![Cobalt Zin[cave]](https://skins15.wincustomize.com/0/1/1354/20/5/preview-20-5-100x75.jpg?d=991713824.453)
Tyrans of History
Saturday, May 3, 2003 by paxx | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
Was just thinking recently...
We all know who the contemporary tyrans are, so no need to name them.
But tyranism is not recent, History has known a great number of them; but the weird thing is that some of them for some strange reason are generally well regarded by History.
Let me name a few, and I invite people to say what they think of them; also feel free to add other names.
- Julius Caesar: self proclaimed dictator. He destroyed democracy in Rome forever. He also conquered many countries in many extremely bloody campaigns. An evil man in every way, but for reason, often considered some sort of a hero.
- Napoleon: England sees him as a tyran, the French as a hero. He conquered many countries, and his governement was certainly not a democracy. Yet a controversial man.
- Richard the first (the Lionheart): for some reason, contempory popular opinion seems to portray him as a good man (the Robin Hood legend probably has something to do with that), although history shows that he was a blood thirsty cruel man.
Any other you can think of? I don't mean obvious evil men such as Hitler, but I mean controvercial ones, that are often considered heros or good men.
We all know who the contemporary tyrans are, so no need to name them.
But tyranism is not recent, History has known a great number of them; but the weird thing is that some of them for some strange reason are generally well regarded by History.
Let me name a few, and I invite people to say what they think of them; also feel free to add other names.
- Julius Caesar: self proclaimed dictator. He destroyed democracy in Rome forever. He also conquered many countries in many extremely bloody campaigns. An evil man in every way, but for reason, often considered some sort of a hero.
- Napoleon: England sees him as a tyran, the French as a hero. He conquered many countries, and his governement was certainly not a democracy. Yet a controversial man.
- Richard the first (the Lionheart): for some reason, contempory popular opinion seems to portray him as a good man (the Robin Hood legend probably has something to do with that), although history shows that he was a blood thirsty cruel man.
Any other you can think of? I don't mean obvious evil men such as Hitler, but I mean controvercial ones, that are often considered heros or good men.
wombat_1
Reply #3 Saturday, May 3, 2003 9:56 AM
Reply #3 Saturday, May 3, 2003 9:56 AM
paxx .... the difference between the psychotic 'tyrants' and benevolent 'dictators' is enormous.
There is no comparison between Julius Cesar and Nero, both men of their time but one with vision and the other a complete fruit loop!
One really needs to distinguish the 'despots' from the 'tyrants' and place them in some sort of perspective.
One might consider Phillip of Macedon a tyrant, given the constant state of anarchy through the 'Greek' nations at the time his methods were not out of order.
His son, Alexander, certainly employed ruthless tactics in his conquest of Central Asia and Mediterranean Europe but he encouraged integration among the populations he 'conquered' and brought many of what we regard as civilised practices to these nations .... and died in his early 30s.
How do you rate Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden, a country that doesn't exactly spring to mind when conversation turns to ruthless warfare and genocide, but under Gustavus the Swedes belted the Poles and several of their neighbours bigtime!
And then we have the Swiss ..... probably the most feared troops in the early renaissance era who were available for hire to anyone with enough money ...
The Borgia family of Renaissance Italy, I think it was Cesare Borgia who was one of the Condottori but I can't recall the name of his father (Mr Borgia?) who was Pope and presided over murder, genocide and all manner of nasty happenings at the time.
I guess Henry Tudor and Elizabeth 1 fit the broad definition, but in the long run, I doubt these were truly 'Evil' people, certainly far from the stereotype of Hitler, Stalin, Hirohito and Tojo, Peron, Franco, Pol Pot, Hussein et al.
It all depends on which side of the line you stand on .... one man's 'dictator or tyrant' is another man's 'liberator or great leader' .... Ho Ch Min and Fidel Castro come to mind, even the much maligned 'Vlad the Impaler' (aka Dracula!) did manage to stop the expansion of the Ottoman Turks into Europe!!.
There is no comparison between Julius Cesar and Nero, both men of their time but one with vision and the other a complete fruit loop!
One really needs to distinguish the 'despots' from the 'tyrants' and place them in some sort of perspective.
One might consider Phillip of Macedon a tyrant, given the constant state of anarchy through the 'Greek' nations at the time his methods were not out of order.
