Greatest Badboy People and Nations per Century

Major comment on this from me is that its a very euro-centric list.

Anyway, would like to suggest that Athenian Democracry be taken off the list as in the large scale of things that was a very minor empire over a handful of Greek speaking coastal villages. The Persian (Achaemenids) meanwhile managed quite a bit of expansion in that century by bringing some dependent states directly under their rule and re-established control over many territories lost to rebellions.



Pope Urban II is surely the real bad boy of the 11th century

Some other debatable alternatives

Simon Bolivar / Shaka Zulu - 19th century
Various Norman invasions - 11th century
Aztecs killed a lot of people in 16th century, Spain just sneezed in the wrong places
Maybe consider replacing Hitler with Stalin (or even Mao?) for 20th century as he has more souls trailing in his wake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cambyses

Major comment on this from me is that its a very euro-centric list.

Anyway, would like to suggest that Athenian Democracry be taken off the list as in the large scale of things that was a very minor empire over a handful of Greek speaking coastal villages. The Persian (Achaemenids) meanwhile managed quite a bit of expansion in that century by bringing some dependent states directly under their rule and re-established control over many territories lost to rebellions.



Pope Urban II is surely the real bad boy of the 11th century

Some other debatable alternatives

Simon Bolivar / Shaka Zulu - 19th century
Various Norman invasions - 11th century
Aztecs killed a lot of people in 16th century, Spain just sneezed in the wrong places
Maybe consider replacing Hitler with Stalin (or even Mao?) for 20th century as he has more souls trailing in his wake.

---

I'll reply to everyone tomorrow, anyways, just this message.

True, it is very Euro-centric, even I noticed that, although I made the list using mostly my knowledge, which is obviously fallible (As with the example of the Peter of Russia.)

I was undecisive over the Athenian Democracy and the Persian Empire, but as I compared, I decided to put the Athenians in, as they built an empire, while the Persians basically centralized or crushed rebellions (Which doesn't add badboy). But looking over the general state of things in that Century, most history I know revolved around Greece, thus why the Athenians are in.

Anyways, there is a misconception of badboy with your suggestions. Badboy isn't about how many people were killed. It's about the acquisition of more power through forceful conflicts with foreign entities, which innevitably breaches the prior equilibrium of powers. Shaka Zulu pales in comparison with many of the people forwarded for that century. Simon Bolivar is another case, and we'll compare him with the other notorious people for the badboy of the 19th Century later.
I considered putting the Normans in, but since they didn't really were a state of any kind, I passed them over. Spain (And later with the addition of Portugal), most notably by Carlos V and Filipe II far and wide surpasses the Aztec Empire in terms of wars and badboy acquired. Stalin's badboy (Once again the badboy concept) can't be compared to Hitler, who did annex and occupy several countries, started a World War, and would have brought Germany more wars and power in case he had won it. Stalin didn't surpass Hitler, nor Mao who only lead in a couple of small wars to further his own power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

Stalin's badboy (Once again the badboy concept) can't be compared to Hitler, who did annex and occupy several countries, started a World War, and would have brought Germany more wars and power in case he had won it. Stalin didn't surpass Hitler, nor Mao who only lead in a couple of small wars to further his own power.

---

On the other hand, Stalin did brutally oppress and control many Eastern European states, which has to count for some badboy points.

Badboy points from Paradox games is difficult to understand for those who never played them. It is a "gamey" feature but it is also very realistic. It doesn't equate to amount of territory taken or to how much of a bad guy certain ruler was, but how much was the existing balance of power upset.

