Finally somebody mentions Leopold in the comments. You my dear are compassionate, because none of these other cavemen even gives a damn that he mutilated and killed 10 million. I guess their siffering doesn't count because they were Africans.
@adamo salvas I'm from the French island of Saint Martin and they don't teach about Haiti and why it went from "The jewel of the Caribbean" filling french coffers to the poorest nation in the Americas because it would make them look bad. So Belgium keeping it hush hush don't feel too bad all the European nations do it. Admitting crimes agaisnt humanity goes against the narrative the Europe is wealthy because of European intellect.
@@xldjvista Then I have news for you: this is fake. Millions did die in congo, but they died because they had no immunity against various european diseases that swept through the country.
@@BamBamGT1 There are pictures with him showing off the stumps of Congolese which he had maimed. He worked them to death to meet his droconian quotas and killed at will. I believe disease killed a percentage of them but most were coldbloodedly killed.
OMG... hadn't thought of that... your right you know,... well, then, he has to be killed... the people must be gathered with their fries and pies and put this evil tyrant asunder with extra cheese...We must gather the people together, and draw and quarter to half pounder this evil tyrant in a public place and dispose of the remains properly in the nearest trash receptacle of our choosing. Yea... let there be extra sauce for the masses and we shall celebrate with discount coupons for participating restaurants in our area and throughout the land. There can be only one!
Augustus- clearly psychopathic Tiberius- perverted paranoid psychopath Caligula- psychotic perverted paranoid psychopath Claudius- goofy and a little vain but overall good Nero- hedonistic petulant child Galba- just plain mean Otho- hedonistic vain child Vitellius- fat Vespasian- wise harsh pee obsessed military man Titus- energetic and thoughtful Domitian- mean paranoid albeit generous tyrant Nerva- indecisive old man Trajan- micromanaging proud pervert Hadrian- gay Antoninus pius- boring Lucius verus- hedonistic proud child Marcus Aurelius-a man for all seasons Commodus- proud hedonistic wild haughty child Pertinax- mean old military man Didius- filthy rich old military man Septimius Severus- mean harsh disdainful man Geta- hedonistic child Caracalla- mean spirited harsh wicked greedy tyrannical paranoid dictator Macrinus- soft weak corrupt barracks emperor Elagabalus- weird perverted sun worshipping sex freak Severus Alexander- soft mammas boy Thrax- mean harsh gigantic tyrant Pupienus- name should tell you everything you need to know Gordian I, II, & III- incompetent Philip the Arab- soft incompetent closeted Catholic Decius- incompetent unwilling soldier emperor Everyone up to gallienus- incompetent soldier emperors Gallienus- soft weak politically incompetent soldier Claudius gothicus- the man the myth Quintillus- whatever Aurelian- THE LEGEND Tacitus- soft weak soldier Florianus- soft weak soldier Probus- strong busy effective soldier Carus- see above Carinus- Wikipedia says “debauched and incapable” Diocletian- bruh The tetrarchy- all incompetent greedy disagreeing man children (except for constatius chlorus Constantine I- like Augustus but not as perverted Constantius II- wise harsh paranoid ruler Julian- proud pagan Jovian- the substitute teacher Valentinan I- his marble bust even looks angry Valens- weak politically incompetent man child Valentinian II- see above Theodosius I- effective dictator Arcadius & honorius- such unremarkable incompetent man children I can put them together Valentinan III- see above Petronius- wealthy loser Avitus- weak incompetent Gallic loyalist Majorian- ricimers yes man Libius Severus- weak incompetent politician Anthemius- Wikipedia says “Perhaps the last capable Western Roman Emperor” Olybrius- another ricimer yes man Glycerius- weak gold giving politically incompetent yes man Nepos- *you tried* Romulus Augustus- scared little boy
If you look at the evidence, I’m not sure you can label Henry VI as even the slightest bit evil. He was simple, pious and hated conflict, and spent roughly eighteen months in a catatonic state before waking up as a more childlike version of himself. His wife was allowed to take control (someone who, by the way, you actually might consider ‘evil’ by some standards), and she used incredibly brutal methods to make sure her family kept the throne; Henry VI had become king in a time when his family had been challenged for years by another with a stronger claim to the throne, and the minute they realised that Henry would be easily convinced to step down, they basically declared an unofficial war, and Henry's wife wasn't afraid to fight back just as viciously. Henry basically spent his time blissfully unaware of what was happening, and even though his reign was ultimately chaotic to say the least, you'd have to ignore a lot of tyrannical leaders of that time to blame that on Henry VI.
Was shocked hearing Henry VI on that list and went to the comments to see if anyone else picked up on it. Henry VI was incompetent but evil? No way. But that being said, calling his wife evil is also inaccurate; she was ruthless yes, she took the decisions her husband was too weak to take; she had to fight the Duke of York (who was definitely exploiting Henry VI's weakness and even bullying him) Margaret was in a precarious position; if she didn't take action, she would have failed her husband and son; don't forget this was the beginning of the Wars of the Roses, the 15th century was not known for pacifism... She only played in the same power game the men did in that day; except as a woman and a French one at that, her ascension to power were seen as unnatural and to this day she's portrayed as the stereotypical grasping, ambitious woman, which is unfair. Margaret was brave enough to take the (ruthless but necessary) actions she needed to take to defend her husband and son's positions. The Duke of York even tried bullying the king into making him his heir over Henry and Margaret's son, how would you react to that? I don't think it's fair to call her evil, unless you call everyone evil who did something ruthless in an age that was itself ruthless, in order to secure their family's position and even safety.
