Log in

View Full Version : The sickest ruler in history



Dimentio
11th January 2007, 18:08
Who is the sickest ruler in human history? For me, it stands between Qin Shi-Huang and Vlad III Dracula.

Knight of Cydonia
11th January 2007, 18:24
for me is: my country late president Harmoko and Suharto, they're suck. :angry:

Dimentio
11th January 2007, 18:33
Qin Shi-Huang did not suck, he was a brilliant founder of the Chinese empire, but completelt megalomaniac and paranoic.

Knight of Cydonia
11th January 2007, 18:39
Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 01:33 am
Qin Shi-Huang did not suck, he was a brilliant founder of the Chinese empire, but completelt megalomaniac and paranoic.
oh i didn't know that the point of this thread title sick = good, what i think is sick=bad :P

and although what i mean with this

they're suck
is those two indonesian latest president, they&#39;re bad <_<

sorry for misunderstanding :P

Dimentio
11th January 2007, 18:42
Originally posted by knight of cydonia+January 11, 2007 06:39 pm--> (knight of cydonia @ January 11, 2007 06:39 pm)
[email protected] 12, 2007 01:33 am
Qin Shi-Huang did not suck, he was a brilliant founder of the Chinese empire, but completelt megalomaniac and paranoic.
oh i didn&#39;t know that the point of this thread title sick = good, what i think is sick=bad :P

and although what i mean with this

they&#39;re suck
is those two indonesian latest president, they&#39;re bad <_<

sorry for misunderstanding :P [/b]
Hahaha... no I do not mean that "sick" means good in a positive aspect. A ruler could be ruthlessly efficient and yet a nutcase ready to be inhospitalised. Just look at Hitler for example [even though Hitler was a lazy dreamer who would&#39;nt be nothing if it weren&#39;t for his compatriots].

Zeruzo
11th January 2007, 18:55
Suharto sucked but wasnt the worst in history. I mean realkly he only killed in between 500.000 to 1 million communist party members...
Compared to lets say Hitler thats nothing... I&#39;d say Genghis Khan.

Knight of Cydonia
11th January 2007, 18:58
Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 01:55 am
Suharto sucked but wasnt the worst in history. I mean realkly he only killed in between 500.000 to 1 million communist party members...

yeah, he was the one who made the indonesian banned the Indonesian Communist Party and the Partai Rakyat Demokratik (Peoples democratic Party) <_<

Dimentio
11th January 2007, 18:59
Genghis Khan was not nuts, he was pretty ordinary for a nomad war chieftain. He was ruthless, but pragmatic, intelligent, and very balanced. After all, he started to build the greatest land empire ever.

If you want to see a real nutcase, look at this guy. (http://www.donlinke.com/drakula/vlad.htm)

Zeruzo
11th January 2007, 19:06
Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 06:59 pm
Genghis Khan was not nuts, he was pretty ordinary for a nomad war chieftain. He was ruthless, but pragmatic, intelligent, and very balanced. After all, he started to build the greatest land empire ever.

If you want to see a real nutcase, look at this guy. (http://www.donlinke.com/drakula/vlad.htm)
For some reason i have a rather positive view of Lord Vlad...
Ohw well... I think &#39;sickest&#39; can not really be defined anyway...

Dimentio
11th January 2007, 19:08
Saxed from the website.

More than anything else the historical Dracula is known for his inhuman cruelty. Impalement was Vlad III’s preferred method of torture and execution. Impalement was and is one of the most gruesome ways of dying imaginable, as it was typically slow and painful.

Vlad usually had a horse attached to each of the victim’s legs and a sharpened stake was gradually forced into the body. The end of the stake was usually oiled and care was taken that the stake not be too sharp, else the victim might die too rapidly from shock. Normally the stake was inserted into the body through the buttocks and was often forced through the body until it emerged from the mouth. However, there were many instances where victims were impaled through other body orifices or through the abdomen or chest. Infants were sometimes impaled on the stake forced through their mother’s chests. The records indicate that victims were sometimes impaled so that they hung upside down on the stake.