It's not about human rights, concentration camps, genocides etc... For example, Hitler and Nazi Germany aren't on the list because of the genocide, they're there because they've upset the balance of power by conquering numerous countries. By that concept. conquests of Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Louis XIV or Hitler are exactly the same. Their "other" policies are not of an issue, just their conquests and how much did they upset the existing balance of power

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

It's not about human rights, concentration camps, genocides etc... For example, Hitler and Nazi Germany aren't on the list because of the genocide, they're there because they've upset the balance of power by conquering numerous countries. By that concept. conquests of Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Louis XIV or Hitler are exactly the same. Their "other" policies are not of an issue, just their conquests and how much did they upset the existing balance of power

---

If this was addressed at me, I'm aware. I was referring to the fact that the Soviet control of Eastern Europe could be called a de facto annexation.

I think Crochane deserves to be on the list somewhere. He was pretty badass.

No love for Britain?

After all during the 18th and 19th century British troops pretty much invaded every continent on the map. A nation which forcibly took the largest Empire in history probably deserves a little infamy. The only reason we aren't regarded as evil is usually because people tend to forget about the invading and killing natives side of thing, and focus more on the cultural and technological benefits.

I would say Britain's massive naval dominance certainly upset the balance of power, at least at sea.

The ruler would of course be Queen Victoria. Another lady for the list :P

Jolt you still haven't said anything about the candidates I presented in post #28, and no one else has posted alternative names for the 6th and 7th centuries BC. Time to update the list maybe? Esarhaddon may be contestable but Cyrus II definitely deserves to be included.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Beane

No love for Britain?

After all during the 18th and 19th century British troops pretty much invaded every continent on the map. A nation which forcibly took the largest Empire in history probably deserves a little infamy. The only reason we aren't regarded as evil is usually because people tend to forget about the invading and killing natives side of thing, and focus more on the cultural and technological benefits.

I would say Britain's massive naval dominance certainly upset the balance of power, at least at sea.

The ruler would of course be Queen Victoria. Another lady for the list :P

---

I was just about to put Britain forward. They also engaged in power struggles with both France and Russia multiple times in the 18th/19th centuries, especially with the "Great Game" (I hate that term so much, by the way; it's incredibly arrogant) and, if you count the East India company as an extension or client state in all but name, of the British empire, then you can also count in the forcible conquest of the Indian subcontinent.

Edit: and yes, the list is awfully Eurocentric; at the very least, Qin Shi Huang ought to be on the list.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conqueror

Jolt you still haven't said anything about the candidates I presented in post #28, and no one else has posted alternative names for the 6th and 7th centuries BC. Time to update the list maybe? Esarhaddon may be contestable but Cyrus II definitely deserves to be included.

---

Sorry. I currently don't have the time to reply to every post and update everything, as I am in college, far away from home. I come to the net and to this site to post somewhat small replies and check on my games, and I don't even have time for those. I shall look onto everything as soon as I have time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reverend Joe

I was just about to put Britain forward. They also engaged in power struggles with both France and Russia multiple times in the 18th/19th centuries, especially with the "Great Game" (I hate that term so much, by the way; it's incredibly arrogant) and, if you count the East India company as an extension or client state in all but name, of the British empire, then you can also count in the forcible conquest of the Indian subcontinent.

Edit: and yes, the list is awfully Eurocentric; at the very least, Qin Shi Huang ought to be on the list.

---

True, Britain did upset the world balance quite much, it will be a case for discussion amongst us when I have time. Yes the list in very eurocentric, and Qin Shi Huang is in the list (Badboy-Person of the 3rd Cent B.C.), though I was unsure whether to put him or Ashoka of the Indian Mauryan Dynasty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

Yes the list in very eurocentric, and Qin Shi Huang is in the list (Badboy-Person of the 3rd Cent B.C.), though I was unsure whether to put him or Ashoka of the Indian Mauryan Dynasty.

---

Ah, I see. :2thumbsup:

I would like to propose an alternative for the 11th century AD: sultanate of great seljuq/Togrul beg.
They defeated the byzantines, fatimids, abbasids and ghaznavids and captured nicaea, antioch, jerusalem, bagdad, nishapur, merv, damascus to name only the most important.

I would put the Brits down for the 18th cen. We destroyed forever any other European pretensions of Global Hegemony, the game was up, effectively.