Given the standards he lived in compared to the likes of Attila and Gengis Khan I would say he was the most evil King. Attila and Gengis were barbarian conquerors, Vlad the impaler was defending his country against the greatest military power of his time and John was merely playing the game of thrones. Caligula and Nero, while undoubtedly the worst of the Julio claudians, only inflicted their injustices on the ruling classes of Rome, the mass of the roman citizens and subjects continued on living. But Leopold in an era where slavery was eliminated, liberalism with its doctrine of individual rights was a major political ideal. It was in this time with access to these ideas that Leopold acquired a country and decided to initiate the policy of enslaving the whole population to farm rubber for his own personal benefit.
altough I agree that he was a very bad, the number of 10 million is actually very exaggerated. Most historians talk about 3-5million. But yes it was true that he was one of the worst people who ever lived, but he wasn't actually a bad king because belgium didn't own congo, it was leupolds private property. So he was actually king of belgium (in that part he wasn't bad, he even made the death penalty illegal, wich was very revolutionary in that time) and he was private owner of congo where he was worst then hitler. Fun fact: altough he was responsible for so many deaths and mutilation in congo, he actually never stept foot in congo, not even once in his whole life.
I was pretty surprised myself Leopold was only at 7. Since Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin or Amin didn't qualify (but "king" Vlad did?) I was expecting him to be in top 3. Pol Pot also "only" killed a few million people, but if you think he killed 1/4 of his total population in a few years... Leopold killed around HALF of Congo. Rest my case.
Toalewa9889 easy why hes seven he did many good things also in belguim self and in belguim still seen as one of the best kings they had and he killed lots of people and belgain know that. And there are very little know over what happend there thats why some people say 10 million people and other say 3 million people because king leopold 2 congo who he owned it self and not belguim. When he gave it to belguim he destroyed many books and archives over allmost everything on that time. And also its very over dramatised over king leopold.
Fun fact: Ivan the Terrible ordered two architects to build the most beautiful church the world has ever seen. At the end, Ivan gouged the eyes out of the architects, because the church they built was so beautiful, Ivan ensured they would never make as or more so.
That sounds like Maegor the Cruel, killing all the builders who worked on his castle so that it's secret passages would be known only to him. I wonder if that's where GRRM got that idea from.
@@SRosenberg203 Game of Thrones was actually inspired by the Wars of the Roses, the rivalry for the English Throne (the Iron Throne) between the two cadet branches of the House of Plantagenet: the House of Lancaster (probably where he derived the name for House Lannister) and the House of York (most probably the House Stark)
@@RixMorales I am aware of that. I was talking about Maegor, wondering if GRRM got the ideas for him building the Red Keep and then executing all the builders to keep its secrets hidden from Ivan the Terrible.
I know i could be late but: Ivan the Terrible (or Ivan the Fearsome, as we call him in Russia) was actually a very good and even kinda progressive ruler at the beginning of his rule. Russia had very good contacts with England, developed trade and technologies from the west, completely crushed 2 khanates (Kazan and Astrakhan), which stopped Tatar hordes from attacking russian lands. He also began the colonisation of Siberia (campaign of Ermak). Many advisors at the court were foreigners from another european countries and helped with architecture and economy. In 1549, during the greatest years of his rule, Zemsky Sobor was founded, which was some kind of parliament, which discussed many important questions between estates. Ivan tried to centralise his state as far as possible (centralisation efforts happened in many other European countries and not always peacefully) and enacted many reforms to achieve it: Sudebnik, Hundred Chapter Synod, military reforms, monetary reforms and so on. The main problems began when the Livonian war started, which lasted for 30 years and positioned Russia at the blink of collapse. Ivan lost 3 his wives and 2 sons and started to lose his mind really quickly (many hypothesis say that they were poisoned by nobles, who desired for profitable marriages for their houses). During his youth, he was growing in the environment of nobles. He saw what intrigues and plots they do and with every year his hatred for nobles was becoming greater and greater. During the Livonian war, his closest and greatest friend Kniaz Kurbski (which was the only person Ivan shared his secrets with) betrayed his Tzar' and escaped to Russia's enemy Polish Commonwealth. After that, still many bad events happened: Crimean tatars sacked Moscow, Novgorodians revolted against the rule of Ivan, even his own heir started to speak out against his father. Ivan saw all the problems in nobles. He thought they all trying to betray his rule and surrender to Commonwealth. At this point he became really crazy. He established Oprichnina, which began wide repressions and restricts against nobles, merchants, priests, foreigners and so on. Oprichnina performed very well in terrorising russian citizens, but oprichniks were very poor in battle and lost many fights even with quantity on their side (simply because most of them were cowards). At the last years of his rule, Ivan's madness reached its peak. He wrote a large list of people he ordered to execute during his reign and prayed for them all day and all night (sometimes he didn't even show himself to the court for weeks). After that, his greatest son Ivan (yes, another Ivan) died under suspicious circumstances. Ivan was the heir for the throne of Russia and was considered as the smartest and strongest among all Ivan IV sons. Some said he was accidently killed by Ivan the Terrible during harsh disputes. There is also a version, that his son died of disease or was poisoned by foreign doctors. So the heir for his throne became another son - Fyodor. He was very pious but with it, very shy and kinda slow. Soon Ivan the Terrible died. It is still disputed, how he died, but the most popular version says, that he was poisoned by his court doctor from Westphalia Eliseus Bomelius and Fyodor took the throne. His reign was short and he was very led by his noble-advisor Boris Godunov, who then established new dynasty on throne. After this story, i think it is clear, why Ivan was so cruel. His efforts centalised the state, but, of course, with the heavy price. He was a great leader at the beginning, but then wars and plots took over his mind, making him mad and very suspicious, turning his country into his own playground. By the way his reign is considered the longest from all russian rulers (50 years and 3 months). And a couple of words about Stalin. He was inspired by the figure of Ivan from the Eisenstein movie Иван Грозный (1944), where Tzar' appeared as a wise ruler with desires to make Russia one of the greatest empires of the world. This imagery impressed Stalin, who also considered himself as a protector and collector of Russian lands. The second part of the film, which showed the turning of Ivan from young perspective ruler into old man, full of madness, was banned by Stalin. This part came out only in 1958, almost 5 years after Stalin's death.
