to set an effect.

Mats Norrman
mats.norrman@home.se