The Most Evil Military Men in History.

[The Sword of Cao Cao]

The above men are remembered as icons of barabarism, brutality, slaughter and chaos. But some are revered as heroes in thier native lands? What do you think about the so called tyrants?

[Knight_Yellow]

i wouldnt describe any of those as evil as a guy who personaly ordered the cold blooded methodical genocide of over 20 million people (including russian civilians)

Hitler.

[The_678]

I have to say too that Hitler needs to be in this poll.
And GAH

[spmetla]

I don't consider any of these men "evil" but Vlad is the Closest to evil so I voted for him.

[Cebei]

Actually EVERY military-statesman one can encounter in the caucasus or the central asia can be characterized as evil.. I would argue that these leaders have not come to power single handedly, they had the support of masses or the soldiers. An evil ruler is actually the outlet of the emotions of the people. Even Hitler. I dont think that a "softer" ruler would become a ruler. These madmen (some of them) come to power because of need.. even Hitler.

[The Wizard]

Evil depends on your point of view. For instance, the Turks don't really remember Miloš Kobilic with all that much love, but the Serbians see him as a national hero of sorts.

Still, for pure bad-assery, I'd say Genghis Khan. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif



~Wiz

[Sir Moody]

Quote[/b] ]i wouldnt describe any of those as evil as a guy who personaly ordered the cold blooded methodical genocide of over 20 million people (including russian civilians)


correct me if im worng here but isnt Attila attributed to acts of mass murder and genocide that far ount number Hitlers?

Nero was a total loony (not his fault most Roman Emporers were by then due to all the inbreeding)

Vlad is prety close to Evil but its likly he was round the twist too

i dont really think any of them qualify as the title "Evil" had different meanings in their respective days

[Beirut]

Ghengis Khan was far from evil. His was cold blooded and efficient, but not evil.

Stalin was evil. Hitler was evil. Mao was evil. But not Khan.

[Orda Khan]

Yes, I'd say Stalin

....Orda

[Rosacrux]

If the man who...
...ordered or encouraged the butchering of nearly 60 million people, ordered and enforced the complete destruction of at least two flurishing cultures and the almost complete annihiliation of several others, and also set back the clock for Asia in a way that they have yet to recover from the consequences of the Mongol rule...
cannot be called "evil", I wouldn't know the meaning of the word.

I don't really believe in "evil" or "good", I see only shades of grey and personal (or otherwise) interests. But if there is evil, Chinghis Khan is it's pure reflection.

P.S. Nero "evil"? Poor lad, he was a poet and a jolly fellow, albeit a bit weird (as all the Roman emperors from a point on). And he didn't burn Rome, that's a story his enemies created to make him look bad.

Hitler OTOH... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

[Seven.the.Hun]

evil is a generic term, controlled by and applied by perspective...so its only a word
the reality is much worse...
as with the conquerors...my vote goes for the fellow hun...although i'm fond of the khan aswell...
they surely must have understood one simple thing...that things only belong to those who are strong enough to take them...
tis my take anyway, i'm not given to judging the morality of those i have never met and witnessed...
tis like me saying hawaii is the best place on earth...but i've never been there???

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
anyway...MORE DRINKS ALL AROUND
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif

[The Wizard]

Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ Feb. 22 2004,05:02)]If the man who...
...ordered or encouraged the butchering of nearly 60 million people, ordered and enforced the complete destruction of at least two flurishing cultures and the almost complete annihiliation of several others, and also set back the clock for Asia in a way that they have yet to recover from the consequences of the Mongol rule...
cannot be called "evil", I wouldn't know the meaning of the word.

I don't really believe in "evil" or "good", I see only shades of grey and personal (or otherwise) interests. But if there is evil, Chinghis Khan is it's pure reflection.

P.S. Nero "evil"? Poor lad, he was a poet and a jolly fellow, albeit a bit weird (as all the Roman emperors from a point on). And he didn't burn Rome, that's a story his enemies created to make him look bad.

Hitler OTOH... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
Actually, good man, all conquered territories flourished after Mongol expansion ceased (which was after the conquest of Baghdad by Holegu).