All that may be true but he that does not wipe away all the wrongs he did...…. They were not minor either. Is he mostly remember for all that u mentioned? No.. the evil has forever elclisped any thing that may have been in hos favor... and for good reason
According to me 3 kings can be referred as cruel 1 Atilla The Hun 2 Tsar Ivan Grozny 3 Emperor Caligula Although all the rulers had both good and evil reputation and the rulers were very effective in their ruling their nations but also in some phase of their life they were extremely ruthless and sadistic.
Right?! But more people know Genghis Khan and he's been in a movie so I guess he goes on the list instead... even though if you've read one book about the guy you would never put him on this list.
@@jwal1992 Sure! When you think evil kings you think torture, tyranny, greed, and unchecked ambition. None of that applies to Genghis. He was unquestionably brutal and his conquest of the Khwarazmian is particularly notable in that regard. But he also outlawed torture and wife kidnapping and didn't partake in any of the religious intolerance or ethnic massacres that plagued Europe during the same period. Jack Weatherford has a few excellent books on the subject. The Secret History of the Mongol Queens is my favorite but he has another on religious tolerance and his first focuses on how many of his reforms created the modern world(Kublai would go on to create public schools for peasants and nearly abolish capital punishment in China). There are definitely some truly evil rulers throughout history but Genghis Khan is, in my opinion, far more complex than that.
Henry VI of England? I can't think of a less evil ruler in English history. Or one who was less effective, talented or wise. He was many things, but evil was not one of them. More easily led than sinister.
I agree. Henry VI may have been politically inept, easily influenced and suffered bouts of madness but he was also described as deeply religious, peaceful and kind. There were many men who said he would have made a better friar or abbot than a king.
Spot on. Henry VI was prone to fits of madness, which resulted in factionalism and discord in England. However, he was not evil by any stretch of the imagination.Henry VIII , Mary I had far bloodier reigns.
Tobias Olds even though Vlad only did it to scare off the Ottoman Empire and saved his nation and basically reduced the thieving population to zero. He’s considered a hero to his nation and a monster everywhere else
Stop say "in History" when what you call "History" is always anglo-centered. And most of them were not "evil". They were either conquerors, either incompetent.
Yes they were evil... In the name of'conquering" there has been more innocent lives willfully taken and in brutal fashion then we will ever know. Every one of thease rats were wicked. Some may have been mentally ill to but not so much, they were not aware of what they were doing.
Basically a lot of them were successful conquerors and that’s why their actions killed lots of people it’s not evil but they still murderd a lot of people. Kings who weren’t winning wars and gaining lands are just not as well remembered and thus be forgotten
Calling Ivan IV "The Terrible" is actually the result of a mistranslation; the original Russian word for him ("Grozny") is more along the lines of "The Imposing". Also, even though I would by no means call him likeable (and his reign was followed by the infamous "Times of Troubles"), in terms of numbers of victims his timesake Henry VIII of England outdid him. England just was lucky to have someone as capable as Elizabeth following; still, I'd say Henry VIII should have been in this list instead of King John, and in a higher position than Ivan IV.
I am surprised Henry VIII didn’t even get an honourable mention. Someone foretold he would begin his reign as gentle as a lamb and end it worse than a lion, and they weren’t kidding.
This video is so very poorly documented, some of the arguments are superficial and full of preconceptions. For instance, did you know that Vlad Tepes, the Impaler, is a Romanian national hero? This much beloved king stays along the great leaders of our history.
He had 5 innocent men executed along with his wife on totally made up charges so he could remarry. He even designed the details of her execution including the scaffold himself. Anyone who failed him ended up on the block too throughout his reign.Utter monster.
actually they were the ones who had his father crowned in return for a tribute each year . His father was a weak ruler who had lost the crown & had asked the Ottomans to reclaim it for him .
No Qin Shihuang did not die merely because he fell into a pond. He was known to have been poisoned by mercury which he constantly thinking that it could give him immortality.
Quin Shihuang is not in the list. He mentioned an Emperor in the Ming dynasty. I would not say that Ming Emperor was the most terrible since the country was prosperous and he did not give any harsh rules to citizens. His personal life was a mess, but he did not intend to torture and kill his concubines. He got so many and neglected them. He was weird making his officials to act like merchants, one who refused got fired. But he was not a tyrant like Qin Shihuang.
Vlad the Impaler was actually celebrated throughout Europe during the early part of his reign because of his success at turning back the Turks. He was considered a hero of Christendom for successfully revolting and holding the Turks off, including his own brother who was sent by the Turks to take the land back.Vlad was later smeared by his technical superior who was provided with funds from all over Europe to fight the Turks but embezzled the funds instead. In order to distract from his use of the funds on himself, the king started spreading stories of atrocities that he claimed were committed by Vlad in order to scapegoat him.Yes, Vlad used techniques that would be considered barbaric today, but were almost certainly effective in helping discourage and weaken the massively larger enemy forces he had to fend off. He fought a psychological and morale war in order to win the real war.
