Greatest Badboy People and Nations per Century

[Jolt]

Using the concept of "Badboy" (e.g. Uses force to attack and conquer other nations thereby breaking the prior balance of powers, and is the aggressor) drawn by Paradox Interactive for its games, who would have most badboy per century

21th Century- U.S.A./President George W. Bush of the United States of America

20th Century- Germany/Führer Adolf Hitler of Germany

19th Century- Empire of France/Emperor Napoleon I Bonaparte of France

18th Century- Mughal Empire/Emperor Ekaterina (Catherine) II of Russia

17th Century- Ottoman Empire/King Louis XIV of France

16th Century- Spain-Iberian Union/King Filipe (Phillip) II of Spain

15th Century- Ottoman Empire/Sultan-Caliph Mehmed II of the Ottoman Empire

14th Century- Timurid Empire/Emir Timur Lang (Tamerlane) of the Timurid Empire

13th Century- Mongol Empire/Emperor Genghis Khan of the Mongol Empire

12th Century- Ayyubid Sultanate/Sultan Salah ad-din (Saladin) of the Ayyubid Sultanate

11th Century- Byzantine Empire/Emperor Heinrich (Henry) III of the Holy Roman Empire

10th Century- Holy Roman Empire/Emperor Otto I of the Holy Roman Empire

9th Century- Holy Roman Empire/Emperor Charles Magne of the Frankish Kingdom-Holy Roman Empire

8th Century- Arab Muslim Caliphate/Duke Charles Martel of the Frankish Duchy

7th Century- Arab Muslim Caliphate/Caliph Uthman Ibn Affan of the Arab Muslim Caliphate (Rashidun Dynasty)

6th Century- Byzantine Empire/Emperor Iustinianus (Justinian) I of the Byzantine Empire

5th Century- Visigothic Kingdom/Emperor Attila I of the Hunnic Empire

4th Century- Hunnic Empire/Emperor Balamber of the Hunnic Empire

3rd Century- Persian Sassanid Empire/King-Emperor Shapur I of the Persian Sassanid Empire

2nd Century- Kushan Empire/King Vima Kadphises of the Kushan Empire

1st Century- Roman Empire/Emperor Traianus (Trajan) of the Roman Empire
Year 0
1st Century- Roman Republic/Consul Iulius (Julius) Caesar of the Roman Republic

2nd Century- Roman Republic/Emperor Wu of the Han Empire

3rd Century- Mauryan Empire/Emperor Shi Huang of the Qin Empire

4th Century- Macedonian Empire/King-Emperor Alexandros (Alexander) III of the Macedonian Empire

5th Century- Athenian Democracy/Emperor Xerxes I of the Persian Achaemenid Empire

That is all. I'm open to modifications, especially for the Ancient and Medieval Periods.

[Conqueror]

I nominate Temujin as the biggest, badddest boy of recorded history.

[PanzerJaeger]

Using the concept of "Badboy" (e.g. Uses force to attack and conquer other nations thereby breaking the prior balance of powers, and is the aggressor) drawn by Paradox Interactive for its games, who would have most badboy per century

21th Century- USA/George Bush
20th Century- Germany/Adolf Hitler
19th Century- France/Napoleon Bonaparte
18th Century- Mughal Empire/Pyotr I of Russia
17th Century- Ottoman Empire/Gustavus II Adolfus of Sweden
16th Century- Spain/Filipe II of Spain
15th Century- Ottoman Empire/Mehmed II of the Ottoman Empire

I'll continue this later. Tell me which do you think are the badboys per century so I can compile a good list of the "Hitlers" of each century.

How about we let the 21st century occur before we make an addition to the "World's Worst" list. And if George Bush is this century's Adolf Hitler, we're in for a pretty peaceful 91 years.

[Watchman]

Dunno 'bout you, but that doesn't seem to me like it would be a bad thing...

[Jolt]

How about we let the 21st century occur before we make an addition to the "World's Worst" list. And if George Bush is this century's Adolf Hitler, we're in for a pretty peaceful 91 years.

I just made Bush into this list, because the 21th Cent has already begun and within the few first years since he has already spawned two wars and toppled two governments. Until now, he's the badboy of the 21th Century. Or am I wrong?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

We could attach that label to Putin for the Chechen War and Georgia.

[CountArach]

We could attach that label to Putin for the Chechen War and Georgia.

True, though I think that those wars were much smaller than Iraq and Afghanistan, not only for the length of time they were actively fought, but also in terms of manpower and casualties.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

True, though I think that those wars were much smaller than Iraq and Afghanistan, not only for the length of time they were actively fought, but also in terms of manpower and casualties.

Certainly true about the Georgian conflict, though I think the Second Chechen War and Afghanistan may be similar in terms of death toll and scale.

[Lord Winter]

I just made Bush into this list, because the 21th Cent has already begun and within the few first years since he has already spawned two wars and toppled two governments. Until now, he's the badboy of the 21th Century. Or am I wrong?

Two governments isn't that much for a U.S. president, Bush is slacking off.

[Kralizec]

Napoleon was agressive, but as far as I know he always had a pretext for his campaigns. Pretty much every kingdom ganged up on France once the republic had been declared.

For the 19th century, I'd go for Bismarck.

[Jolt]

Napoleon was agressive, but as far as I know he always had a pretext for his campaigns. Pretty much every kingdom ganged up on France once the republic had been declared.

For the 19th century, I'd go for Bismarck.

Do not forget, Napoleon annexed a lot of lands, invaded most of Europe, installed puppet governments, reformed and created countries. Bismarck did create a nation which would give him a load of badboy (As it certainly did upset the balance of power by creating a behemoth in Nobody's land), but it can't be compared to Napoleon messing up the entire continent.

On the Putin deal, the Chechen war has nothing to do with the badboy concept as I see it. It was restoring sovereignty over a territory which was formerly Russian (Not saying I agree or disagree with the independence of Chechenya or not). There was no upseting of the balance of power in the war. The Georgian war is however, other matter, but as Sarmatian said, Bush did invade and took two countries. The Russian intervention was limited to a few kilometers and it didn't upset the balance of powers in the region (Georgia might be more fragile now, but not much did change), Iraq was a great power of the Middle East, and its fall, along with Afghanistan earn the USA and Bush much more badboy than any other nation/person until now in this century.

I might go back until Xerxes in the Greek War, in terms of Century limit.

[Sarmatian]

Do not forget, Napoleon annexed a lot of lands, invaded most of Europe, installed puppet governments, reformed and created countries. Bismarck did create a nation which would give him a load of badboy (As it certainly did upset the balance of power by creating a behemoth in Nobody's land), but it can't be compared to Napoleon messing up the entire continent.

That would depend whether those German little states that were absorbed would have counted as annexed. In Paradox games they did. I remember when I formed Germany in Victoria: Revolutions and how happy I was until France, Russia and Austria-Hungary declared war on me and it was Game Over... And now I have the wish to play Vicky again. The best Paradox game, no contest...

[Jolt]

Anyways, largely updated. I'm open to suggestions.

[Lord Winter]

For the 17th century Gustav II's expansion was just normal for the times, a far better canidate would be Louis XIV of France.

[Sarmatian]

Now that I'm thinking, didn't Catherine the Great conquer more territories and expanded the borders more than Peter the Great? She is often mentioned as a sort of enlightened despot but there were also many wars and expansions during her rule...

[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.

[Jolt]

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.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

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.

[Sarmatian]

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

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

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.