Vlad Tepes often had the stakes arranged in various geometric patterns. The most common pattern was a ring of concentric circles in the outskirts of a city that was his target. The height of the spear indicated the rank of the victim. The decaying corpses were often left up for months. It was once reported that an invading Turkish army turned back in fright when it encountered thousands of rotting corpses impaled on the banks of the Danube. In 1461 Mohammed II, the conqueror of Constantinople, a man not noted for his squeamishness, returned to Constantinople after being sickened by the sight of twenty thousand impaled Turkish prisoners outside of the city of Tirgoviste. This gruesome sight is remembered in history as "the Forest of the Impaled."

Thousands were often impaled at a single time. Ten thousand were impaled in the Transylvanian city of Sibiu in 1460. In 1459, on St. Bartholomew’s Day, Vlad III had thirty thousand of the merchants and boyars of the Transylvanian city of Brasov impaled. One of the most famous woodcuts of the period shows Vlad Dracula feasting amongst a forest of stakes and their grisly burdens outside Brasov while a nearby executioner cuts apart other victims.

Although impalement was Vlad Dracula’s favorite method of torture, it was by no means his only method. The list of tortures employed by this cruel prince reads like an inventory of hell’s tools: nails in heads, cutting off of limbs, blinding, strangulation, burning, cutting off of noses and ears, mutilation of sexual organs (especially in the case of women), scalping, skinning, exposure to the elements or to wild animals, and burning alive.

No one was immune to Vlad’s attentions. His victims included women and children, peasants and great lords, ambassadors from foreign powers and merchants. However, the vast majority of his victims came from the merchants and boyars of Transylvania and his own Wallachia.

Many have attempted to justify Vlad Dracula’s actions on the basis of nascent nationalism and political necessity. Many of the merchants in Transylvania and Wallachia were German Saxons who were seen as parasites, preying upon Romanian natives of Wallachia. The wealthy land owning boyars exerted their own often capricious and unfaithful influence over the reigning princes. Vlad’s own father and older brother were murdered by unfaithful boyars. However, many of Vlad Dracula’s victims were also Wallachians, and few deny that he derived a perverted pleasure from his actions.

Vlad Dracula began his reign of terror almost as soon as he came to power. His first significant act of cruelty may have been motivated by a desire for revenge as well as a need to solidify his power. Early in his main reign he gave a feast for his boyars and their families to celebrate Easter. Vlad was well aware that many of these same nobles were part of the conspiracy that led to his father’s assassination and the burying alive of his elder brother, Mircea. Many had also played a role in the overthrow of numerous Wallachian princes. During the feast Vlad asked his noble guests how many princes had ruled during their lifetimes. All of the nobles present had outlived several princes. None had seen less then seven reigns. Vlad immediately had all the assembled nobles arrested. The older boyars and their families were impaled on the spot. The younger and healthier nobles and their families were marched north from Tirgoviste to the ruins of his castle in the mountains above the Arges River. The enslaved boyars and their families were forced to labor for months rebuilding the old castle with materials from a nearby ruin. According to the reports they labored until the clothes fell off their bodies and then were forced to continue working naked. Very few survived this ordeal.

Throughout his reign Vlad continued to systematically eradicate the old boyar class of Wallachia. Apparently Vlad was determined that his own power be on a modern and thoroughly secure footing. In the place of the executed boyars Vlad promoted new men from among the free peasantry and middle class; men who would be loyal only to their prince.

Vlad Tepes’ atrocities against the people of Wallachia were usually attempts to enforce his own moral code upon his country. He appears to have been particularly concerned with female chastity. Maidens who lost their virginity, adulterous wives and unchaste widows were all targets of Vlad’s cruelty. Such women often had their sexual organs cut out or their breasts cut off, and were often impaled through the vagina on red-hot stakes. One report tells of the execution of an unfaithful wife. Vlad had the woman’s breasts cut off, then she was skinned and impaled in a square in Tirgoviste with her skin lying on a nearby table. Vlad also insisted that his people be honest and hard working. Merchants who cheated their customers were likely to find themselves mounted on a stake beside common thieves.