Most of what is "known" about Nero and Caligula is based on the work of seutonius, who can best be compared to a national enquirer reporter in terms of veracity
Nero got a bad rap because he cracked down on the new cult of christianity, and most of the writings we have on him were written by said cult. Caligula, by most accounts, was pretty insane. Even conservative Roman historians tend to agree on that.
some would argue that tiberius was actually worse than nero, who reportedly did everything he could to help citizens of rome during the great fire - not a fiddle in sight! I read that some people believe the book of revelations was written about nero's treatment of christians Caligula was a total psycho
I don't think Tiberius was worse than Nero because Nero left the Roman Empire with no money and in complete chaos. He murdered his steph-brother Britannicus, his mother Agrippina (she was horrible but still) and his mistress Poppaea. He also build his new palace on the destroyed area after the great fire of Rome and many people couldn't return anymore. Tiberius was not the most beloved emperor, but he became paranoid because there were so many people trying to kill him including the leader of the Praetorian Guard Seianus. And some argue that the new leader Macro killed Tiberius shortly after because he tried to get Caligula on the throne. Nero's bad reputation didn't just come from nowhere. Tacitus wrote in his "annales" about everythig Nero did. Both the good and the bad stuff. And for Caligula... apparently the first six months of his reign he was beloved by the crowd, but then he got a complete breakdown and then started acting like a psycho. Some say this could have something to do with him growing up in an army base. (Sorry for spelling or grammar mistakes) p.s. It's not that I totally disagree with you. This is just what I learned.
In fact, as also reported by Suetonius, Galba, who succeed to Nero, had to walk over 10 000 dead civilians supporters of Nero, 6 months after the death of Nero, to enter into Rome. Nero was maybe not popular among the aristocracy, but he was surely popular among the people, to have 10 000 of them willing to oppose the Senate.. to death! Even added to that, and Otto (who assassinated Galba) and Vespasian started their rule claiming to continue the work .. of Nero! Vespasian would have not done that if Nero was unpopular, at that very time! (Maybe Otto would, though). One hundred years later, Suetonius, just after having been fired by emperor Hadrian, wrote his un-famous pamphlet like story of the first Caesars! Indirect vengeance?
The book of Revelations was written shortly after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. by Titus.In the eyes of both Jews and Christians,the destruction of this site,the holiest of them all,gave rise to the belief that the end of the world was aproaching.
Caligula "declared war on the sea" to punish a mutiny by having the high & mighty Roman soldiers pick up seashells because they refused to get on the ships to invade Britain. He probably wasn't as insane as was presented by substantially after-the fact propagandists like Suetonius...
@@nicholaswilley9001 I can’t remember much else about him off the top of my head, but I’m pretty sure he did some other crazy shit too. Also his own men turned on him and killed him so that’s usually a strong indicator of either a really bad, really crazy, or both kind of leader
Henry VI lost the hundred years war and proved incompetent, not only that but was mentally unfit - he was often incapacitated by mental breakdowns. His misrule created the power vacuum which the nobles attempted to fill, leading directly to the wars of the roses
Tbh I wouldn’t say Edward because he was willing to get the land restored and said he’d do anything he had to the other reason for this though is he murdered loads of Scots in order to claim Scot with gave him the nickname Hammer of scots
Edward was a described by his fellows as a great and terrible king which is exactly the reputation you needed to keep control of a medieval kingdom and he was highly regarded at the time of his reign for keeping England safe and stable. He was nothing like the loon depicted in Braveheart. He was devoted to his wife and quite religious.He believed he had been appointed by God to keep England safe and that meant interferring in Scotland and Wales.
Thing is, Vlad III isn't remembered as monster by Romania, but rather as a hero that defended his principality. Also those were all common methods of torture and execution back then, Vlad wasn't the only one who used them.
King Richard 1 spent very little time in England and so, when his brother John took over the crown, it was probably the best thing that every happened in this country.
You overlooked the fact that there were TWO Herods. The one who tried to kill Jesus as an infant (2 or 3 BC) and the one that reigned during Jesus' ministry. It's no wonder some think that the massacre in Bethlehem didn't happen. They're overlooking a very important detail and basing their conclusions on their ignorance.
There were 4 Herods I believe. Herod is kind of like a last name. Herod the Great was the first, then there was Herod who reigned during Jesus' ministry. There was Herod Agrippa who reigned when Paul ministered to the Gentiles. I think there was 1 more but I can't remember off the top of my head.
I would personally put Timur the Lame instead of Attila, the dude massacred cities and stacked the heads of the dead in pyramids one source says of a pyramid made up of over 70,000 heads. I would also put the Qianlong Emperor for causing the extinction of the Dzungars, massacring over 500,000 men, women and children and finally I would put Hulegu Khan ahead of Genghis. The massacre in Baghdad in 1258 alone makes many of Genghis's atrocities pale in comparison, over a million men, women and children were killed along with every dog, cat and rat in the city. The Baghdad House of Wisdom was destroyed and legend says the Tigris and Euphrates ran black and red from the ink and blood from the massacre. The devastation was so great that the fertile crescent never again reached it's former glories and was left to rot, it continues to this day Syria and Iraq are a fucking shithole.
Tulga Badrakh totally agree he almost destroyed my country (Georgia) by invading it many times and killing thousands. Those were the darkest times in my country` history.