It was the Yuan Empire which, after Qubilai Khan's death, fell into a spiral of corruption and bad emperors, but hey, not in the time of real Mongol rule.



~Wiz

[Rosacrux]

Yes, Khwarazmia flurished. 32 mi. people before the Mongol conquest, 14 mi. after. Quite flurishing. Kara Kitai flurished, with 3/4 of it's population massacred. Yes, India flurished, having to face the rifles of the Brits with spears and swords after a few centuries under Mongolian dynasties. China flurished as well, 60 mi. before the Mongols, 40 after them. They flurished so much, that they managed to pull together only after 700 years and after being the playground for Japanese and Westeners for several centuries... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

Good man, the Mongols were a backwards, warmongering, progress-killing culture (and I really hate to bring the words "Culture" and "Mongols" in the same sentence...) which contributed to the humanity only endless slaughter and a virtual halt of the civilization in the areas they conquered.

It's a great thing Europe escaped (by sheer luck) their long hand. For Europe would flurish like Asia now...

Thinking of it, I guess the natives of the Americas - and not only them - would be quite thankfull to the Mongols, had they proceeded with their conquest westwards... the most advanced nation in the world nowadays would be the succesors to the Incas and the Aztecs http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/idea.gif

[Knight Keimo]

Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ Feb. 22 2004,05:01)]Yes, Khwarazmia flurished. 32 mi. people before the Mongol conquest, 14 mi. after. Quite flurishing. Kara Kitai flurished, with 3/4 of it's population massacred. Yes, India flurished, having to face the rifles of the Brits with spears and swords after a few centuries under Mongolian dynasties. China flurished as well, 60 mi. before the Mongols, 40 after them. They flurished so much, that they managed to pull together only after 700 years and after being the playground for Japanese and Westeners for several centuries... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

Good man, the Mongols were a backwards, warmongering, progress-killing culture (and I really hate to bring the words "Culture" and "Mongols" in the same sentence...) which contributed to the humanity only endless slaughter and a virtual halt of the civilization in the areas they conquered.

It's a great thing Europe escaped (by sheer luck) their long hand. For Europe would flurish like Asia now...

Thinking of it, I guess the natives of the Americas - and not only them - would be quite thankfull to the Mongols, had they proceeded with their conquest westwards... the most advanced nation in the world nowadays would be the succesors to the Incas and the Aztecs http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/idea.gif
You´r so right. I`d still put Attila into same level as Khan, he was just as bloody and savage leader of the backward people, but he didnt succeed to massacre so many. But he really tried he´s best..

[The Wizard]

No.

After the Mongols conquered the Chinese, Khwarazmians, Russians and everything in between, these regions experienced a time of economical rebirth.

Now the conquests themselves were quite bloody and ruthless, but that is why the Mongol realm was so huge: they had no mercy and winning was their only goal. Indeed the slaughtered millions. Indeed they were ruthless. Indeed they had six large sacks filled to the brim with ears after the conquest of Baghdad. But it is the period after it that we are talking about.

"Say ye unto the Khwarezmians that I am the soveign of the sunrise, and [he is] the soverign of the sunset. Let there be between us a firm treaty of friendship, amity, and peace, and let traders and caravans on both sides come and go."
-CHINGIS KHAN, to an ambassador from the Khwarezmian empire. Genghis actually wanted peace, but was compelled to go to war when the Mongol ambassadors were killed by the Persians.

"All who surrender will be spared; whoever does not surrender but opposed with struggle and dissension, shall be annihilated."
-CHINGIS KHAN, during the war with the Khwarezmian empire. Usually, Genghis kept his word, and those who did surrender were indeed spared. It is this policy that separates Genghis from other leadesr who did pointlessly kill people. Genghis killed for conquests, not for the joy of it like Tamerlane and Hitler.

Russia under the Golden Horde experienced a time of economical prosperity, where trade routes into Russia switched from Kyiw (hehe) to Vladimir and further north. In Persia, due to constant fighting with the Islamic Golden Horde, there was not much time for the economy, but under Ghazan Il-Khan, the realm was reformed and started profiting from the Silk Road, indirectly re-opened by the Mongol conquerers. Under his successor Abu Sa'id, it flourished even more yet collapsed under pressure from Timur Lenk and becuase he had no successor. The Kara-Khitai under the Khanate of Chaghadai were slaughtered indeed when Chingiz Khan, yet had a period of relatively good economic prosperity, as this relatively small Khanate grew steadily until Timur Lenk destroyed them.

And India was never ruled by Mongols. The climate there was too humid for Mongol horses to be effective (hence the failure of Mongol expeditions into southeastern Asia under Qubilai Khan).

The Mongols were a ruthless, scarily efficient, warmongering, almost invincible race of warriors which assimilated into the conquered peoples and thus cooperated with them and started a period of economic rebirth for the pretty much destroyed land. Mongols indirectly reopened the Silk Road by unifying the Middle East and Asia Minor, and this lasted until Timur Lenk came and undid what Ghazan Khan and Abu Sa'id had done. The Yuan dynasty under Qubilai flourished, yet he had a series of weak successors and collapsed under corruption, internal political strife, and outside pressure from the Ming. Russia under the Golden Horde had a period of reasonable economic activity, and a lot of freedom under them (strife between the Russian principalities just continued after the conquest by Subedei and Batu Khan), and indirectly, the Mongols created the base for Czarist Russia because the free principalities unified against them. The Chaghadai Khanate was peaceful and the Kara-Khitai and other Central Asian peoples under them saw an economic rebirth which was martially ended by Timur Lenk.

In other words: the Mongols were ruthless in warfare yet benificial after it.

And for the sake of choosing someone truly evil, I'd go for Hitler anytime of the day, but since he isn't here, I think I'll go for Attila since he murdered so many and accomplished nothing with it.



~Wiz

[Cebei]

Quote[/b] ]I`d still put Attila into same level as Khan, he was just as bloody and savage leader of the backward people,

Brutal I can agree, but these warlords and their people were far from backward. Being in close contact () with the Chinese, these armies were the ones who actually introduced China's technological advancements to Europe. Especially Chingiz Khan's empire was technologically superior to Europe in its heydays. For example Chingiz is a pioneer to use Chinese rocketry to assault castles. But yeah, I mean, in the end they used that "technology" to kill people. High tech doesnt bring civilization.

[MiniKiller]

tuff call I mean they all had reasons to fight, they all had reasons to be brutal and get payback so to speak but I vote Khan.

[MiniKiller]

Quote[/b] (Knight Keimo @ Feb. 22 2004,05:15)][[/i] http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/idea.gif
You´r so right. I`d still put Attila into same level as Khan, he was just as bloody and savage leader of the backward people, but he didnt succeed to massacre so many. But he really tried he´s best..[/QUOTE]
backward people? erm ook

[kiwitt]

Another poll without GAH (Moderators please note)

Where is Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Caligula or other Caesars.

There are to many to name all of them.

[gaelic cowboy]

I would have to say Nero he was bonkers wasn't he an he did his fair share of bad things.

[Michiel de Ruyter]

Nero is not a military man in any way...

Other candidates, more likely then Nero, and possibly guilty of more dead then Vlad:

Alexander: Tyre, Gaza, Persepolis anyone.
Caesar: whiped out a number of Gallic tribes.
Augustus: whiped out a few cities in his early days as well.
Scipio Africanus jr: Sacked Carthago.

Others:

William the Conqueror, Timur Lenk (Tamerlane), Kubilai Khan, Peter the Great (St.Petersburg is built on human bones).

[The Wizard]

Yes, Timur Lenk. Like Atilla, killed for pretty useless ends that didn't serve a whole lot of things.

Also, Iwan the Terrible. He didn't get his name for giving the peasants tax cuts, you know. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif



~Wiz

[Cebei]

Also Rasputin is another fine example of evil.

[The Sword of Cao Cao]

Quote[/b] (kiwitt @ Feb. 22 2004,21:17)]Another poll without GAH (Moderators please note)

Where is Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Caligula or other Caesars.

There are to many to name all of them.
errrm, Caligula? all he did was make his horse a senator....

[Orda Khan]

There are some grossly exaggerated figures being used here. I take with a pinch of salt the overblown numbers of recorded dead during the 'backward' conquests of Chingis Khan. Who counted all the bodies? For every death toll I could give you a conflicting report...Mediaeval accounts are notoriously inaccurate.

We must remember that we are a different people to those who lived a thousand years ago, don't think that Chinese humanitarianism was any less cruel.

Khwarazm and Xixia suffered in the way they did for ( supposedly ) good reason. Treachery by Khwarazm, as pointed out by Wizard and also the fact that Chingis could not risk reprisal...he was securing his position.

Xixia did not provide soldiers for the above campaign. As vassals they were required to do so. Is it any surprise they felt the full Mongol wrath?

When we read the chronicles of Russia and Poland, of Hungary and the Ukraine, do we expect unbiased reports? Why else were the Mongols branded 'dog faced Tatars','filthy as demons' and accused 'they have been known to indulge in cannibalism'...Because these were all written by conquered people who despised these armies who made their own appear so inept.

The west/east trade and commerce did indeed flourish, since the silk road was the safest it had been and all thanks to a 'backward' nation of barbarian animals. I suppose when Richard ( the lionheart http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif ) decided to massacre thousands of Moslem prisoners, he did so out of kindness? Every nation has its closet, complete with skeletons http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

......Orda

[Cebei]

Quote[/b] ]Every nation has its closet, complete with skeletons

Is this yours or quoted from someone else? If its yours then, WOW its hell of a phrase

[Leet Eriksson]

Haha altho chengis khan did engage in mass sluaghter,i don't really consider him evil,not while letting other peeps like some errant arab knight take a high position on ruling persia for a while http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

Speaking of truly evil people,anyone know medieval Saddam?he lived in baghdad,he sluaghtered his own people and he loved to quel rebellions,a reflection of saddam just lived way before him,this guy is Al Hajaj bin Youssef al Thaqafy also known as butcher of baghdad,he used to rule the Hedjaz region until the people sent a plea to the khalifa to remove him,i can't remember the khalifahs name but he noticed al hajajs efficeincy in ruling with an iron fist so he made him Wali of Baghdad,he qouted Iraq as the land of "Hypocrits and traitors" and sluaghtered all who opposed him,he also cut the tongues of poets who praised him(so they won't praise anyone else),killed a byzantine architect after building him a maginificent palace and quelled several khawarij rebellions.

on the bright side though,he was an overly generous man,he loved poetry and usually after cutting a poets tongue he would give him a stipend for a lifetime and he never turns down a man who begs him(well after he begs him to spare his life~:p).

[biguth dickuth]

Quote[/b] ]P.S. Nero "evil"? Poor lad, he was a poet and a jolly fellow, albeit a bit weird (as all the Roman emperors from a point on). And he didn't burn Rome, that's a story his enemies created to make him look bad.


i agree.
he definitely wasn't a military man. he didn't like wars he didn't start any (which was something that his opponents accused him for).

he despised the senate and the rich aristocracy and made efforts to decrease their power and improve the lifes of his people. this is why he "made" a lot of enemies in the senate.
he did force his former teacher seneca to commit suicide but he did so when he discovered that he was part of a conspiracy to overthrow him. by allowing him to commit suicide, his teacher was honourarily burried and his family kept his fortune. if he had arrested and executed him, his fortune would have been confiscated and his body would be left unburried. it still was a kill of course, but not the worst thing he could do to a man he loved but was betrayed by.

he didn't burn rome. in fact he wasn't even there when it happened (to watch it burn and write poems http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-confused.gif as he is legendarily said to have done).
it has not been discovered who was really responsible for the burning of rome (who knows? maybe even the christians...) but it is most likely that it wasn't him. it's a pity that the mainstream opinion is that he did it.

by the time he was finaly overthrown he had become a little wacko indeed but that could be partly explained by the constant plots against him.

[The Wizard]

Talking about brutal people - the Hashishin threatening the Seljuq sûltanate (faisal, other muslim historians, please give me their name again http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif)? They were quite ruthless in trying to bring down the Seljuqs, and succeeded too.

Or Basil II from the view point of the Bulgar Khanate... he did not get his title for sending them gifts and tribute... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif

Of course Toyotomi Hideyoshi wasn't the nicest of people in his later days either...

There are just too many to mention.



~Wiz

[Quessa]

Got to say, Vlad sounds nasty enough http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif (that "Impaler" had a certain effect).

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

Some of the teutonic Grandmasters shoudn't be over looked, especially winfrich von kniprode who ordered mass exterminations of the pagan Lithuanians, letts and other tribes of the baltic.
Also old Oliver Cromwell for his exploits in ireland which were nothing short of horrific

[Komutan]

I think, the definition of "evil" is also dependent on the time.The ethical values of humanity changes with time.

For example, most people living today consider the use of weapons of mass destruction an evil thing.But I don't think that was the case in 1945, so what USA did is not really evil.

Therefore, I don't think we can objectively decide whether people like Genghis or Vlad were really evil.

[Orda Khan]

Quote[/b] (Cebei @ Feb. 23 2004,22:08)]
Quote[/b] ]Every nation has its closet, complete with skeletons

Is this yours or quoted from someone else? If its yours then, WOW its hell of a phrase
That's my own

.....Orda

[Leet Eriksson]

Quote[/b] (The Wizard @ Feb. 24 2004,06:37)]Talking about brutal people - the Hashishin threatening the Seljuq sûltanate (faisal, other muslim historians, please give me their name again http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif)? They were quite ruthless in trying to bring down the Seljuqs, and succeeded too.
If your talking about the name of the Hasishin leader it was Hasan el Sabah,reason he founded it was becuase he refused to recognise al Mustali as the caliph of the fatimid dynasty,he founded the Nizaris(also called the Hashishen)The words Nizaris is acually from al Mustalis brother Nizar who disappeared under unknown circumstances,later it dissolved into a caste-like system seperating the nizaris(upper command) from the Hashishen(the people who made the suicidal assasinations).

They were more anti-fatimid than anti-seljuq,but they were still hated by both.

Hope that helped :)

[Mount Suribachi]

Good grief, 2 pages and no-one has mentioned George W Bush What is wrong with you people?? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-furious3.gif

seriously though.....Stalin, Genghis Khan, Hitler.......tough to choose


I'm going with Ghenghis, just for that quote about the pleasure of raping a newly conquered Kings wife and feeling her tears etc. I'm sure someone will find it for me http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[The Wizard]

Chingis Khan was not like that. He was not some Atilla or Tamerlane He fought for war, not for pleasure.

Edit:: Thanks faisal, that helped http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif



~Wiz

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I would have to go with Stalin

[king steven]

starlin, where the F**k is starlin.


http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-furious3.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-furious3.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-furious3.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-furious3.gif

[Cebei]

Quote[/b] ]starlin, where the F**k is starlin.

sorry who is starlin?

[Knight Keimo]

Quote[/b] (Cebei @ Feb. 27 2004,10:00)]
Quote[/b] ]starlin, where the F**k is starlin.

sorry who is starlin?
Could be a some kind of inside joke? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

[The Sword of Cao Cao]

lol, I think he means Stalin.

[Kongamato]

One of MTW's notable characters, Werner von Urslingen, is supposed to be a quite ruthless, cruel military man. The MTW developer diaries mentioned him. His motto, which was engraved on his armor was "Enemy of God, enemy of piety, enemy of pity". Supposedly he would invade a territory, commit every vicious act imaginable, and then send a letter to the capitol city telling them what he did and demanding they pay him to leave. From what I skimmed over, he was one of many quite radical Renaissance figures who took the new separation from the church to the extreme, proudly committing every moral outrage possible.

[The Wizard]

Sounds like a happy chappy. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif



~Wiz