Guerrilla22
11th January 2007, 19:10
Some names that come to mind other than the previously mentioned; Pol Pot, Amin, Saddam, and caligula

Dimentio
11th January 2007, 19:17
Caligula was a complete genius&#33; :D :D :D :D :D

Guerrilla22
11th January 2007, 19:32
He definitely was a sick fuck. Oh yeah, I forgot to mention Ivan the Terrible.

Dimentio
11th January 2007, 19:44
Vlad Dracula was Ivan&#39;s idol ^^

Guerrilla22
11th January 2007, 20:02
Abraham Lincoln was a sick fuck also.

Zeruzo
11th January 2007, 21:09
Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 08:02 pm
Abraham Lincoln was a sick fuck also.
>_> you serious?

chimx
11th January 2007, 21:19
Caligula.

Here&#39;s a quick copy/paste from wiki:

Outlandish stories cluster about the raving Emperor, illustrating his excessive cruelty, multiple and peculiar sexual escapades (both heterosexual and homosexual, at least as claimed by Suetonius, Cal. 36), or disrespect toward tradition and the Senate. Sources describe his incestuous relationships with all three of his sisters, his amateurish attempt to perform a caesarean section on his favorite sister, Drusilla, in order to deliver the baby he had engendered, resulting in her death, his subsequent declaring her to be a goddess, his selling to the highest bidder the wives of high-ranking Senate members during sexual orgies, his laughable military campaigns in the north, the plan to make his horse Incitatus a consul, and his habit of roaming the halls of his palace at night ordering the sun to rise. He also named his horse as a priest and gave it a house to reside in, complete with a marble stable, golden manger, and jeweled necklaces; and he later talked of making his horse a member of the Senate. He opened a brothel in his palace and had a habit of taking Senate members&#39; wives with him to his private bedroom during social functions, while the husbands could merely look on as they left together, then he would recount the sexual acts he performed with the wives for all to hear, including their husbands.

He is described as aloof, arrogant, egotistical, and is generally portrayed as insane. He is said to have cried "I wish the Roman people had but a single neck" when an arena crowd applauded a faction he opposed. [18] It is also said that when there were not enough convicts to fight lions and tigers in arena, he threw in some spectators. Suetonius wrote that he often uttered "Let them hate me, so long as they fear me", and described this as a familiar line of the tragic poet (Accius); however, Suetonius also attributes the utterance of this line to Tiberius.

He declared himself a living god. He had a bridge constructed between his palace and the Temple of Deified Augustus. He reportedly ordered the statue of Jupiter at Olympia (Greece) to be dismantled and moved to Rome. He is also said to have made it a crime to look down on him from above, and not to leave him everything in a will.

Caligula was also said to be incredibly self-indulgent, dramatic proof of which has been found with the discovery of two sunken ships at the bottom of Lake Nemi. These two ships were by far the largest vessels in the ancient world; in fact their size was not even rivaled until after the Renaissance.[citations needed] The smaller of the ships was designed as a temple dedicated to Diana (the Roman equivalent of Artemis). The larger ship was essentially an elaborate floating palace that counted marble floors and plumbing among its amenities, the sole role of which was to satisfy Caligula&#39;s increasingly hedonistic behavior.

Guerrilla22
11th January 2007, 21:57
Originally posted by Zeruzo+January 11, 2007 09:09 pm--> (Zeruzo @ January 11, 2007 09:09 pm)
[email protected] 11, 2007 08:02 pm
Abraham Lincoln was a sick fuck also.
>_> you serious? [/b]
He ordered the slaughter of thousands of indigenoeus persons.