His son, Alexander, certainly employed ruthless tactics in his conquest of Central Asia and Mediterranean Europe but he encouraged integration among the populations he 'conquered' and brought many of what we regard as civilised practices to these nations .... and died in his early 30s.
How do you rate Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden, a country that doesn't exactly spring to mind when conversation turns to ruthless warfare and genocide, but under Gustavus the Swedes belted the Poles and several of their neighbours bigtime!
And then we have the Swiss ..... probably the most feared troops in the early renaissance era who were available for hire to anyone with enough money ...
The Borgia family of Renaissance Italy, I think it was Cesare Borgia who was one of the Condottori but I can't recall the name of his father (Mr Borgia?) who was Pope and presided over murder, genocide and all manner of nasty happenings at the time.
I guess Henry Tudor and Elizabeth 1 fit the broad definition, but in the long run, I doubt these were truly 'Evil' people, certainly far from the stereotype of Hitler, Stalin, Hirohito and Tojo, Peron, Franco, Pol Pot, Hussein et al.
It all depends on which side of the line you stand on .... one man's 'dictator or tyrant' is another man's 'liberator or great leader' .... Ho Ch Min and Fidel Castro come to mind, even the much maligned 'Vlad the Impaler' (aka Dracula!) did manage to stop the expansion of the Ottoman Turks into Europe!!.
paxx
Reply #4 Saturday, May 3, 2003 10:36 AM
Reply #4 Saturday, May 3, 2003 10:36 AM
Caesar certainly was a great tactician, and a very intelligent man. But nevertheless, his methods were atrocious. His victory in the city of Uxellodunum where he had both hands of all the men in the city cut off (some say there were 2,000 men, some say even 5,000 men), then sent away two by two throughout Gaul to serve as an example. This is considered to be one of the most atrocious act in the history of warfare.
Caesar may have been a visionary, a one of a kind tactician and a very intelligent politician, he nevertheless was an evil man.
I agree with the other names you gave though.
Caesar may have been a visionary, a one of a kind tactician and a very intelligent politician, he nevertheless was an evil man.
I agree with the other names you gave though.
wombat_1
Reply #5 Saturday, May 3, 2003 12:42 PM
Reply #5 Saturday, May 3, 2003 12:42 PM
I think you need to look at what was regarded as the norm in those times paax.
While cutting off the hands of the Gauls is totally repugnent (too any reasonable person!) it is not out of step with the complete razing of Carthage followed by salting the soil to prevent cultivation and the possible (but hardly probable!) rise of another move against Rome by any surviving Carthaginians.
It is not comparable with the execution of hundreds of thousands by the Soviet Cheka who were fond of hammering a rifle round into the back of the victims neck instead of firing their weapons .... or the method employed by the executioners under Pol Pot, simply smashing the skull of 'executed' in with a hammer!
Idi Amin was another who delighted in such macabre methods, while the people behind the Japanese 'Unit 751'(???) could only be described as inhuman .... and of course, the Holocaust defies any reasonable explanation by normal human beings.
The people behind these events were 'Evil' in every sense, no argument, but looking back to happenings of 2000 years ago requires one to compare like with like......the 'rules of war' were vastly different to those (supposedly) in force today.
In truth, not too much has changed .... I can say from experience that it is not practical for a special forces unit to take prisoners unless that is part of an operation ..... loose ends need to be eliminated.
It's all a matter of perception.
While cutting off the hands of the Gauls is totally repugnent (too any reasonable person!) it is not out of step with the complete razing of Carthage followed by salting the soil to prevent cultivation and the possible (but hardly probable!) rise of another move against Rome by any surviving Carthaginians.
It is not comparable with the execution of hundreds of thousands by the Soviet Cheka who were fond of hammering a rifle round into the back of the victims neck instead of firing their weapons .... or the method employed by the executioners under Pol Pot, simply smashing the skull of 'executed' in with a hammer!
Idi Amin was another who delighted in such macabre methods, while the people behind the Japanese 'Unit 751'(???) could only be described as inhuman .... and of course, the Holocaust defies any reasonable explanation by normal human beings.
The people behind these events were 'Evil' in every sense, no argument, but looking back to happenings of 2000 years ago requires one to compare like with like......the 'rules of war' were vastly different to those (supposedly) in force today.
In truth, not too much has changed .... I can say from experience that it is not practical for a special forces unit to take prisoners unless that is part of an operation ..... loose ends need to be eliminated.
