Is Chamberlain on their only because he lost so many times to Russell? I don't really think you can blame that all on him. I think that Russell had a consistently better "cast of characters" around him. Seriously, if you want identify someone from this realm, I'd go w/ Wilkins or Marbury.
Worst leaders in history.
- Thread starter Sidhe
- Start date
Neville Chamberlain, the British PM that favoured concession with Germany. even while they were preparing a huge war machine, and anexing and invading other countries.
I have in my hands a piece of paper( gauranteeing a concessionary deal from Germany) Probably the most worthless piece of paper in history, after a copy of Bushes speeches
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neville_Chamberlain
sydhe
King of Kongs
That John XXIII is usually called an anti-pope, but he really doesn't belong on the list.
Aurangzeb deserves consideration. His bigotry and persecution caused revolts by both the Maratha and the Sikhs and only his military ability kept the Mughal Empire alive during his lifetime. When he dies it promptly collapsed. It's not a bright idea to persecute a religion which is a heavy majority of your own country.
For sheer incompetence combined with paranoia and bloodiness, Phocas is a pretty good choice.
Aurangzeb deserves consideration. His bigotry and persecution caused revolts by both the Maratha and the Sikhs and only his military ability kept the Mughal Empire alive during his lifetime. When he dies it promptly collapsed. It's not a bright idea to persecute a religion which is a heavy majority of your own country.
For sheer incompetence combined with paranoia and bloodiness, Phocas is a pretty good choice.
Enkidu Warrior
Ultramagnetic
Pol Pot. His regime executed a significant proportion of his countries population, including anyone who "looked intelligent".
There's so many so here's my top five nominees: Hanno the Great (Carthage), Philip the Fair (France) (come to think of it, might've not been a good choice after all. Still better choice than some listed in the poll though), Pol Pot (Cambodia), Stalin (USSR), Hitler (Germany)
sydhe
King of Kongs
I don't understand why you would include Hanno and Philip the Fair on that list. Philip of Valois, maybe.
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
Why is Pol Pot not on the list?
You know, I'm not sure. But Hanno the Great's policies eventually result in the obliteration of the Carthaginian state,. As for Philip the Fair, at the time I was thinking of the Middle Ages and he was the worst leader from that time period I could come up with. So yeah, looking back he was a bad choice.
Adler17
Prussian Feldmarschall
Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler. The top four, not perhaps in that row, but all of them are burning in hell and committed the worst crimes. There can't be worse leaders then them.
Adler
Adler
To a certain extent, you can argue that they were (I'm not sure about Pol Pot) good leaders. Stalin for example, gained control of the USSR when it was a backwards country with wooden ploughs. When he died, it was an Empire which went beyond of the ambitions of the greatest of the Tsars and had nuclear technology/ Also, why is Ghengis Khan on the list? He was a brilliant leader. A brutal, genocidal tyrant but a good leader for the Mongols nonetheless.
A problem with judging how "bad" a leader was is perspective. For example from the perspective of the Mongols, Genghis Khan is a national hero. The Russians, Persians or Chinese may not think the same way of him. Someone like Mao or Stalin, although they killed millions, managed to transform their countries into global superpowers. Plus, different countries and different eras of history requires different styles of leadership. It's hard actually to determine which leader is worse or better than others.
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
Idi Amin should probably be somewhere on the list.
BEHIND_THE_MASK
A Liar... A Cheat...
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2006
- Messages
- 1,840
Stalin is the Worst Leader, he has poor military skills and poor people skills... the only thing he has is industrialisation of a large country, though, if u add the success it had and minus the lives it cost... I'd say it even ammounts to crap. Peter The Great modernized Russia, and he did it relatevily clean.
Neonanocyborgasm
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2004
- Messages
- 4,695
I voted for Kofi Annan, since he was never the leader of anything.
Enkidu Warrior
Ultramagnetic
Seriously, Pol Pot beats these others hands down for exactly the reasons you're on about. Pol Pot all but destroyed his own country and was a disgustingly brutal tyrant in the process. The whole "year zero" thing makes me feel nauseous. Anyone here wear glasses? You'd be executed for looking too intelligent.
Have a read, if you've got a strong stomach:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_pot
This stupa is filled with the skulls of the Khmer Rouge's victims.
Have a read, if you've got a strong stomach:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_pot
This stupa is filled with the skulls of the Khmer Rouge's victims.
ol PotErm... No he didn't. Wasn't St. Petersburg nicknamed 'The City of Bones' because it was built on the bodies of thousands of peasants?
bob bobato
L'imparfait
Whats Muhammad doing there? And What do you mean by 'worst'?Stupid or evil?
Adler17
Prussian Feldmarschall
A stupid leader might be as dangerous as an evil leader. So being evil is not a must to be credited here. However it helps a lot.
Adler
Adler
Similar threads