How Lincoln’s Army &#39;Liberated&#39; the Indians
by Thomas J. DiLorenzo



In a recent issue of The American Enterprise magazine devoted to the War between the States (see my LRC article, "AEI is Still Fighting the Civil War") Victor Hanson, a visiting professor at the U.S. Naval Academy, defends and makes excuses for Lincoln’s intentional waging of war on Southern civilians. This included the bombing, pillaging and plundering of their cities and towns, the burning of their homes, total destruction of farms and livestock, gang rape, and the killing of thousands, including women and children of all races. (See Merchant of Terror: General Sherman and Total War by John Bennett Walters or The Hard Hand of War by Mark Grimsley).

It was all justified, says Hanson, because General Sherman and his men were supposedly motivated by the belief that it was necessary "to guarantee the American proposition that each man is as good as another." Sherman’s "bummers," as they were called, were "political avenging angels" who were offended by racial inequalities in the South. They were driven by "an ideological furor, to destroy the nature of Southern aristocracy." The "tyrannical Southern ruling class" needed to be taught a lesson. (Besides, he writes, "rapes during [Sherman’s] march were almost unknown)."

In reality, neither Sherman nor his soldiers believed any of these things. (And rapes were not as "unknown" to the Southern people as they are to Hanson). In the Northern states at the time, myriad Black Codes existed that prohibited blacks from migrating into most Northern states and kept them from entering into contracts, voting, marrying whites, testifying in court against whites (which invited criminal abuse), or sending their children to public schools. They were excluded altogether from all forms of transportation or required to sit in special "Jim Crow sections." They were prohibited from entering hotels, restaurants or resorts except as servants, and were segregated in churches, prisons, and even cemeteries. Free blacks in the North in the 1860s were cruelly discriminated against in every aspect of their existence, and were denied the most fundamental of citizenship rights

Sherman himself certainly did not believe that "each man is as good as another." For example, in 1862 Sherman was bothered that "the country" was "swarming with dishonest Jews" (see Michael Fellman, Citizen Sherman, p. 153). He got his close friend, General Grant, to expel all Jews from his army. As Fellman writes, "On December 17, 1862, Grant . . . , like a medieval monarch . . . expelled ‘The Jews, as a class,’ from his department." Sherman biographer Fellman further writes that to Sherman, the Jews were "like niggers" and "like greasers (Mexicans) or Indians" in that they were "classes or races permanently inferior to his own."

The notion that Sherman’s army was motivated by a belief that all men are created equal is belied by the further fact that just three months after General Robert E. Lee surrendered at Appomattox the very same army commenced a campaign of ethnic genocide against the Plains Indians. In July of 1865 Sherman was put in charge of the Military District of the Missouri (all land west of the Mississippi) and given the assignment to eradicate the Plains Indians in order to make way for the federally subsidized transcontinental railroad. Like Lincoln, Sherman was a friend of Grenville Dodge, the chief engineer of the project. He was also a railroad investor and he lobbied his brother, Senator John Sherman, to allocate federal funds for the transcontinental railroad. "We are not going to let a few thieving, ragged Indians stop and check the progress of the railroad," he wrote to General Grant in 1867 (Fellman, p. 264). As Fellman writes:

[T]he great triumvirate of the Union Civil War effort [Grant, Sherman and Sheridan] formulated and enacted military Indian policy until reaching, by The 1880s, what Sherman sometimes referred to as "the final solution of the Indian problem," which he defined as killing hostile Indians and segregating their pauperized survivors in remote places . . . . These men applied their shared ruthlessness, born of their Civil War experiences, against a people all three despised, in the name of Civilization and Progress (emphasis added).

Another Sherman biographer, John F. Marszalek, points out in Sherman: A Soldier’s Passion for Order, that "Sherman viewed Indians as he viewed recalcitrant Southerners during the war and newly freed people after the war: resisters to the legitimate forces of an orderly society," by which he meant the central government. Moreover, writes Marszalek, Sherman’s philosophy was that "since the inferior Indians refused to step aside so superior American culture could create success and progress, they had to be driven out of the way as the Confederates had been driven back into the Union."

"Most of the other generals who took a direct role in the Indian wars, writes Marszalek, "were, like Sherman, [Union] Civil War luminaries." This included "John Pope, O.O. Howard, Nelson A. Miles, Alfred H. Terry, E.O.C. Ord, C.C. Augeur, and R.S. Canby. General Winfield Scott Hancock should be added to this list of "luminaries." Among the colonels, "George Armstrong Custer and Benjamin Grierson were the most famous."

Sherman and General Phillip Sheridan were associated with the statement that "the only good Indian is a dead Indian." The problem with the Indians, Sherman said, was that "they did not make allowance for the rapid growth of the white race" (Marszalek, p. 390). And, "both races cannot use this country in common" (Fellman, p. 263).

Sherman’s theory of white racial superiority is what led him to the policy of waging war against the Indians "till the Indians are all killed or taken to a country where they can be watched." As Fellman (p. 264) writes:

Sherman planted a racist tautology: Some Indians are thieving, killing rascals fit for death; all Indians look alike; therefore, to get some we must eliminate all . . . deduced from this racist tautology . . . the less destructive policy would be racial cleansing of the land . . .

Accordingly, Sherman wrote to Grant: "We must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to their extermination, men, women and children." Writing two days later to his brother John, General Sherman said: "I suppose the Sioux must be exterminated . . ." (Fellman, p. 264).

This was Sherman’s attitude toward Southerners during the War for Southern Independence as well. In a July 31, 1862 letter to his wife (from his Collected Works) he wrote that his purpose in the war was: "Extermination, not of soldiers alone, that is the least part of the trouble, but the [Southern] people." His charming and nurturing wife Ellen wrote back that her fondest wish was for a war "of extermination and that all [Southerners] would be driven like the Swine into the sea."

With this attitude, Sherman issued the following order to his troops at the beginning of the Indian Wars: "During an assault, the soldiers cannot pause to distinguish between male and female, or even discriminate as to age. As long as resistance is made, death must be meted out . . ." (Marszalek, p. 379).

Most of the raids on Indian camps were conducted in the winter, when families would be together and could therefore all be killed at once. Sherman gave Sheridan "authorization to slaughter as many women and children as well as men Sheridan or his subordinates felt was necessary when they attacked Indian villages" (Fellman, p. 271). All livestock was also killed so that any survivors would be more likely to starve to death.

Sherman was once brought before a congressional committee after federal Indian agents, who were supposed to be supervising the Indians who were on reservations, witnessed "the horror of women and children under military attack." Nothing came of the hearings, however. Sherman ordered his subordinates to kill the Indians without restraint to achieve what he called "the final solution of the Indian problem," and promised that if the newspapers found out about it he would "run interference against any complaints about atrocities back East" (Fellman, p. 271).

Eight years into his war of "extermination" Sherman was bursting with pride over his accomplishments. "I am charmed at the handsome conduct of our troops in the field," he wrote Sheridan in 1874. "They go in with the relish that used to make our hearts glad in 1864-5" (Fellman, p. 272).

Another part of Sherman’s "final solution" strategy against this "inferior race" was the massive slaughter of buffalo, a primary source of food for the Indians. If there were no longer any buffalo near where the railroad traveled, he reasoned, then the Indians would not go there either. By 1882 the American buffalo was essentially extinct.

Ironically, some ex-slaves took part in the Indian wars. Known as the "Buffalo Soldiers," they assisted in the federal army’s campaign of extermination against another colored race.

By 1890 Sherman’s "final solution" had been achieved: The Plains Indians were all either killed or placed on reservations "where they can be watched." In a December 18, 1890 letter to the New York Times Sherman expressed his deep disappointment over the fact that, were it not for "civilian interference," his army would have "gotten rid of them all" and killed every last Indian in the U.S. (Marszalek, p. 400).

To Victor Hanson and the American Enterprise Institute this is the kind of man who "deserves a place on the roll call of great liberators in human history." Native Americans would undoubtedly disagree.

Dimentio
11th January 2007, 22:08
Seriously, it is not to be a "sick fuck" to kill one million people.

It is to be "sick fuck" to kill one million people and then dance amongst their corpses wearing a wig and believing one could fly. That is sick.

Guerrilla22
11th January 2007, 22:12
I think killing one million people qualifies one as sick. So does killing people, having sex with their corpses and then mutilating the dead bodies.

Pirate Utopian
11th January 2007, 22:41
Fidel Castro, he is very sick.
but as in most fucked up asshole... Hitler

McLeft
11th January 2007, 22:44
Defintely Calligula and Amin, why not Henry VIII, lol

Dimentio
11th January 2007, 22:46
Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 10:12 pm
I think killing one million people qualifies one as sick. So does killing people, having sex with their corpses and then mutilating the dead bodies.
In that case, most rulers in history are sick, but most of them do not probably feel joy but just want to do that because something they believe in or just to keep power.

Janus
12th January 2007, 01:08
but completelt megalomaniac and paranoic.
You could say that about the majority of the Emperors of China particularly those who ascended the throne through force.

EwokUtopia
12th January 2007, 02:05
I&#39;d say Hitler, but I&#39;m not sure what portion of the crimes the Nazi Regime can be blamed on him personally. Personally, I think Hitler was an angel compared to others like Himmler and Goebbles, who did alot more than Hitler did. Hitler was all about fiery speeches and non-sensical plans of invading countries he couldnt possibly handle. And suicide, he was pretty big on that too. But to blame all of the Nazi Crimes on Hitler is madness. You may well go about blaming the entire war in Iraq and the casualties and misery it has produced on Bush alone (and many people do, poor Georgy isnt like other boys or girls though, we have to treat him specially and get the Dicks [literally] behind him). The sickest ruler in history would have to be the one who had the most personal power over his country, therefore I elect Stalin, the great perverter of socialism. The good things Stalin produced came at the high cost of human life and environmental welfare that cant possibly justify it, and face it, he fucked up a perfectly good revolution.

Either him or Kim Jong Il. Its a toss up.

While the crimes of Capitalism far outweigh the crimes of Communism, it is far harder to place the crimes of the former on a single leader, as capitalism is by its very nature a cesspool of corrupt men doing terrible things for profit. Stalinism and Juche, however, are more or less reliant on strong leadership (and therefore cant even be considered Socialistic, let alone Communistic), so its easier to blame one man.

Fawkes
12th January 2007, 02:32
Andrew Jackson is up there because of the Trail of Tears.

Clarksist
12th January 2007, 02:36
Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 04:12 pm
I think killing one million people qualifies one as sick. So does killing people, having sex with their corpses and then mutilating the dead bodies.
Yes... sick... :ph34r:

----- ----- -----

Sickest ruler was Andrew Jackson, IMHO.

Dimentio
12th January 2007, 07:18
Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 01:08 am

but completelt megalomaniac and paranoic.
You could say that about the majority of the Emperors of China particularly those who ascended the throne through force.
Yes, but most of them, especially during the beginning of new dynasties, were rather efficient.

Vargha Poralli
12th January 2007, 07:37
IMO even Hitler cannot be as sick as Vlad the Impaler. I have heard that that sick bastard cannot eat without seeing his enemies being tortured.

I have also heard that this guy is the Inspiration for Bram Stokers Dracula . Is it true ?

Karl Marx's Camel
12th January 2007, 09:45
Not very known, but the pretty Ranavalona that ruled Madagascar (1828-1861) was an incredibly brutal and bloodthirsty dictator.

Her sadism had no limits and resulted in terrible killing orgies where hundreds of innocent people were tortured to death so as to amuse the queen. The prisoners had to show their loyalty to her by biting of the head of a bird, and then swallow poison that led to immediate sickness and vomit. If the head of the bird came out with the beak directed tot he south, the prisoners were spared; if not they had their ears, nose, reproductive organs, arms and legs chopped off, eyes were cut out, before they were killed.

The queen used to cook her victims alive in giant pots. In the corridor outside her bedroom, there was always severed heads lined up.

chimx
12th January 2007, 19:08
gross

Janus
12th January 2007, 19:21
Yes, but most of them, especially during the beginning of new dynasties, were rather efficient.
Well, yeah obviously they were efficient at rebuilding empires and commanding respect and loyalty through terror but what I meant was that megalomania is something that comes with the title of emperor.

Janus
12th January 2007, 19:24
Andrew Jackson is up there because of the Trail of Tears.
And because of his particularly brutal military campaigns as an US officer against the Creek, Seminoles, and other Southeastern Native American tribes.

Pirate Utopian
12th January 2007, 20:40
Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 10:45 am
Not very known, but the pretty Ranavalona that ruled Madagascar (1828-1861) was an incredibly brutal and bloodthirsty dictator.

Her sadism had no limits and resulted in terrible killing orgies where hundreds of innocent people were tortured to death so as to amuse the queen. The prisoners had to show their loyalty to her by biting of the head of a bird, and then swallow poison that led to immediate sickness and vomit. If the head of the bird came out with the beak directed tot he south, the prisoners were spared; if not they had their ears, nose, reproductive organs, arms and legs chopped off, eyes were cut out, before they were killed.

The queen used to cook her victims alive in giant pots. In the corridor outside her bedroom, there was always severed heads lined up.
that would make an awesome movie villian

Dimentio
12th January 2007, 21:17
Tell me, do you know baron Roman von Ungern-Sternberg? ;)

Cryotank Screams
12th January 2007, 21:55
I would say either Vlad Drăculea, Adolf Hitler, or Marcus Licinius Crassus.

Dimentio
12th January 2007, 22:03
Ungern von Sternberg banned all types of sex except necrophilia.

Dimentio
12th January 2007, 22:09
Roman Ungern von Sternberg (http://bloodandtreasure.typepad.com/blood_treasure/2006/01/the_mad_baron_o.html)

bcbm
13th January 2007, 09:02
Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 01:37 am
I have also heard that this guy is the Inspiration for Bram Stokers Dracula . Is it true ?
It seems unlikely to me.

Coggeh
14th January 2007, 11:28
Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 10:03 pm
Ungern von Sternberg banned all types of sex except necrophilia.
nice ................... :blink: ....

Karl Marx's Camel
14th January 2007, 13:22
Though Adolf was bad, I think that there have been "sicker" rulers in history. IMHO, the sickness and brutality of Adolf, though very much existing, I think, is a bit hyped up.

Sankara1983
14th January 2007, 16:46
Francisco Macías Nguema. In addition to his regime&#39;s brutality, he was a psychological nightmare as well, consuming huge amounts of drugs, pausing in the middle of his speeches to call out the names of his executed opponents, and (ironically) fearing even the sight of blood. His regime staged horrendous public executions to the music of a famous artist whose name escapes me right now.

Doctor&#39;s report: "He is physically strong and in good health but badly coordinated, with jerky movements. He has no tribal scars and has forbidden all scarification after he had a vision in which he saw himself attacked by visitors with scars. His eyes and ears are bad but he uses no hearing aid. He only accepts food cooked by members of his own family and it is all imported from Spain. He never drinks alcohol, only mineral water, but he drinks iboga and smokes bhang and this shows in his pupils."

"Macías is very frightened. He has been heard, publicly, to cry out the names of his victims. &#39;Ondo Edu, Atanasio, why do you search for me? I have done nothing to you, you have killed yourself&#33;&#39;. He once ordered the table laid for eight people, then sat down alone and kept up a conversation with the dead people for whom the table had been set. The servants were mute. Macías is guided by voices. Nobody knows quite whose but sometimes he will stop himself in the middle of a speech, listen quietly for a moment and then talk about Ondo Edu and Atanasio."

Prairie Fire
15th January 2007, 20:41
Caligula was pretty messed up, although he has been mentioned in length.

Idi Amin of Uganda comes to mind; the man, in addition to the usual kilings that marked his regime, declared the building of a statue honoring Adolph Hitler in Kampala, threatened to invade South Africa, sent telegrams to Nixon suggesting that he could flee to Uganda after the watergate crisis and that he should imprison leaders of the opposition. He was also said to be a cannibal, although this allegation is thrown around liberally by imperialists.

Jean Bedel Bokassa was very similar in many respects.

To Ewok Utopia, I&#39;m surprised that it took this long for someone to attack Stalin
and Juche. Do you care to clarify your stance?

Dimentio
15th January 2007, 20:52
Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 08:41 pm
Caligula was pretty messed up, although he has been mentioned in length.

Idi Amin of Uganda comes to mind; the man, in addition to the usual kilings that marked his regime, declared the building of a statue honoring Adolph Hitler in Kampala, threatened to invade South Africa, sent telegrams to Nixon suggesting that he could flee to Uganda after the watergate crisis and that he should imprison leaders of the opposition. He was also said to be a cannibal, although this allegation is thrown around liberally by imperialists.

Jean Bedel Bokassa was very similar in many respects.

To Ewok Utopia, I&#39;m surprised that it took this long for someone to attack Stalin
and Juche. Do you care to clarify your stance?
It was Dada himself who spread the rumours of cannibalism.

Zeruzo
15th January 2007, 21:13
Originally posted by black coffee black metal+January 13, 2007 09:02 am--> (black coffee black metal &#064; January 13, 2007 09:02 am)
[email protected] 12, 2007 01:37 am
I have also heard that this guy is the Inspiration for Bram Stokers Dracula . Is it true ?
It seems unlikely to me. [/b]
It is true (ex-horror junky speaking).
I did some new research and i might have been wrong. Its just not sure where he got his inspiration from but the name IS derived from him :).

Cryotank Screams
15th January 2007, 21:29
The exploits of Marcus Licinius Crassus Dives;


Marcus Licinius Crassus was a powerful figure in Roman politics on account of his great wealth; he was nicknamed Dives, meaning "rich". He acquired this wealth through traffic in slaves, the working of silver mines, and judicious purchases of land and houses, especially those of proscribed citizens. Most notorious was his acquisition of burning houses: when he received word that a house was on fire, he would arrive and purchase the (apparently lost) property along with surrounding buildings for a modest sum, and then employ his army of 500 clients to put the fire out before much damage had been done (employing the Roman method of firefighting -- destroying the burning building to curtail the spread of the flames).

And


Sent into battle against Spartacus [by the Senate], he gained a decisive victory, and was honored with an ovation. Pompey would steal his honor and victory with a letter to the Senate claiming credit for ending the war. This caused much strife between Pompey and Crassus, which would later be mended by Caesar. The six thousand captured slaves who had rebelled under Spartacus were crucified along the Via Appia by his orders. Also, under his orders, the bodies of the slaves were not taken down. This was an object lesson to anyone that might think of revolting against Rome herself.

Sankara1983
15th January 2007, 23:49
Macías also said: "I consider Hitler to be the savior of Africa. Hitler made mistakes because he was human. Hitler&#39;s intention was to end colonialism throughout the world."

Comrade_Scott
21st January 2007, 20:03
i say Eric Gairy. i know he did not kill the most people but his attitude towards the people particularly women are enough to make a grown man sick and cry for his mother.

Sankara1983
21st January 2007, 22:26
I forgot to consider Gairy&#33; He is certainly a candidate for "craziest ruler," but he&#39;s definitely not the "sickest ruler."

For those who&#39;ve never heard about Sir Eric &#39;Uncle&#39; Gairy, he was the prime minister of Grenada before the 1979 revolution. At the time the coup took place, he was in New York urging the United Nations to set up an international "Agency for Psychic Research into Unidentified Flying Objects and the Bermuda Triangle." He ran a paramilitary organization not unlike the Tontons Macoutes and considered himself the savior of his people.

A SCANNER DARKLY
21st January 2007, 22:42
Nero, (Emperor of Rome) was a very very sick individual.