Printable View
The title says it all.
We've had famous Leaders and etc, but we never stopped and thought about the infamous leaders, the ones that we curse in our sleeps, the ones that have made lasting impression on history.
Isabel and Ferdinand of Spain
-Medieval Rulers of Spain
-Spanish Reconquest
-Forced Converted millions of citizen to Catholicism
-Booted the Moors out of Spain
-Used military might and religious fear to control the masses
An excellent topic for a historical discussion Mr. Ghost.
Here is my list of certain infamous despots, autocrats and other malevolent, imperious, vindictive, excessive and capricious rulers of history:
-Sargon I of the Akkadians
-Nebuchadnezzar II of the Neo-Babylonians
-Alexander III of Macedonia
-Antiochus II Theos of the Seleucid Empire
-Antiochus IV Epiphanes of the Seleucid Empire
-Heliocles I of the Graeco-Bactrian Kingdom
-Dionysius: Despot of Syracuse
-Agathocles: Despot of Syracuse
-Caligula: Roman Princeps
-Nero: Roman Princeps
-Galba: Roman usurper
-Otho: Roman usurper
-Vitellius: Roman usurper
-Domitian: Imperial dynast of the Flavian Dynasty
-Commodus: Imperial dynast
-Septimius Severus: Roman usurper and founder of the Severan Dynasty
-Caracalla: An Imperial dynast of the Severan Dynasty
-Heliogabalus: Imperial dynast of the Severan Dynasty
-Maximinus Thrax: Roman usurper, a Thracian barbarian.
-Carienus
-Diocletian
-Constantine I: Founder of the Constantinian Dynasty
-Honorius: Western Roman Emperor and an imperial dynast of the Theodosian Dynasty
-Geiseric: King of the Vandals
-Clovis I: King of the Franks
-Phocas: A Byzantine usurper who murdered the rightful Eastern Roman Emperor Maurice
A tyrant I read about recently is Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, the seventh king of the Roman Kingdom. Very interesting topic.
well theres musso and hitler plus stalin then you got the bumbling idiot george w. bush then theres always kevin ruddQuote:
Originally Posted by Ghost101
P.S. anyone noticed they are either military or politicians?
If you are going to say Jr. was a tyrant please provide facts to back your claim.Quote:
Originally Posted by Digger Walters
Since when was Bush a tyrant?Quote:
Originally Posted by Digger Walters
Proof please.
I'm rather curious, Conrad, why you chose Alexander the Great as a tyrant. After all he was basically the forerunner for the Roman Empire and did end the Persian empire, which was considered barbaric by some people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Conrad_Jalowski
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalent
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skirata
im not sayin hes a tyrants but hes infamous famous fer a bad reason see he was a bumblin idiot
> 'The vast majority of our imports come from outside the country.'
> - George W. Bush
>
> 'If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure.'
> - George W. Bush
>
> 'One word sums up probably the responsibility of any Governor, and that one word is 'to be prepared'.'
> -George W. Bush
> 'I have made good judgments in the past. I have made good judgments in the future.'
> - George W. Bush
>
> 'The future will be better tomorrow.'
> - George W. Bush
> 'We're going to have the best educated American people in the world.'
> - George W. Bush
> 'I stand by all the misstatements that I've made.'
> - George W Bush
> 'We have a firm commitment to NATO, we are a part of NATO. We have a firm commitment to Europe . We are a part of Europe '
> - George W. Bush
> 'Public speaking is very easy.'
> - George W. Bush
> 'A low voter turnout is an indication of fewer people going to the polls.'
> - George W. Bush
> 'I have opinions of my own -- strong opinions -- but I don't always agree with them.'
> -George Bush
> 'We are ready for any unforeseen event that may or may not occur.'
> - George W. Bush
> 'For NASA, space is still a high priority.'
> -George W. Bush
> 'Quite frankly, teachers are the only profession that teach our children.'
> -George W. Bush
> 'It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it.'