Many on this list were undoubtedly ruthless, but not necessarily evil, Vlad and Genghis Khan for example were known for being brutal on those who opposed them, but they also did their job in securing their states and protecting the people who were loyal.
True, during Vlad's reign thieves were close to non-existent, and that's a feat in itself especially for that era, and he was one of the only voievods that actually managed to protect his lands against the ottoman invaders, and by doing so, keeping the ottoman armies from ever reaching other European countries. Same goes for Attila, was he a ruthless leader? there is no doubt that his enemies saw him that way. But for his people, he was a god, and he did manage to conquer half of know world back then.
Richard the 11 was not like that. In fact he was totally against the wars with France. He was in fact a piece loving man. This video is bullshit, they don't no anything.
10. John was actually a hardworking King, the only problem was that he lacked consistency, one minute he was brilliant, the next he was terrible. 8. Vlad was brutal to be sure but was a necessary evil to fight the Ottoman Turks 7. Leopold II wasn't responsible for what happened in the Congo, he didn't know half the stuff that was going on in there. 2. Ivan was actually a great and effective leader that Russia needed for the time. most of his worst atrocities were against not the common people but the Boyar nobles who were greedy and corrupt. his nickname 'The Terrible' was actually used as a compliment because he was terrible to their ancient enemies the Tatars.
Leopold acknowledged it writing he was aware of human rights abuses in the Congo. He may not have been aware of the extent, that is true. But he knew, missionaries told stories. To me that's like arguing Hitler didn't know the true extent of the Holocaust. He may not have. It doesn't make a difference. It happened in their name, they knew it was happening, they had the power to stop it and did nothing. I'm sorry that makes you just as responsible.
eeshan vaidya He apparently did neither I believe. But I think it was a metaphor for him literally doing nothing about the fire until it neared his palace.
Attila wasn't a bad king !! Yes he was ruthless but without him the Huns would later fall apart. Mao Zedong the late Chinese communist leader is easily number 1
Caligula was Nero's uncle so the 🍎 didn't fall too far from the 🌳... Although considering Nero had sex with his sisters & Nero's Mom was one of those sisters, I wonder if Caligula wasn't Nero's uncle/Dad... That would explain Hero's extreme insanity...
Genghis Khan were just to his people, loyal to his friends and family who stood by him. He might be brutal and ruthless but that is the harsh way of the steppe. You have to be merciless to your enemies to survive in that time. He set his rules either become my friend and join me I will support you and not betray your people will be my people, I will treat them well or become my enemy and I will destroy you and your people. Modern people who live easy lives softened by the abrahamic monotheistic religions can not understand this. For me an evil ruler in medieval times is one who deliberately harms his own people, firends or family his own people curses him. Genghis on the other hand builded a great nation for his people and provided them with new riches, his people loved him till today. Thus he is a good man.
Vlad Drakula wasn`t evil. He was fighting for independence of his country against MUCH stronger opponent. He had no other option than to be ruthless. And boy, he was. Still, pretty effective too, for a time. In fact there is no record that he really enjoyed his slaughters, rather he did that for strategic reasons.
@@louisa5518 not just his wives but so many men who were once close advisors to him like Thomas More and Thomas Cromwell. Also anyone with the slightest relation to the Plantagenets (kings before the Tudors)
He may have killed , tortured and troubled many but he was nowhere as evil as anyone on this list. The worst Indian Emperors were definetly Alauddin Khilji, Mohommad bin Tugluq and Pushyamitra Shunga. Aurangzeb wasn't the last Emperor either, you still had Faruksiyahr, Mohommad Shah, Shah Alam and lastly Bahadur Shah Zafar. The first two still maiantined a lot of territory and power and were more tolerant than Aurangzeb,
@@nirupamakumar3917 you forgotten the main cruelest kings taimur,mohamed ghori,nadir shah. They plundered delhi and literally killed every people irrespective of caste and religion
Herod’s guards weren’t there just to protect him...they were there to keep him from committing suicide. Herod had developed a mystery disease, which may have been Fournier’s gangrene. It was so advanced, he had dozens and dozens of maggots bursting through the skin. He suffered tremendous pain, digestive issues, and convulsions. Herod was in constant agony from his itchy, burning skin. He attempted to commit suicide a number of times, but the guards always stopped him. Eventually, he died, likely of kidney failure. Given all these facts, it’s possible Herod had diabetes. For those wondering exactly where on Herod’s body had gangrene: it was his genitals. Now that you know, start at the top and read this comment again. *Try not to cringe...if you can.*
Herod wasn't as bad as you say he was. Sure he was paranoid and believed everyone was out to kill him, which led to some horrible stuff, like the killing of Jerusalem's rich and powerful (including his own wife), but he was also, at times, very supportive of both Hellenistic and Jewish citizens of Judah. Also, the entire story about him trying to kill Jesus is pretty much made up, as Herod was already dead when Jesus was actually born.
Vlad was mostly fighting pretenders to the Wallachian crown. He killed more Wallachians than Ottomans, although he did manage to unify his country until the Ottomans had the bright idea of supporting one of the pretenders.
I think Henry VIII should be number 1 Killed 2/6 wives Boiled people in strong acid Killed 72000 overall Had some people's limbs ripped off by ropes on horses Made a lot of people be under extreme poverty Had constant wars with his neighbours Even Shakespeare had nothing good to say about him If you ask me, Henry's death was definitely his own doing because of his greed, tyranny and terror
Ghengis Khan is not a fair choice here. Cruel i war yes, just like every conquerer, but he was way less evil than most on this list. He accepted all religions, all ethnic groups and subjects. He created stability all over Asia. Power hungry, absolutely, but not evil.