It's all a matter of perception.
joetheblow
Reply #6 Saturday, May 3, 2003 2:38 PM
Reply #6 Saturday, May 3, 2003 2:38 PM
hmmmmm.... not to sure on that one wombat_1 (hey wasn't your name just wombat?...)
I think even though some might be nicer than another doesn't really make them not a tyrant. I am sure methods were used to uphold thier power in many way similair to the bad guys of today... just without TV, the Internet and free press to watch it all.
I think even though some might be nicer than another doesn't really make them not a tyrant. I am sure methods were used to uphold thier power in many way similair to the bad guys of today... just without TV, the Internet and free press to watch it all.
joetheblow
Reply #7 Saturday, May 3, 2003 2:40 PM
Reply #7 Saturday, May 3, 2003 2:40 PM
then again... the norm in those times does put a interesting twist to things. different cultures... different strokes... different folks...
MadIce
Reply #8 Saturday, May 3, 2003 3:18 PM
Reply #8 Saturday, May 3, 2003 3:18 PM
Not a leader himself, but Machiavelli influenced a lot of leaders (past and present). The following is an interesting piece on the subject:
http://cumber.edu/acad/history/JohnLaster90.htm
BTW: Did anyone ever play the Avalon Hill boardgame called Machiavelli?
MadIce loved that one.
No, please do not repond!
MadIce doesn't want to hijack the topic!
http://cumber.edu/acad/history/JohnLaster90.htm
BTW: Did anyone ever play the Avalon Hill boardgame called Machiavelli?
MadIce loved that one.
No, please do not repond!
MadIce doesn't want to hijack the topic!
Frogboy
Reply #9 Saturday, May 3, 2003 3:39 PM
Reply #9 Saturday, May 3, 2003 3:39 PM
Paxx: I suggest you check up on the Mongols and Ghenghis Kahn. He wiped out a measurable percentage of the world's population at the time.
They would come into a city and kill everyone, men, women, children. Caesar was a saint in comparison.
They would come into a city and kill everyone, men, women, children. Caesar was a saint in comparison.
paxx
Reply #10 Saturday, May 3, 2003 5:38 PM
Reply #10 Saturday, May 3, 2003 5:38 PM
Yes, yes, I know. The Kahn is hardly controversial.
I was refering to men in history who are often regarded as heros or as good men, when in fact they were tyrants and blood-thirsty killers.
I was refering to men in history who are often regarded as heros or as good men, when in fact they were tyrants and blood-thirsty killers.
joetheblow
Reply #11 Saturday, May 3, 2003 10:02 PM
Reply #11 Saturday, May 3, 2003 10:02 PM
hmmmmm so was Hitler in comparison... a very gentle man?
Lets face it, Ghenghis Kahn was bad, but totally within his culture values (from what I remember). Usually dictatorships and totalitarian governments tend to have a heavy hand, No? I think this bad guy stuff is hard when you look at the whole picture. He is not as bad because he did this and that was nice and beneficial to mankind... to bad he tortured, strangled and killing to stay in power (whoever he is)
Then you have to think what the times are like and how people survive.
This is hard stuff.
Hey, paxx, how about Columbus? Bad guy or good guy who deserves a holiday named after him?
[Message Edited]
Lets face it, Ghenghis Kahn was bad, but totally within his culture values (from what I remember). Usually dictatorships and totalitarian governments tend to have a heavy hand, No? I think this bad guy stuff is hard when you look at the whole picture. He is not as bad because he did this and that was nice and beneficial to mankind... to bad he tortured, strangled and killing to stay in power (whoever he is)
Then you have to think what the times are like and how people survive.
This is hard stuff.
Hey, paxx, how about Columbus? Bad guy or good guy who deserves a holiday named after him?
[Message Edited]
Old_Crab
Reply #12 Sunday, May 4, 2003 12:04 AM
Reply #12 Sunday, May 4, 2003 12:04 AM
How about Tyranosauras Rex? One mean sucker. Ahh, how about Caligula. Saw a show on his nasty disposition on the History Channel last night. Or Uncle Joe Stalin. Joe murdered about 20-28 million Russians when he was in business, and that doesn't count the Russians who died in combat with the Nazi's in WWII. George Patton was right, we should have taken Russia when we had the chance. Man can I drag on. Good Nite, all. 
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
Reply #1 Saturday, May 3, 2003 8:03 AM
Pope Gregory IX - decreed and carried out the Inquisition