> - George W. Bush
some evidence i am not callin him a tyrant but a infamous reason plus before he went to iraq he rang the pope fer advice the pope said no dont invade he listen pope in the preident of the united states of america i will do what i want! then we have the iraq war
Erhh wat?
Digger you posted Jr.'s name in a thread about tyrants. How else are we to take your post?
ok ski apart from tyrants its says people you curse at night and infamousQuote:
Originally Posted by Skirata
plus i never called him a tyrant
P.s. im sorry fer offending anybody all i was sayin is that many people curse him and that he is infamous fer his stupidity when public speaking
i think we are missing some russians, like ivan the terrible
Then your post was off topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Digger Walters
ok read the openin post IN FULL!Quote:
Originally Posted by Skirata
My favorite. Anyone who invites people to dinner, and has them slaughtered there is cool in my book.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLord1337
Eh, Ivan really gets a bad rap. He was the one that started turning Russia into the (land-wise) monstrosity it is today. A better Eastern European example would be Vlad the Impaler, who liked to impale people on stakes for fun (hence the name).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Axer NZ
But if I recall correctly from the documentary I watched in school last year, didnt Ivan impale a bunch of nobles on stakes in a certain way so they suffered for a long time?
You mention Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin, then Bush, in the same sentence. Honestly, how do you think people would understand your post? If this thread was about idiots then I'd be talking about Obama. But we're not, were talking about despots.
Ok, I'm done. No more of this.
Back on topic:
Alexander the Great may not have been one of the worst tyrants ever, but he wasn't benevolent. When one of the cities he conquered (I think it was Tyre, not sure) revolted he ordered EVERYBODY inside to be be executed and the city burnt to the ground. I'm sure that's not all he did, but I do remember that particular incident off the top of my head.
EDIT: three people posted in the time it took to type this. I was referring too Digger, in the beginning.
EDIT #2: According to Conrad, it was Thebes. Well, I was close.
I always read OP before I post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Digger Walters
Yeah, but everyone was pretty sadistic back then. Torturing people was normal. What made Vlad stand out is the sheer numbers of people he killed (ranging from 40 to 80 thousand of his own people, as well as huge numbers of POWs) as well as the glee he took in it.Quote:
Originally Posted by wpack10
Yeah, killing people who ****ed you off and doing slowly, in order to make a point to your other subjects, was normal.
I will agree, that is pretty bad-assQuote:
Originally Posted by Axer NZ
My point is just that Ivan the Terrible was a P. Cool guy, I mean he beat monks with 2x4's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_Novgorod
I don't think you're making a very good case for Isabella and Ferdinand being tyrants, Ghost. Their reconquest of Spain was essentially the turning point of the Moorish invasion of Europe. Not only that, but their rule began the rise of Spain from devastation to the premiere power in the world by the mid 1400s.
I chose Isabel and Ferdinand as tyrants because although they did lead a Golden Age of Spain and led the charge for colonies in the New World, their demand for religious unity often caused them to resort to violent conversions. The Inquisition was then launched and hundreds of thousands of Jewish people and Islamic believers were either forced to convert or booted out of the country. I agree that calling them tyrants may be a bit of a harsh word, but it really depends on which perspective you are looking at it from. Isabel and Ferdinand could have easily just left the religious topic alone, but no, they wanted complete unity. So in making their population convert to Catholicism, they were forcing the general non-believer population into doing actions not of their own wishes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawnseeker
I would like to ask Conrad his reasoning behind having Constantine I as a tyrant....although i am not the most knowledgeable on this subject, i was just wanting to learn more...
I have to say you can't really call any of the presidents tyrants, seeing as they truely have to power over what happens in the country, the true tyrants would be the congress.
i would disagree with calling congress tyrants because the system of checks and balances was created in order to prevent any one branch of the US government from being too powerful. Therefore, a tyrannical government would have to abolish the constitution before it could impose its will on the nation...