King Henry was a good king because he and the other tudors made england strong that’s why and we killed Anne Boleyn because she actually betrayed Henry and had sex with someone else and gave Henry a girl. Also it was only two wives that were exucuted
@@alfiehurst7049 Henry VIII was in no way a good king. Many if the charges against his wives were total rubbish. Thousands of people were killed because if him
@@alfiehurst7049 two wives both on drummed up charges and thousands of people. Executing someone because they bore you a girl is ridiculous. What about the torture he put Catherine of Aragon through by tearing her from her daughter..Then for bidding them to communicate with each other. Can you imagine how traumatic it must have been for little Elisabeth to loose her mother at the age of 3. There was nothing good about Henry at all. He was a vile despot
King Leopold of the Belgians was very evil.
Finally somebody mentions Leopold in the comments. You my dear are compassionate, because none of these other cavemen even gives a damn that he mutilated and killed 10 million. I guess their siffering doesn't count because they were Africans.
@adamo salvas I'm from the French island of Saint Martin and they don't teach about Haiti and why it went from "The jewel of the Caribbean" filling french coffers to the poorest nation in the Americas because it would make them look bad. So Belgium keeping it hush hush don't feel too bad all the European nations do it. Admitting crimes agaisnt humanity goes against the narrative the Europe is wealthy because of European intellect.
@@xldjvista Then I have news for you: this is fake. Millions did die in congo, but they died because they had no immunity against various european diseases that swept through the country.
@@BamBamGT1 There are pictures with him showing off the stumps of Congolese which he had maimed. He worked them to death to meet his droconian quotas and killed at will. I believe disease killed a percentage of them but most were coldbloodedly killed.
but his waffles are delicious
When you get F's in your history classes and make a video about history
Number one: Burger king
probably caused the most deaths
OMG... hadn't thought of that... your right you know,... well, then, he has to be killed... the people must be gathered with their fries and pies and put this evil tyrant asunder with extra cheese...We must gather the people together, and draw and quarter to half pounder this evil tyrant in a public place and dispose of the remains properly in the nearest trash receptacle of our choosing. Yea... let there be extra sauce for the masses and we shall celebrate with discount coupons for participating restaurants in our area and throughout the land. There can be only one!
RetroDuck ummmm......he feeds everyone! Hes a saint!!!!
Burger King? How about McDonald Trump?
(This is a joke, right) :P
RetroDuck
LMAO
"Nero was no doubt one of the worst emperors in the history of the Roman Empire."
Me: Laughs in Valentinian III, Honorius, Vitellius, and Commodus
Commodus was not the worst, same for Nero
Me: cries in fate
Augustus- clearly psychopathic
Tiberius- perverted paranoid psychopath
Caligula- psychotic perverted paranoid psychopath
Claudius- goofy and a little vain but overall good
Nero- hedonistic petulant child
Galba- just plain mean
Otho- hedonistic vain child
Vitellius- fat
Vespasian- wise harsh pee obsessed military man
Titus- energetic and thoughtful
Domitian- mean paranoid albeit generous tyrant
Nerva- indecisive old man
Trajan- micromanaging proud pervert
Hadrian- gay
Antoninus pius- boring
Lucius verus- hedonistic proud child
Marcus Aurelius-a man for all seasons
Commodus- proud hedonistic wild haughty child
Pertinax- mean old military man
Didius- filthy rich old military man
Septimius Severus- mean harsh disdainful man
Geta- hedonistic child
Caracalla- mean spirited harsh wicked greedy tyrannical paranoid dictator
Macrinus- soft weak corrupt barracks emperor
Elagabalus- weird perverted sun worshipping sex freak
Severus Alexander- soft mammas boy
Thrax- mean harsh gigantic tyrant
Pupienus- name should tell you everything you need to know
Gordian I, II, & III- incompetent
Philip the Arab- soft incompetent closeted Catholic
Decius- incompetent unwilling soldier emperor
Everyone up to gallienus- incompetent soldier emperors
Gallienus- soft weak politically incompetent soldier
Claudius gothicus- the man the myth
Quintillus- whatever
Aurelian- THE LEGEND
Tacitus- soft weak soldier
Florianus- soft weak soldier
Probus- strong busy effective soldier
Carus- see above
Carinus- Wikipedia says “debauched and incapable”
Diocletian- bruh
The tetrarchy- all incompetent greedy disagreeing man children (except for constatius chlorus
Constantine I- like Augustus but not as perverted
Constantius II- wise harsh paranoid ruler
Julian- proud pagan
Jovian- the substitute teacher
Valentinan I- his marble bust even looks angry
Valens- weak politically incompetent man child
Valentinian II- see above
Theodosius I- effective dictator
Arcadius & honorius- such unremarkable incompetent man children I can put them together
Valentinan III- see above
Petronius- wealthy loser
Avitus- weak incompetent Gallic loyalist
Majorian- ricimers yes man
Libius Severus- weak incompetent politician
Anthemius- Wikipedia says “Perhaps the last capable Western Roman Emperor”
Olybrius- another ricimer yes man
Glycerius- weak gold giving politically incompetent yes man
Nepos- *you tried*
Romulus Augustus- scared little boy
Emphasis on the phrase _one_ of the worst emperors in the history of the Roman Empire.
Number 1: King joffery
Must I say more?
Edit: Don't mind me, just dropping by real quick to fix my grammar! I really sucked ass at it a year ago!
He's not real.
@@KidaMilo89 I thought he was real! It's almost like I was joking
i think the mad king Aerys II was pretty evil too XD
@@femkebeeckman Yeah, but king joffery was just joffery
@Hornyshark I know that. But was king Richard blond?
Sandor Clagane high af, attacking Rome and shit
Attila the Hound
10 Most Evil Kings in history by people who've never read a history book, for people who've never read a history book.
Luke Rose Shut up. I bet you can't read.
pretty much
Vlad tempes isn't a king, or wasn't a king.
Haha exactly :)
They said not everyone was king..
Thank you for acknowledging the Congo and the horrors they endured
I dont remember having heard this... That was a bad man!
I don’t care about that lol
Ass hole
Why does Congo matter more than the others?
@@mism847 then go fuck yourself asshole
If you look at the evidence, I’m not sure you can label Henry VI as even the slightest bit evil. He was simple, pious and hated conflict, and spent roughly eighteen months in a catatonic state before waking up as a more childlike version of himself. His wife was allowed to take control (someone who, by the way, you actually might consider ‘evil’ by some standards), and she used incredibly brutal methods to make sure her family kept the throne; Henry VI had become king in a time when his family had been challenged for years by another with a stronger claim to the throne, and the minute they realised that Henry would be easily convinced to step down, they basically declared an unofficial war, and Henry's wife wasn't afraid to fight back just as viciously. Henry basically spent his time blissfully unaware of what was happening, and even though his reign was ultimately chaotic to say the least, you'd have to ignore a lot of tyrannical leaders of that time to blame that on Henry VI.
Margaret of Anjou right?
@@CavemanJesus4Life she wasn't the most evil, and she wasn't a king. Can't qualify
@@gandalfthegrey2592 What the guy was referring to is that Margaret was the Queen the op mentioned in his comment as Queen of Henry VI
Yeah, that man was not evil.
Was shocked hearing Henry VI on that list and went to the comments to see if anyone else picked up on it. Henry VI was incompetent but evil? No way.
But that being said, calling his wife evil is also inaccurate; she was ruthless yes, she took the decisions her husband was too weak to take; she had to fight the Duke of York (who was definitely exploiting Henry VI's weakness and even bullying him) Margaret was in a precarious position; if she didn't take action, she would have failed her husband and son; don't forget this was the beginning of the Wars of the Roses, the 15th century was not known for pacifism... She only played in the same power game the men did in that day; except as a woman and a French one at that, her ascension to power were seen as unnatural and to this day she's portrayed as the stereotypical grasping, ambitious woman, which is unfair. Margaret was brave enough to take the (ruthless but necessary) actions she needed to take to defend her husband and son's positions. The Duke of York even tried bullying the king into making him his heir over Henry and Margaret's son, how would you react to that? I don't think it's fair to call her evil, unless you call everyone evil who did something ruthless in an age that was itself ruthless, in order to secure their family's position and even safety.
In Eastern Europe especially Romania, Vlad is remembered as a hero and defender of Europe.
King Leopold at number seven? He caused almost as many deaths as hitler!
Did he though?
Given the standards he lived in compared to the likes of Attila and Gengis Khan I would say he was the most evil King. Attila and Gengis were barbarian conquerors, Vlad the impaler was defending his country against the greatest military power of his time and John was merely playing the game of thrones. Caligula and Nero, while undoubtedly the worst of the Julio claudians, only inflicted their injustices on the ruling classes of Rome, the mass of the roman citizens and subjects continued on living. But Leopold in an era where slavery was eliminated, liberalism with its doctrine of individual rights was a major political ideal. It was in this time with access to these ideas that Leopold acquired a country and decided to initiate the policy of enslaving the whole population to farm rubber for his own personal benefit.
altough I agree that he was a very bad, the number of 10 million is actually very exaggerated. Most historians talk about 3-5million. But yes it was true that he was one of the worst people who ever lived, but he wasn't actually a bad king because belgium didn't own congo, it was leupolds private property. So he was actually king of belgium (in that part he wasn't bad, he even made the death penalty illegal, wich was very revolutionary in that time) and he was private owner of congo where he was worst then hitler. Fun fact: altough he was responsible for so many deaths and mutilation in congo, he actually never stept foot in congo, not even once in his whole life.
I was pretty surprised myself Leopold was only at 7. Since Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin or Amin didn't qualify (but "king" Vlad did?) I was expecting him to be in top 3. Pol Pot also "only" killed a few million people, but if you think he killed 1/4 of his total population in a few years... Leopold killed around HALF of Congo. Rest my case.
Toalewa9889 easy why hes seven he did many good things also in belguim self and in belguim still seen as one of the best kings they had and he killed lots of people and belgain know that. And there are very little know over what happend there thats why some people say 10 million people and other say 3 million people because king leopold 2 congo who he owned it self and not belguim. When he gave it to belguim he destroyed many books and archives over allmost everything on that time. And also its very over dramatised over king leopold.
Henry VI wasn't evil, he was an awful King but a good and pious man far from Evil.
He disliked violence
Exactly he was also mad. But mad not in an evil way he was just mental!
Yeah are you sure you did not mean to put Henry the 8th instead of Henry the 6th because Henry the 8th did much worse things to people
Joffrey
Joffrey, The Mad King, The Night's King, they're not evil Kings in HISTORY! But they would all make the top 10 if they existed!
+Arun C that was the joke
Ok pal.
he's a kitty in front of Maegor the Cruel
Even if real, he only comes close in spirit. All the people mentioned here did worse... Thing about that ;)
The Mad King Aerys Targarye....
