What do you do when you can't divorce your wife because the Catholic Church won't let you? Henry VIII: Make a new religion. *Improvise. Adapt. Overcome.*
Only that wasn't the actual reason why Henry broke away from the RCC. The reason was that Henry didn't like how the Church demanded that the people's fealty be to the Pope, not the Crown.
henry VIII was a psychopathic bastard a real tyrant who thought he had the right to do to horrible things to just about anybody because he thought he was here by divine rule a truly horrible man just be glad you where not around when he was and yes he did invent a made up religion because he could not divorce his first wife or get her head cut off a real vile tyrant
Vlad the Impaler wasn't insane. He was extraordinary cruel, that's true, but his cruelty did serve a purpose. This man had to fight off the Ottoman Empire singlehandedly. (which was basically in it's prime at the time)
@@paulmunro3175 Indeed. I remember reading somewhere that Sun Tzu wrote a passage in the art of war that said that "winning and losing are a state of mind". Probably meaning that, in his mind, psychological warfare is at least just as important as the actual battles. Vlad had to somehow convince the Ottomans that he was a man to be reckoned with, despite being significantly outnumbered.
All the Catholic kingdoms abandoned him and he stood alone. He had to do something. If more people would read real history they would understand that the real Vlad was not a toy that pops out of a box of Rice Crispies.
@@paulmunro3175 He could.ve found another way to protect it but he wanted to take the cruelest option. How can you justify him? He could've tried to start rebellions in ottoman lands (by using Bulgarians or serbians) or ally with Persia or something.
Hindsight is easy and perfect. The threat of imminent death colors behavior. I was not there, but for someone to perform as he did, he must certainly have been in an extreme position. It would have been much easier to kill and burn the enemy. This was a warning period.
Khan was actuaaly quite good. His empire actually had freedom of religion, and allowed people to largely govern themselves once conquered, with the added benefit of having the mongolian army defending you.
+Magma Mage Yes, you're right. Genghis Khan was by no evil considering the new evidence of science. He was strict, but how the heck you are to rule a nation of nomads? Genghis formed modern administration to which the nowadays Mongol adminstration profit. @Kyle S. no he didn't. It was his forefollower. You may refer to Tamerlan, but he didn't either.
eddfan999 Why would you laugh at someone’s mental illness? Why would you laugh about someone suffering from such a life-ruining delusion? Society treats people like me like the world would be a better place without me in it and you are part of the problem.
@@arcadia21125 You and Sadie M. To believe ones self made of glass is both humorous and a shame. If one can't see the ridiculousness of it, then the issue is on their end.
@@TophatBoar though he was away at the time of the fire it wouldn't surprise me if he ordered someone to do it I have also heard that he used to had his guards block the exits to halls where he was preforming so people wouldn't leave as he was that bad
+EPL What, a self talk? Let me put it in the right place: Nero was of no religious believes, his rulership was the most secular in the Roman Empire. And no, he didn't burn the Christian quarter, the whole village was built with wood. Fires were common, not a solitary event. The putrefaction gas from the sewers floating on the surface did the rest. His calculations were: more fires - less people - lesser tax incomes. Bad thing, huh? He had a plan to remove the old wooden buildings replacing them with stone houses. By the way: he loved Christianity. He loved this "wtf, only one god to appreciate, and they do it fervently? Wow. Their god must be a lone wolf, but this is amazing!" Sources say that Nero was at the meetings, surely unrecognized, but there is many evidence. He was by no way a ruler. He was an artist, a prevented, disoriented, deprivated man who was treated in the role of a leader. His father killed all of his favorite things in his childhood. It's some sort of "Rosebud", if you know what I mean. He was the man on whom the term "lone wolf" was the right choice. Some say he was the most intelligent Emperor in the whole Roman History. I agree.
+metalpit1000 Yeah he hated Christians with a vengeance blamed them for the burning of Rome when he st it on fire himself yup he's he's burning right about now in hell
I'm seriously laughing picturing how the Klepto King stole Churchill's watch? What were they sitting down together and with quick snap of the wrist and goes "yoink!" XD
Does anyone has any proof of that story? I believe all the English newspapers that spoke about that visit was criticizing churchill as he looked too little comparing to his hosts king farouk. That all I heard about that visit
I assume that in those days if you had more than 10 teeth left by the age of 30 and not much other traces of deseases, infections and injuries, i guess you were considered handsome? :))
I have to disagree with Vlad being named insane. It has been widely proven that his use of shocking brutality was a tactic to terrify his enemies and protect his woefully small country from takeover. He didn't have enough soldiers to keep it safe, but he cultivated a gruesome reputation and managed. He was a brilliant tactician who was backing into a corner, no mad. Don't get me wrong, I love your lists, but you asked if we agreed.
Except he was brutal to more than just his enemies alone. He was known for cruelly slaughtering thousands of innocent people as well for the pettiest of reasons. Once he even ordered a priest's execution for telling the truth when Vlad asked him what would happen to him after he died.
@@Compucles It was the middle ages. Alot of rulers murdered many innocent people. The thing is his scare tactics worked and protected Wallachia. It is why he is regarded as more of a folk hero in Romania than a very evil man.
Vlad Dracula? I... don't think he qualifies as "insane". True, he did impale tens of thousands of people (supposedly), but they were his enemies and people who broke the law. As a result, the forces of the Ottomans turned back, and practically nobody commited crimes in his land.
As soon as I saw this I expected to see Qin Shi Huang and Vlad the Impaler and I was surprised only one was on there. Qin Shi Huang was crazy and died by mercury poisoning because he thought it would make him immortal
Qin Shi Huang wasn't crazy, he was just afraid of death. He ended the Warring Kingdoms period and unified China to become its first emperor. He doesn't deserve to be on this list.
I can see why they would put Vlad on this list. But I would have to disagree with it. Vlad was trying to stop islam {ie, ottoman empire} from taking over. Not to mention, he learned these very tactics from the muslims who kept him and his family captive. I have to agree with the Romanian people, if not for Vlad, that country would have turned islamic centuries ago...
@@Justin.Martyr ~ I don't agree with him on the list. But, things being as they are today, I wasn't surprised to see it. I think Vlad is a hero myself...
+Kelvin Kuang dude, he might not been insane but a man that killed his pregnant wife after stamping on her belly, then found a boy whom looked like her, castrated him, made him wear women's cloths and grow out his hair, as well as acting as his deceased wife..including sex..I'd say, I'm shocked that he's not number one on the list..
no..no, Nero was pretty bad..but I'm pretty sure that Caligula did that..that, and he build a giant golden statue that was taken down by the following emperor because Romans wanted every evidence of him gone. Also, wasn't he the one whom had a war with Poseidon.. that one could have been Nero though..
+Dinga Tudor Most (If not all) the watchers of this video likely are history-lovers, not TV shows lovers....... So I suppose almost nobody here can relate
+Alin Bodor Amen to that. A lot of people don't understand the necessity of the acts he commited... but the was successful despite overwhelming odds stacked against him. He managed to hold of an entire empire, through any means necessary. Good to see that some people don't fall for bullshit ;)
+zeezhz We still dont know everything about him, but from what we know we the romanians see him as a hero who stood again 2 empires and again the local warlords (boieri) and for what de build under his rulership.
"Insane" should mean one who is both irrational and politically incompetent, with few redeeming features. In that sense Vlad Tepes was cruel and extremely violent, but was a competent ruler who was simply overmatched militarily by a much stronger Ottoman Empire. Sultan Ibrahim fills the bill better.
You left out one of the craziest aspects of Charles VI: he spent a great deal of time believing he was made of glass and would break if anyone touched him!
Vlad actually protected Europe. the Ottomans had intended to invade Europe before his rebellion. Though his sanity may well have been fully in tact. It may seem outrageous to think that a sane person would commit an atrocity, but it is important to understand that this was a time when there were no rules of engagement. Vlad and his men were vastly outnumbered, and would've likely lost the war if it weren't for their dread tactics.
+Florin Eugen. But people only see he vicious treatment of enemies and assume he was an insane monster who just tortured for fun. He was a brilliant man and I don't blame him for being vicious.
+Scavenger No. It's simply looking at the time when this all took place, and what was acceptable and what was not. It's also being skeptical of some accounts of his actions and "cruelty" by looking at the author. If most of the accounts of his cruelty are from his enemies, then it is perfectly reasonable to call them into question. That is happening increasingly nowadays - evident in scholars revisiting figures such as Richard III. His enemies wrote him as being physically deformed, and vicious. It was widely accepted and rarely questioned for centuries. Now that they've found his body, which has no sign as being as deformed as put forth initially - it calls much into question. Most things in history are not as correct as our history books put forth - and that's because it depends on who gets to write down history. The victors? Or the defeated?
Wait if you came from the year 2022 where Kanye is an insane ruler, don't you have the power to stop him considering you can time travel. Hell...why should we worry. Save us future time travelling wizard from Kanye before you use up all your plutonium.
Juana wasn't actually crazy. It was just a rumor spread by her son to get her declared unfit to rule so that he could rule instead. Also, you missed the best parts of Caligula's and Charles VI of France's craziness. Caligula marries his own sister (which wasn't uncommon, but still gross) and then when she got pregnant, he cut the baby out of her, killing both her and her child. Charles VI is believed to have been schizophrenic. He would strip and run around the castle buck-naked, howling like a wolf. Another time, he became convinced that he was made of glass, and refused to allow anyone to touch him. Also, another person who should have been on here instead of Juana of Castile was Henry the 6th of England. I can't remember exactly what he did, but I do know that he inherited the schizophrenia from his grandfather, Charles VI of France.
Maria I of Portugal, yes. She imagined several times while she was looking at a mirror her father (Joseph I) burning in hell and claiming revenge. Many people believe that this happened because of her connection to the church. But, the king Afonso VI was madder than her.
he was mad genius...imapling people so that the wood wouldnt touch vital organs making the victim die from bleeding amd dehydration isnt realy considered genius...its sick
+MrYatta831 Do you know what oral history is? It is saying stories. When you tell something to your friend, you may exaggerate the details. This could have a happened with Vlad over 6 hundred years.
1. Ivan was not insane he was a ruthless but intelligent ruler, and defended his power brutally. 2. Henry VIII was not insane and created a church mainly to anex roman church terretories. He too was an intelligent ruler with power politics 3. Nero is one of the best emporers Rome ever had. Extreamly popular to the people and rebuild Rome after it was destroyed by a fire that he DID NOT witness. His mother and wife were both belonging to a high nobility faction who later followed on the Roman throne as the Flavian dynasty. He was also a great sponsor of the arts. 4. Vlad the Impaler, okay that one was brutal but not insane. He used fear as a weapon of warfrare and prevented a far larger army from invading his country.
C104...One day I was watching a show called Jepordy with Alex Trebek. He asked a question that said...What Tsar fought a war against Poland and Sweden and the nobility of his own country. The answer was Ivan 4, or the terrible. Although I have studied the Romanov dynasty extensively I had not studied anything earlier than that. But when he said in the Question, against his own nobility it peaked my interest. Could this possibly be another case that they vilify people who go against the wealthy,the ones who write the history books. I've seen many cases where brutal dictators were glorified and people who have fought against the globalist bankers villified. And sure enough, this is what I found. One of the main reasons he ended up fighting both Poland and Sweden was because the the majority of the common men wanted to become a part of Russia and be ruled by Ivan. Why? Because he would not allow slavery. This is why he fought against his own nobility. It wasn't until Ivan and the ones who were still from the Rurik Dynasty were quickly dispatched that the Nobles placed a 16 year old puppet on the thrown that they could completely control that they got their surfs {slaves} Michael 1 was the first Romanov Tsar.Although it was the second Tsar Alexi 1` who decreed that 80% of peasants would become surfs, and only Nobles and Boyars {Elite Nobles} could own them. Not one Romanov Tsar Or Empress ever owned or profited from a surf. But one of the main critisizms of the Romanovs when Russia was overthrown was the fact of the ones who overthrew them were the only ones allowed to own them. When they always bring up how he murdered his own son. It was an accident resulting from an arguement that his wife was walking around the house dressed like a fluzzy. He smacked him once in the wrong place and killed him. It devestated him. On the other hand, a man our Zio written history books call Peter the GREAT, had his son hunted down in another country, imprisoned,tortured and murdered and never lost a wink of sleep. Now the part were they say he was paranoid and he had this secret police force. Well if your going against the rich and powerful, you better have something if you want to stay alive. On the other hand, Both Peter the GREAT and Catherine the GREAT had secret forces far more brutal who would go after anyone who critisized their policies, which were actually being dictated by the nobles. By far, if you knew the truth, the most evil dictator ever was Napoleon Bonaparte. But he was the bankers warrior who many considerd to be the first Zionist, so their won't be anything critical of him.
@WD Vinco he executed a religious cult that spread discord and may or may not actually have started the fire Also where do you get the idea that Nero was in Rome at the time? We now this to be a later fabrication and contemporary sources agree he was in his countryside villa. You watched the stupid movie didnt you?
5:15 - correction: it was her father Fernando II of Aragon who had Juana of Castile confined to a convent. Her son Carlos I of Spain did keep his mother in the convent, yes, especially after the Revolt of the Comuneros, but throughout the years, he tried to give her some attention - he sometimes visited her with his wife Isabel and he gave their children permission to visit their grandmother when they were old enough. At one point, Juana received frequent visits from her grandson Felipe II.
Interesting bits about Caligula's behavior: 1- He started his rule as actually a good and competent emperor. However, he fell I'll early on in his rule, nearly dying from this sickness and the Roman people desperately and very publicly prayed for his healing since he was popular at the time. His health recovered and initially there was much rejoicing among the people. It soon became clear that only his physical health had recovered, since it was after this illness that all the infamous violent craziness started. Some historians suspect whatever made him sick cause irreversible brain damage. 2- His given name was actually Gaius Julius Caesar Germanicus, after his predecessor Julius Caesar, but he spent his childhood following his father on military campaigns during which he was given his child-sized legionaries uniform right down to the boots (Latin: caligae) earning him the nickname "Caligula" among the troops, which pretty much translates to "Little Boots" or "Bootsie". If even after ascending to the Imperial throne of what might as have been the entire world as far as most people knew everyone still insisted on calling me "Bootsie" I would probably lose my marbles after a while too.
I wouldn't say Vlad would be number one. there are worse on here. I guess it's mainly a matter of opinion. he's considered a hero of the Romanian people. he was a good leader to them. ..yeah he was a bit cray cray but it was mainly aimed at his enemies. and by the way, it's pronounced Val-la-kia. Wallacha.
he was but Simba managed to actually beat Scar, when Mufasa could not...fair enough he got thrown off a cliff but come on, he was a huge male lion - he didn't have to climb up the cliff, he just had to roar and the wildebeest would have avoided him lol
Because you could argue he wasn't insane. Highly ruthless and brutal of course he was a horrible person but remember back then they (wrongly) viewed Africans as subhuman and as such didnt treat them as anything but animals. Again I don't agree with what he did but he wasn't insane by any means
Some were mad, but many were wicked, corrupt, and vainglorious. Caracalla should also be on this list: he reportedly executed his own brother and wife - both of whom he pathologically hated - and all of their friends.
People tend to overlook the good things people do. People tend to hate on Emperor Domitian for his failure in Dacia, but he did repair the Roman Economy by revaluing the currency.
People and mostly Christians just want him to be that insane person. He was not even in Rome when the city burned. there is historical prove to that. And he had reasons for killing his mother...
chrisrose I’m going to research that mother, part. You’re likely correct, my mind just does a “reset”, every time I read your comment because it’s so casual. The cadence of sounding so factual and then “he had reasons for killing his mother “, refuses to compute.
history is written by the victors sir, All this non-sense has been spoken about me, most of it was written 70's years after i died by somebody that despised me! it would be like if some anti-fa member wrote a biography about Pinochet today and keep this version for generations to come...
He couldn't careless about the old palace for a start, As for personally leading the fire-fighting effort, a good scheme in order to rid buildings standing in the vicinity of where he wants a new palace built & to make an excuse to kill christians in a horrifying manner. He was anti-christian. He's psycho like Caligula. Nero is regarded as the worst Roman emperor ever.He's another psycho, like Caligula, both will execute anyone who even so much as fart in his presence.
In my personal opinion, Vlad III was genius, using psychological warfare and defeating the Hungarians, he was a hero in Romania. I don't think he was insane, but the abuse that he endured in captivity after his father gave him up to the sultan as a tax payment (the sexual and physical abuse) he probably was just a bit off kilter. Not necessarily insane.
And I wouldn't say Henry VIII was insane either. He was classed as a great king untill he received his wound from Jousting. As it turned into basically an untreated ulcer he was basically driven mad due to the pain. And apparently he lived every day for the rest of his life in complete agony so no wonder his decisions were out of it. He couldn't concentrate on logical thinking.
Yeah, he was actually very generous and rewarding to his people...as long they did what he wanted. Insane isn't the right way to label him. I'd say he was driven by ego, paranoia, narcissism and heavily influenced by ambitious advisors whispering into his ears to advance their personal agendas. He may have been a bit naive. His victims were always the ones manipulating him. Killing his first wife would have solved everything quickly as far as legitimizing Anne as the new queen. So it goes to show that he wasn't entirely a bad person, just really damn self centered and hell bent on producing sons.
When he was younger apparently he was alot different. He fell off of a horse, and I guess after that he wasn't the same. He looked drastically different in his coronation portrait in 1509 than at the end of his reign in later portraits.
Vlad was a national hero. Romanians must be proud he stood up for Europe. He kicked out othomans. They were the insane and cruel. Greetings from Greece
There's a difference between fighting back and what Vlad did :) he went way too far. I wouldn't ever call him a hero. When the Ottomans conquerd Constantinople, Mehmed even let his own prisoners go (I'm not 100% sure, but I think they where Greeks caught in battle) and let them live in the city and help populate it. He put a more reasonable tax- previously, the rich Romans taxed there citizens unreasonably. Mehmed set it to a reasonable amount- in a way he treated the Greeks better than than the Greek elite treated them! Btw of course, some Ottoman Generals and stuff where bad, but in the general it was a good country, especially for the time, when the Spainish where brutaly opressing South and Central America and slavery was rife. Anyway, have a good day:)
Also consider more recent horrible rulers - Idi Amin, Pinoche (sp?), Saddam Hussein, Francis Franco, Fidel Castro, Stalin, Mao, some of the presidents from Haiti, Dominican Republic, Hondurus
Nero's "fiddling" was often thought to have been a metaphor for playing a lyre, but the thought of Nero playing any musical instrument during the great fire was one of history's biggest misconceptions.
I thought it was well known that this wasn't true? He wasn't in Rome, his palace within Rome was burnt, and he didn't even build the Domus Aurea where the fire took place. I believe there is also accounts of him trying to help stop it and provide aid to those who lost their homes. ( Don't quote me on this one- I cannot recall where I read it)
Queen Elizabeth II is also distantly related to Tom Hanks. The two are 24th cousins, as Hanks is a descendant of King John of England. However, Queen Elizabeth's supposed relationship to Vlad the Impaler is somewhat dubious considering that the last surviving member of the Draculesti family, Alexandru Coconul, died with no heirs in 1632 which means that there are no direct descendants of Vlad the Impaler.
Just about every story we've ever heard of Nero isn't true. All eyewitness accounts of Nero during the great fire suggest that he was working hard to coordinate the disaster relief, add to the fact that fiddles didn't exist during his lifetime! It's obvious who wrote the history of Rome since Nero was only known to have been hated in his lifetime by senators and patricians. (And at the same time, beloved by slaves, plebeians, and patrons of the arts.) Edit: Vlad The Impaler was brutal, but I wouldn't consider him insane.
@@yelyharmony2047 Nero-era Christians were pretty much the same thing as $cientoligists in modern America, except that they were a cult of poor people. The public perception of both religions was about the same.
+John Constantine That depends on your definition of hero. Did he successfully protect Romania (and probably the rest of Europe in the process) from being conquered by the Ottoman Empire? Yes, he did. Was crime in Wallachia at a low under his reign? Yes, it was But does that alone make him a hero? Well, it's confirmed that many of the tactics he used to protect Wallachia and suppress crime were extremely brutal and sadistic, even by the standards of the time. His punishment of impalement is morally questionable anyway, but the liberality with which he used it was extreme; you could be impaled for just about anything. Yes, crime was at an all-time low under his reign, but so was free speech. And it was a painful, brutal way to die - so much so that I question if there has ever lived anyone who deserves a death like that, no matter how horrible they were. It's not just the impalement, either. Having nails driven through the heads of visiting emissaries simply because they refused to remove their hats was a sadistic power move, and although I concede that it's possible that the stories about him having children cooked and then forcing their parents to eat them may just be rumor and Turkish propaganda, it also wouldn't surprise me if there was a glimmer of truth to it. That said, were these tactics effective? Did they get the job done? Yes, we've already established that they did. But then another question comes up: Do the ends justify the means? I'm not convinced that they did this time.
+Eric Naylor No he didn't, in the life time of ( Sultan Suliman the first of his name ) we were almost conquer Venice and we conquered Belgrade and Romania and a lot of other countries, and you should know at that time the Muslims ( The Ottoman Empire ) were the strongest empire ever .
adding Vlad Dracul in this top is so wrong.Yes he was ruthless and cruel with our enemies ,especially with the ottomans.But he was a great leader and a defender of Christianity.He was also a man of his time and alone against the might of the Ottoman Empire(the most powerful at that time).Thanks to him(and other romanians and hungarians) you now speak your native tongue if you are european and not turkish.
Don't think that Vlad was insane (not even a "bad" man"), but a man of his time, like Isabel of Aragon or Henry VIII. Caligula and Nero were creary crazy, some other were just bad people (a third category most common on rulers like Nixon and Tratcher)
Well there were things that are true, yet one of my pet peeves happens to be historical myths. Nero never played his fiddle while Rome was burning, that is a major myth. Instead, historians say he might have started the fire but indeed was for once in his life very helpful to his people. Other than that, I would put Nero ahead of Caligula. He would sometimes dress himself in animal hide and attack people who were tied to stakes, and he also once castrated a boy named Sporus and then married him afterward. Put him ahead of Vlad too, what I said was only a few psychotic things he did. He committed a countless number of crimes that are proof of his insanity.
7:36 “You’ll be back, time will tell You’ll remember that I served you well Oceans rise, empires fall We have seen each other through it all And when push comes to shove I will send a fully armed battalion to remind you of my love!”
Hold up 1st nero was after his death disgraced by his opponents 2nd he may have been crazybut he only waged war when peace was no option 3rd okay torture by music isn't bad but starting the construction of the biggest canal in Greece the bad outeighs the good here
5:45 nero did not play his fiddle as rome burnt down. Fiddle's didn't come into creation till the 1600's, and Nero wasn't even in Rome at the time of the fire. He was on holiday in greece. He got back to rome after he got the news. By then most of rome had burnt down
Unless I'm mistaken, that isn't how you write "The Third" in Roman Numerals. Maybe there is some alternate format I'm unaware of, but if not, it should've been written "III."
Watchmojo: *ranks Henry the 8th lower than a 14 year old kid whose addicted to partying and being wild even though Henry killed two wives bc they didn’t have boys* Henry: am I a joke to you?
Queen Mary I (aka Bloody Mary) Had a disagreement with three bishops and ordered them to be excommunicated and the executed. (Inspired the children’s song “three blind mice”)