If I wanted to, I could Lincoln a tyrant if you really take into consideration how unconstitutional some of his actions were. He did suspend the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil war, along with the freedom of speech in subduing newspapers and anti-war protesters. Potentially, if he had not been assassinated by Booth, he may have been impeached by congress as they review some of his decisions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaminarii
Alexander III of Macedonia burned the polis of Thebes to the ground, engaged freely in bacchanalias or drunken revelries and even though he did not order the burning of the ancient capital of the Achaemenids [Persepolis], his intoxication left him unable to prevent the drunken frenzy and rapacity of his soldiers who reduced the magnificent and opulent city to ashes and to its bare foundations. In addition, towards his return from the Indus River Valley, Alexander III of Macedonia became highly delusional and frantic ordering the construction of one thousand triremes to assault the Carthaginians and the tribes in Numidia and to subdue and subjugate all lands up to the Pillars of Hercules. Alexander III was highly delusional, hubristic, a drunkard and avaricious and prodigal to say the least!
Congress is the exact opposite of a despot. Besides the obvious fact that it's only one person, congress can't get anything done. And the president actually has a lot less power than most people realize.
If nothing else, the fact we are talking about this without being hunted down and killed kind of shows that all our respective governments obviously aren't on the same level as any actual tyrants.
He was nicer than Congress was; compare their respective plans for how to deal with the South after the war was over.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost101
You also have to take into account he the only person who was willing to treat the South fairly and using government money to help them rebuild, instead they had to do it themselves. This caused alot of discord with in the congress for years later.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost101
That's stupidity. The difference between stupidity and tyranny is something that most people don't seem to get. And the reason those Congress men are still in power is because the American people keep voting them in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigilstone17
Just a side note, I would like to keep this in the past and about tyrannical people, we aren't talking about governments and how they are tyrannical, we are talking about people :)
Granted @ armbarchris and Kaminarii. Lincoln was softer on the South in his reconstruction plan because he wanted to keep the union together, he did not show sympathy for them, but rather wanted to ensure the integrity of the United States. Congress on the other hand wanted to punish the south and prevent the succession from happening again. Both Lincoln and Congress had various ideas on how to ensure that another Civil war would not happen again, but neither of them really cared for the south, just for the unity of the country and were determined to see it happen.
Maybe, but he wasn't truly oppressive, and isn't that part of the definition of 'tyrant'?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost101
exactly armbarchris. The fact that the state governments are prevented from doing anything in the protection of their coastal waters from the oil is due to the federal government's stupidity. Technically, they would have committed a federal crime because the waters are federal waters, and therefore the state government had no power in the matter. Also, i know about this because i LIVE in Louisiana, where the oil spill has had the most impact...
referring to the one in reference to sigil's comment...was too slow...lol
The true definition of "tyrant" is "one who takes power by force."Quote:
Originally Posted by armbarchris
Through the efforts of King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella, all the separate kingdoms of Spain [The Kingdoms of Castille, Aragon and Leon] were united and the last Moorish kingdom or the Kingdom of Granada in Spain was integrated into the fold of the Spanish Kingdom.
Spanish hegemony reached its apogee during the reign of the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V who held the core Austrian lands, the Spanish Netherlands, the Franche Comte, the Duchy of Milan, the Kingdom of Naples, the Kingdom of Trinacria and Spain itself as well as the colonial possessions in the New World with the Viceroyalty of New Spain and the Viceroyalty of Peru.
Lets keep this thread on topic please. We are talking about the tyrants of the past, not about today's government, I will edit as appropriate if it continues.
@ Armbarchris, Tyranny is when you use absolute power to accomplish your means, not exactly oppressive. Lincoln used a tremendous amount of powers to achieve his goals, and some of them definitely not constitutional.
also the congress has the power to over turn a veto from the president. It may be harder to do, but they can, they only reason they don't normally is, because the two parties can't agree to anything besides giving themselves raises
Simply having absolute power is a dictatorship. Tyranny is using absolute power for your own benefit at the expense of the people. There is a distinct difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost101
Individual Congressmen don't have nearly as much power as the President does. And how long did those 'Bonusgate' people stay in office after that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigilstone17