OMG... hadn't thought of that... your right you know,... well, then, he has to be killed... the people must be gathered with their fries and pies and put this evil tyrant asunder with extra cheese...We must gather the people together, and draw and quarter to half pounder this evil tyrant in a public place and dispose of the remains properly in the nearest trash receptacle of our choosing. Yea... let there be extra sauce for the masses and we shall celebrate with discount coupons for participating restaurants in our area and throughout the land. There can be only one!
Finally somebody mentions Leopold in the comments. You my dear are compassionate, because none of these other cavemen even gives a damn that he mutilated and killed 10 million. I guess their siffering doesn't count because they were Africans.
@adamo salvas I'm from the French island of Saint Martin and they don't teach about Haiti and why it went from "The jewel of the Caribbean" filling french coffers to the poorest nation in the Americas because it would make them look bad. So Belgium keeping it hush hush don't feel too bad all the European nations do it. Admitting crimes agaisnt humanity goes against the narrative the Europe is wealthy because of European intellect.
@@xldjvista Then I have news for you: this is fake. Millions did die in congo, but they died because they had no immunity against various european diseases that swept through the country.
@@BamBamGT1 There are pictures with him showing off the stumps of Congolese which he had maimed. He worked them to death to meet his droconian quotas and killed at will. I believe disease killed a percentage of them but most were coldbloodedly killed.
Augustus- clearly psychopathic Tiberius- perverted paranoid psychopath Caligula- psychotic perverted paranoid psychopath Claudius- goofy and a little vain but overall good Nero- hedonistic petulant child Galba- just plain mean Otho- hedonistic vain child Vitellius- fat Vespasian- wise harsh pee obsessed military man Titus- energetic and thoughtful Domitian- mean paranoid albeit generous tyrant Nerva- indecisive old man Trajan- micromanaging proud pervert Hadrian- gay Antoninus pius- boring Lucius verus- hedonistic proud child Marcus Aurelius-a man for all seasons Commodus- proud hedonistic wild haughty child Pertinax- mean old military man Didius- filthy rich old military man Septimius Severus- mean harsh disdainful man Geta- hedonistic child Caracalla- mean spirited harsh wicked greedy tyrannical paranoid dictator Macrinus- soft weak corrupt barracks emperor Elagabalus- weird perverted sun worshipping sex freak Severus Alexander- soft mammas boy Thrax- mean harsh gigantic tyrant Pupienus- name should tell you everything you need to know Gordian I, II, & III- incompetent Philip the Arab- soft incompetent closeted Catholic Decius- incompetent unwilling soldier emperor Everyone up to gallienus- incompetent soldier emperors Gallienus- soft weak politically incompetent soldier Claudius gothicus- the man the myth Quintillus- whatever Aurelian- THE LEGEND Tacitus- soft weak soldier Florianus- soft weak soldier Probus- strong busy effective soldier Carus- see above Carinus- Wikipedia says “debauched and incapable” Diocletian- bruh The tetrarchy- all incompetent greedy disagreeing man children (except for constatius chlorus Constantine I- like Augustus but not as perverted Constantius II- wise harsh paranoid ruler Julian- proud pagan Jovian- the substitute teacher Valentinan I- his marble bust even looks angry Valens- weak politically incompetent man child Valentinian II- see above Theodosius I- effective dictator Arcadius & honorius- such unremarkable incompetent man children I can put them together Valentinan III- see above Petronius- wealthy loser Avitus- weak incompetent Gallic loyalist Majorian- ricimers yes man Libius Severus- weak incompetent politician Anthemius- Wikipedia says “Perhaps the last capable Western Roman Emperor” Olybrius- another ricimer yes man Glycerius- weak gold giving politically incompetent yes man Nepos- *you tried* Romulus Augustus- scared little boy
Given the standards he lived in compared to the likes of Attila and Gengis Khan I would say he was the most evil King. Attila and Gengis were barbarian conquerors, Vlad the impaler was defending his country against the greatest military power of his time and John was merely playing the game of thrones. Caligula and Nero, while undoubtedly the worst of the Julio claudians, only inflicted their injustices on the ruling classes of Rome, the mass of the roman citizens and subjects continued on living. But Leopold in an era where slavery was eliminated, liberalism with its doctrine of individual rights was a major political ideal. It was in this time with access to these ideas that Leopold acquired a country and decided to initiate the policy of enslaving the whole population to farm rubber for his own personal benefit.
altough I agree that he was a very bad, the number of 10 million is actually very exaggerated. Most historians talk about 3-5million. But yes it was true that he was one of the worst people who ever lived, but he wasn't actually a bad king because belgium didn't own congo, it was leupolds private property. So he was actually king of belgium (in that part he wasn't bad, he even made the death penalty illegal, wich was very revolutionary in that time) and he was private owner of congo where he was worst then hitler. Fun fact: altough he was responsible for so many deaths and mutilation in congo, he actually never stept foot in congo, not even once in his whole life.
I was pretty surprised myself Leopold was only at 7. Since Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin or Amin didn't qualify (but "king" Vlad did?) I was expecting him to be in top 3. Pol Pot also "only" killed a few million people, but if you think he killed 1/4 of his total population in a few years... Leopold killed around HALF of Congo. Rest my case.
Toalewa9889 easy why hes seven he did many good things also in belguim self and in belguim still seen as one of the best kings they had and he killed lots of people and belgain know that. And there are very little know over what happend there thats why some people say 10 million people and other say 3 million people because king leopold 2 congo who he owned it self and not belguim. When he gave it to belguim he destroyed many books and archives over allmost everything on that time. And also its very over dramatised over king leopold.
Right?! But more people know Genghis Khan and he's been in a movie so I guess he goes on the list instead... even though if you've read one book about the guy you would never put him on this list.
@@jwal1992 Sure! When you think evil kings you think torture, tyranny, greed, and unchecked ambition. None of that applies to Genghis. He was unquestionably brutal and his conquest of the Khwarazmian is particularly notable in that regard. But he also outlawed torture and wife kidnapping and didn't partake in any of the religious intolerance or ethnic massacres that plagued Europe during the same period. Jack Weatherford has a few excellent books on the subject. The Secret History of the Mongol Queens is my favorite but he has another on religious tolerance and his first focuses on how many of his reforms created the modern world(Kublai would go on to create public schools for peasants and nearly abolish capital punishment in China). There are definitely some truly evil rulers throughout history but Genghis Khan is, in my opinion, far more complex than that.
This video is so very poorly documented, some of the arguments are superficial and full of preconceptions. For instance, did you know that Vlad Tepes, the Impaler, is a Romanian national hero? This much beloved king stays along the great leaders of our history.
According to me 3 kings can be referred as cruel 1 Atilla The Hun 2 Tsar Ivan Grozny 3 Emperor Caligula Although all the rulers had both good and evil reputation and the rulers were very effective in their ruling their nations but also in some phase of their life they were extremely ruthless and sadistic.
Tobias Olds even though Vlad only did it to scare off the Ottoman Empire and saved his nation and basically reduced the thieving population to zero. He’s considered a hero to his nation and a monster everywhere else
Stop say "in History" when what you call "History" is always anglo-centered. And most of them were not "evil". They were either conquerors, either incompetent.
Yes they were evil... In the name of'conquering" there has been more innocent lives willfully taken and in brutal fashion then we will ever know. Every one of thease rats were wicked. Some may have been mentally ill to but not so much, they were not aware of what they were doing.
Basically a lot of them were successful conquerors and that’s why their actions killed lots of people it’s not evil but they still murderd a lot of people. Kings who weren’t winning wars and gaining lands are just not as well remembered and thus be forgotten
He had 5 innocent men executed along with his wife on totally made up charges so he could remarry. He even designed the details of her execution including the scaffold himself. Anyone who failed him ended up on the block too throughout his reign.Utter monster.
If you look at the evidence, I’m not sure you can label Henry VI as even the slightest bit evil. He was simple, pious and hated conflict, and spent roughly eighteen months in a catatonic state before waking up as a more childlike version of himself. His wife was allowed to take control (someone who, by the way, you actually might consider ‘evil’ by some standards), and she used incredibly brutal methods to make sure her family kept the throne; Henry VI had become king in a time when his family had been challenged for years by another with a stronger claim to the throne, and the minute they realised that Henry would be easily convinced to step down, they basically declared an unofficial war, and Henry's wife wasn't afraid to fight back just as viciously. Henry basically spent his time blissfully unaware of what was happening, and even though his reign was ultimately chaotic to say the least, you'd have to ignore a lot of tyrannical leaders of that time to blame that on Henry VI.
Was shocked hearing Henry VI on that list and went to the comments to see if anyone else picked up on it. Henry VI was incompetent but evil? No way. But that being said, calling his wife evil is also inaccurate; she was ruthless yes, she took the decisions her husband was too weak to take; she had to fight the Duke of York (who was definitely exploiting Henry VI's weakness and even bullying him) Margaret was in a precarious position; if she didn't take action, she would have failed her husband and son; don't forget this was the beginning of the Wars of the Roses, the 15th century was not known for pacifism... She only played in the same power game the men did in that day; except as a woman and a French one at that, her ascension to power were seen as unnatural and to this day she's portrayed as the stereotypical grasping, ambitious woman, which is unfair. Margaret was brave enough to take the (ruthless but necessary) actions she needed to take to defend her husband and son's positions. The Duke of York even tried bullying the king into making him his heir over Henry and Margaret's son, how would you react to that? I don't think it's fair to call her evil, unless you call everyone evil who did something ruthless in an age that was itself ruthless, in order to secure their family's position and even safety.
Caligula "declared war on the sea" to punish a mutiny by having the high & mighty Roman soldiers pick up seashells because they refused to get on the ships to invade Britain. He probably wasn't as insane as was presented by substantially after-the fact propagandists like Suetonius...
@@nicholaswilley9001 I can’t remember much else about him off the top of my head, but I’m pretty sure he did some other crazy shit too. Also his own men turned on him and killed him so that’s usually a strong indicator of either a really bad, really crazy, or both kind of leader
Most of what is "known" about Nero and Caligula is based on the work of seutonius, who can best be compared to a national enquirer reporter in terms of veracity
Nero got a bad rap because he cracked down on the new cult of christianity, and most of the writings we have on him were written by said cult. Caligula, by most accounts, was pretty insane. Even conservative Roman historians tend to agree on that.
some would argue that tiberius was actually worse than nero, who reportedly did everything he could to help citizens of rome during the great fire - not a fiddle in sight! I read that some people believe the book of revelations was written about nero's treatment of christians Caligula was a total psycho
I don't think Tiberius was worse than Nero because Nero left the Roman Empire with no money and in complete chaos. He murdered his steph-brother Britannicus, his mother Agrippina (she was horrible but still) and his mistress Poppaea. He also build his new palace on the destroyed area after the great fire of Rome and many people couldn't return anymore. Tiberius was not the most beloved emperor, but he became paranoid because there were so many people trying to kill him including the leader of the Praetorian Guard Seianus. And some argue that the new leader Macro killed Tiberius shortly after because he tried to get Caligula on the throne. Nero's bad reputation didn't just come from nowhere. Tacitus wrote in his "annales" about everythig Nero did. Both the good and the bad stuff. And for Caligula... apparently the first six months of his reign he was beloved by the crowd, but then he got a complete breakdown and then started acting like a psycho. Some say this could have something to do with him growing up in an army base. (Sorry for spelling or grammar mistakes) p.s. It's not that I totally disagree with you. This is just what I learned.
In fact, as also reported by Suetonius, Galba, who succeed to Nero, had to walk over 10 000 dead civilians supporters of Nero, 6 months after the death of Nero, to enter into Rome. Nero was maybe not popular among the aristocracy, but he was surely popular among the people, to have 10 000 of them willing to oppose the Senate.. to death! Even added to that, and Otto (who assassinated Galba) and Vespasian started their rule claiming to continue the work .. of Nero! Vespasian would have not done that if Nero was unpopular, at that very time! (Maybe Otto would, though). One hundred years later, Suetonius, just after having been fired by emperor Hadrian, wrote his un-famous pamphlet like story of the first Caesars! Indirect vengeance?
The book of Revelations was written shortly after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. by Titus.In the eyes of both Jews and Christians,the destruction of this site,the holiest of them all,gave rise to the belief that the end of the world was aproaching.
Henry VI lost the hundred years war and proved incompetent, not only that but was mentally unfit - he was often incapacitated by mental breakdowns. His misrule created the power vacuum which the nobles attempted to fill, leading directly to the wars of the roses
Fun fact: Ivan the Terrible ordered two architects to build the most beautiful church the world has ever seen. At the end, Ivan gouged the eyes out of the architects, because the church they built was so beautiful, Ivan ensured they would never make as or more so.
That sounds like Maegor the Cruel, killing all the builders who worked on his castle so that it's secret passages would be known only to him. I wonder if that's where GRRM got that idea from.
@@SRosenberg203 Game of Thrones was actually inspired by the Wars of the Roses, the rivalry for the English Throne (the Iron Throne) between the two cadet branches of the House of Plantagenet: the House of Lancaster (probably where he derived the name for House Lannister) and the House of York (most probably the House Stark)
@@RixMorales I am aware of that. I was talking about Maegor, wondering if GRRM got the ideas for him building the Red Keep and then executing all the builders to keep its secrets hidden from Ivan the Terrible.
Calling Ivan IV "The Terrible" is actually the result of a mistranslation; the original Russian word for him ("Grozny") is more along the lines of "The Imposing". Also, even though I would by no means call him likeable (and his reign was followed by the infamous "Times of Troubles"), in terms of numbers of victims his timesake Henry VIII of England outdid him. England just was lucky to have someone as capable as Elizabeth following; still, I'd say Henry VIII should have been in this list instead of King John, and in a higher position than Ivan IV.
I am surprised Henry VIII didn’t even get an honourable mention. Someone foretold he would begin his reign as gentle as a lamb and end it worse than a lion, and they weren’t kidding.
actually they were the ones who had his father crowned in return for a tribute each year . His father was a weak ruler who had lost the crown & had asked the Ottomans to reclaim it for him .
Tbh I wouldn’t say Edward because he was willing to get the land restored and said he’d do anything he had to the other reason for this though is he murdered loads of Scots in order to claim Scot with gave him the nickname Hammer of scots
Edward was a described by his fellows as a great and terrible king which is exactly the reputation you needed to keep control of a medieval kingdom and he was highly regarded at the time of his reign for keeping England safe and stable. He was nothing like the loon depicted in Braveheart. He was devoted to his wife and quite religious.He believed he had been appointed by God to keep England safe and that meant interferring in Scotland and Wales.
No Qin Shihuang did not die merely because he fell into a pond. He was known to have been poisoned by mercury which he constantly thinking that it could give him immortality.
Quin Shihuang is not in the list. He mentioned an Emperor in the Ming dynasty. I would not say that Ming Emperor was the most terrible since the country was prosperous and he did not give any harsh rules to citizens. His personal life was a mess, but he did not intend to torture and kill his concubines. He got so many and neglected them. He was weird making his officials to act like merchants, one who refused got fired. But he was not a tyrant like Qin Shihuang.
I know i could be late but: Ivan the Terrible (or Ivan the Fearsome, as we call him in Russia) was actually a very good and even kinda progressive ruler at the beginning of his rule. Russia had very good contacts with England, developed trade and technologies from the west, completely crushed 2 khanates (Kazan and Astrakhan), which stopped Tatar hordes from attacking russian lands. He also began the colonisation of Siberia (campaign of Ermak). Many advisors at the court were foreigners from another european countries and helped with architecture and economy. In 1549, during the greatest years of his rule, Zemsky Sobor was founded, which was some kind of parliament, which discussed many important questions between estates. Ivan tried to centralise his state as far as possible (centralisation efforts happened in many other European countries and not always peacefully) and enacted many reforms to achieve it: Sudebnik, Hundred Chapter Synod, military reforms, monetary reforms and so on. The main problems began when the Livonian war started, which lasted for 30 years and positioned Russia at the blink of collapse. Ivan lost 3 his wives and 2 sons and started to lose his mind really quickly (many hypothesis say that they were poisoned by nobles, who desired for profitable marriages for their houses). During his youth, he was growing in the environment of nobles. He saw what intrigues and plots they do and with every year his hatred for nobles was becoming greater and greater. During the Livonian war, his closest and greatest friend Kniaz Kurbski (which was the only person Ivan shared his secrets with) betrayed his Tzar' and escaped to Russia's enemy Polish Commonwealth. After that, still many bad events happened: Crimean tatars sacked Moscow, Novgorodians revolted against the rule of Ivan, even his own heir started to speak out against his father. Ivan saw all the problems in nobles. He thought they all trying to betray his rule and surrender to Commonwealth. At this point he became really crazy. He established Oprichnina, which began wide repressions and restricts against nobles, merchants, priests, foreigners and so on. Oprichnina performed very well in terrorising russian citizens, but oprichniks were very poor in battle and lost many fights even with quantity on their side (simply because most of them were cowards). At the last years of his rule, Ivan's madness reached its peak. He wrote a large list of people he ordered to execute during his reign and prayed for them all day and all night (sometimes he didn't even show himself to the court for weeks). After that, his greatest son Ivan (yes, another Ivan) died under suspicious circumstances. Ivan was the heir for the throne of Russia and was considered as the smartest and strongest among all Ivan IV sons. Some said he was accidently killed by Ivan the Terrible during harsh disputes. There is also a version, that his son died of disease or was poisoned by foreign doctors. So the heir for his throne became another son - Fyodor. He was very pious but with it, very shy and kinda slow. Soon Ivan the Terrible died. It is still disputed, how he died, but the most popular version says, that he was poisoned by his court doctor from Westphalia Eliseus Bomelius and Fyodor took the throne. His reign was short and he was very led by his noble-advisor Boris Godunov, who then established new dynasty on throne. After this story, i think it is clear, why Ivan was so cruel. His efforts centalised the state, but, of course, with the heavy price. He was a great leader at the beginning, but then wars and plots took over his mind, making him mad and very suspicious, turning his country into his own playground. By the way his reign is considered the longest from all russian rulers (50 years and 3 months). And a couple of words about Stalin. He was inspired by the figure of Ivan from the Eisenstein movie Иван Грозный (1944), where Tzar' appeared as a wise ruler with desires to make Russia one of the greatest empires of the world. This imagery impressed Stalin, who also considered himself as a protector and collector of Russian lands. The second part of the film, which showed the turning of Ivan from young perspective ruler into old man, full of madness, was banned by Stalin. This part came out only in 1958, almost 5 years after Stalin's death.
All that may be true but he that does not wipe away all the wrongs he did...…. They were not minor either. Is he mostly remember for all that u mentioned? No.. the evil has forever elclisped any thing that may have been in hos favor... and for good reason
Henry VI of England? I can't think of a less evil ruler in English history. Or one who was less effective, talented or wise. He was many things, but evil was not one of them. More easily led than sinister.
I agree. Henry VI may have been politically inept, easily influenced and suffered bouts of madness but he was also described as deeply religious, peaceful and kind. There were many men who said he would have made a better friar or abbot than a king.
Spot on. Henry VI was prone to fits of madness, which resulted in factionalism and discord in England. However, he was not evil by any stretch of the imagination.Henry VIII , Mary I had far bloodier reigns.
eeshan vaidya He apparently did neither I believe. But I think it was a metaphor for him literally doing nothing about the fire until it neared his palace.
Thing is, Vlad III isn't remembered as monster by Romania, but rather as a hero that defended his principality. Also those were all common methods of torture and execution back then, Vlad wasn't the only one who used them.
Caligula was Nero's uncle so the 🍎 didn't fall too far from the 🌳... Although considering Nero had sex with his sisters & Nero's Mom was one of those sisters, I wonder if Caligula wasn't Nero's uncle/Dad... That would explain Hero's extreme insanity...
True, during Vlad's reign thieves were close to non-existent, and that's a feat in itself especially for that era, and he was one of the only voievods that actually managed to protect his lands against the ottoman invaders, and by doing so, keeping the ottoman armies from ever reaching other European countries. Same goes for Attila, was he a ruthless leader? there is no doubt that his enemies saw him that way. But for his people, he was a god, and he did manage to conquer half of know world back then.
Many on this list were undoubtedly ruthless, but not necessarily evil, Vlad and Genghis Khan for example were known for being brutal on those who opposed them, but they also did their job in securing their states and protecting the people who were loyal.
Top 10 most evil characters in Islamic history 10 Harun al-Rashid 9 Mehmed the Conqueror 8 Suliman Al Kanuni 7Salah al-Din 6 Abu Ja'far al Mansur 5 Yazid bin Muawiyah 4 Abd al-Rahman I 3Abu Al Abbas Asffah 2 Khalid ibn al-Walīd 1prophet Mohammed
Vlad was mostly fighting pretenders to the Wallachian crown. He killed more Wallachians than Ottomans, although he did manage to unify his country until the Ottomans had the bright idea of supporting one of the pretenders.
Ghengis Khan is not a fair choice here. Cruel i war yes, just like every conquerer, but he was way less evil than most on this list. He accepted all religions, all ethnic groups and subjects. He created stability all over Asia. Power hungry, absolutely, but not evil.
@@louisa5518 not just his wives but so many men who were once close advisors to him like Thomas More and Thomas Cromwell. Also anyone with the slightest relation to the Plantagenets (kings before the Tudors)
there are litterally 20 or more muslim leaders who should be on this list. vlad even learned his impalement method from the turks. their his trainees basically.
Vlad the Impaler was actually celebrated throughout Europe during the early part of his reign because of his success at turning back the Turks. He was considered a hero of Christendom for successfully revolting and holding the Turks off, including his own brother who was sent by the Turks to take the land back.Vlad was later smeared by his technical superior who was provided with funds from all over Europe to fight the Turks but embezzled the funds instead. In order to distract from his use of the funds on himself, the king started spreading stories of atrocities that he claimed were committed by Vlad in order to scapegoat him.Yes, Vlad used techniques that would be considered barbaric today, but were almost certainly effective in helping discourage and weaken the massively larger enemy forces he had to fend off. He fought a psychological and morale war in order to win the real war.
King Richard 1 spent very little time in England and so, when his brother John took over the crown, it was probably the best thing that every happened in this country.
Herod wasn't as bad as you say he was. Sure he was paranoid and believed everyone was out to kill him, which led to some horrible stuff, like the killing of Jerusalem's rich and powerful (including his own wife), but he was also, at times, very supportive of both Hellenistic and Jewish citizens of Judah. Also, the entire story about him trying to kill Jesus is pretty much made up, as Herod was already dead when Jesus was actually born.
He may have killed , tortured and troubled many but he was nowhere as evil as anyone on this list. The worst Indian Emperors were definetly Alauddin Khilji, Mohommad bin Tugluq and Pushyamitra Shunga. Aurangzeb wasn't the last Emperor either, you still had Faruksiyahr, Mohommad Shah, Shah Alam and lastly Bahadur Shah Zafar. The first two still maiantined a lot of territory and power and were more tolerant than Aurangzeb,
@@nirupamakumar3917 you forgotten the main cruelest kings taimur,mohamed ghori,nadir shah. They plundered delhi and literally killed every people irrespective of caste and religion
I would personally put Timur the Lame instead of Attila, the dude massacred cities and stacked the heads of the dead in pyramids one source says of a pyramid made up of over 70,000 heads. I would also put the Qianlong Emperor for causing the extinction of the Dzungars, massacring over 500,000 men, women and children and finally I would put Hulegu Khan ahead of Genghis. The massacre in Baghdad in 1258 alone makes many of Genghis's atrocities pale in comparison, over a million men, women and children were killed along with every dog, cat and rat in the city. The Baghdad House of Wisdom was destroyed and legend says the Tigris and Euphrates ran black and red from the ink and blood from the massacre. The devastation was so great that the fertile crescent never again reached it's former glories and was left to rot, it continues to this day Syria and Iraq are a fucking shithole.
Tulga Badrakh totally agree he almost destroyed my country (Georgia) by invading it many times and killing thousands. Those were the darkest times in my country` history.
10. John was actually a hardworking King, the only problem was that he lacked consistency, one minute he was brilliant, the next he was terrible. 8. Vlad was brutal to be sure but was a necessary evil to fight the Ottoman Turks 7. Leopold II wasn't responsible for what happened in the Congo, he didn't know half the stuff that was going on in there. 2. Ivan was actually a great and effective leader that Russia needed for the time. most of his worst atrocities were against not the common people but the Boyar nobles who were greedy and corrupt. his nickname 'The Terrible' was actually used as a compliment because he was terrible to their ancient enemies the Tatars.
Leopold acknowledged it writing he was aware of human rights abuses in the Congo. He may not have been aware of the extent, that is true. But he knew, missionaries told stories. To me that's like arguing Hitler didn't know the true extent of the Holocaust. He may not have. It doesn't make a difference. It happened in their name, they knew it was happening, they had the power to stop it and did nothing. I'm sorry that makes you just as responsible.
Richard the 11 was not like that. In fact he was totally against the wars with France. He was in fact a piece loving man. This video is bullshit, they don't no anything.
I just want to say that everyone here trying to defend vlad are basing their arguments on the movie Dracula untold And i just want to know that vlad was psychopath His way of solving poverty was inviting his own people to a meal and set them on fire.
Attila wasn't a bad king !! Yes he was ruthless but without him the Huns would later fall apart. Mao Zedong the late Chinese communist leader is easily number 1
You overlooked the fact that there were TWO Herods. The one who tried to kill Jesus as an infant (2 or 3 BC) and the one that reigned during Jesus' ministry. It's no wonder some think that the massacre in Bethlehem didn't happen. They're overlooking a very important detail and basing their conclusions on their ignorance.
There were 4 Herods I believe. Herod is kind of like a last name. Herod the Great was the first, then there was Herod who reigned during Jesus' ministry. There was Herod Agrippa who reigned when Paul ministered to the Gentiles. I think there was 1 more but I can't remember off the top of my head.
He probably deserves the spot more than Prince John does. But when it comes to monarchs of England, the one that never gets mentioned is Mary I, also known as Bloody Mary.
Those 20.000 impailed by Vlad were otomans. He did this to scare off an otoman invasion. He died on the battlefield fighting for his country. In Romania he is considered a hero and not as a bad ruler:))
He killed 10% of world population .. raping, killing pregnant woman, boiling war prisoners.. he is evil , but yeah not for his men.. almost like Hitler for nazis