Oh wait wrong reality
Henry VI I think was similar to him
George R.R. Martin based Aerys in many of these historical characters if i'm not mistaken.
@@buuhan6808 Henry Vi Was Mad as a Hatter
Number one: Lord Farquaad
🤬🤬🤬🤬
Fun fact: Ivan the Terrible ordered two architects to build the most beautiful church the world has ever seen. At the end, Ivan gouged the eyes out of the architects, because the church they built was so beautiful, Ivan ensured they would never make as or more so.
That sounds like Maegor the Cruel, killing all the builders who worked on his castle so that it's secret passages would be known only to him. I wonder if that's where GRRM got that idea from.
@@SRosenberg203 Game of Thrones was actually inspired by the Wars of the Roses, the rivalry for the English Throne (the Iron Throne) between the two cadet branches of the House of Plantagenet: the House of Lancaster (probably where he derived the name for House Lannister) and the House of York (most probably the House Stark)
@@RixMorales I am aware of that. I was talking about Maegor, wondering if GRRM got the ideas for him building the Red Keep and then executing all the builders to keep its secrets hidden from Ivan the Terrible.
That’s actually false. One of the architects went on building until the day he died
Keon Mackenzie wow for real
I know i could be late but:
Ivan the Terrible (or Ivan the Fearsome, as we call him in Russia) was actually a very good and even kinda progressive ruler at the beginning of his rule. Russia had very good contacts with England, developed trade and technologies from the west, completely crushed 2 khanates (Kazan and Astrakhan), which stopped Tatar hordes from attacking russian lands. He also began the colonisation of Siberia (campaign of Ermak). Many advisors at the court were foreigners from another european countries and helped with architecture and economy. In 1549, during the greatest years of his rule, Zemsky Sobor was founded, which was some kind of parliament, which discussed many important questions between estates. Ivan tried to centralise his state as far as possible (centralisation efforts happened in many other European countries and not always peacefully) and enacted many reforms to achieve it: Sudebnik, Hundred Chapter Synod, military reforms, monetary reforms and so on.
The main problems began when the Livonian war started, which lasted for 30 years and positioned Russia at the blink of collapse. Ivan lost 3 his wives and 2 sons and started to lose his mind really quickly (many hypothesis say that they were poisoned by nobles, who desired for profitable marriages for their houses). During his youth, he was growing in the environment of nobles. He saw what intrigues and plots they do and with every year his hatred for nobles was becoming greater and greater. During the Livonian war, his closest and greatest friend Kniaz Kurbski (which was the only person Ivan shared his secrets with) betrayed his Tzar' and escaped to Russia's enemy Polish Commonwealth. After that, still many bad events happened: Crimean tatars sacked Moscow, Novgorodians revolted against the rule of Ivan, even his own heir started to speak out against his father. Ivan saw all the problems in nobles. He thought they all trying to betray his rule and surrender to Commonwealth. At this point he became really crazy. He established Oprichnina, which began wide repressions and restricts against nobles, merchants, priests, foreigners and so on. Oprichnina performed very well in terrorising russian citizens, but oprichniks were very poor in battle and lost many fights even with quantity on their side (simply because most of them were cowards). At the last years of his rule, Ivan's madness reached its peak. He wrote a large list of people he ordered to execute during his reign and prayed for them all day and all night (sometimes he didn't even show himself to the court for weeks). After that, his greatest son Ivan (yes, another Ivan) died under suspicious circumstances. Ivan was the heir for the throne of Russia and was considered as the smartest and strongest among all Ivan IV sons. Some said he was accidently killed by Ivan the Terrible during harsh disputes. There is also a version, that his son died of disease or was poisoned by foreign doctors. So the heir for his throne became another son - Fyodor. He was very pious but with it, very shy and kinda slow. Soon Ivan the Terrible died. It is still disputed, how he died, but the most popular version says, that he was poisoned by his court doctor from Westphalia Eliseus Bomelius and Fyodor took the throne. His reign was short and he was very led by his noble-advisor Boris Godunov, who then established new dynasty on throne.
After this story, i think it is clear, why Ivan was so cruel. His efforts centalised the state, but, of course, with the heavy price. He was a great leader at the beginning, but then wars and plots took over his mind, making him mad and very suspicious, turning his country into his own playground. By the way his reign is considered the longest from all russian rulers (50 years and 3 months).
And a couple of words about Stalin. He was inspired by the figure of Ivan from the Eisenstein movie Иван Грозный (1944), where Tzar' appeared as a wise ruler with desires to make Russia one of the greatest empires of the world. This imagery impressed Stalin, who also considered himself as a protector and collector of Russian lands. The second part of the film, which showed the turning of Ivan from young perspective ruler into old man, full of madness, was banned by Stalin. This part came out only in 1958, almost 5 years after Stalin's death.
All that may be true but he that does not wipe away all the wrongs he did...…. They were not minor either. Is he mostly remember for all that u mentioned? No.. the evil has forever elclisped any thing that may have been in hos favor... and for good reason
Appreciate the knowledge
Wow!That much writing!!!!!!!!!!!
He did send troops though to kill children and women. Basically everyone.
well, Attila the "Hound" is it? hahahhaha
“What the fuck’s a lommy?”
Attila is powerfull king ever for hun tribe
@@erikfrommeyer2606 Lots of cunts
Oye! The character in the movie Attila is played by the character Hound from Game of thrones
I swear, these people will forever be associated to their Game of Thrones characters!!!
According to me 3 kings can be referred as cruel
1 Atilla The Hun 2 Tsar Ivan Grozny 3 Emperor Caligula
Although all the rulers had both good and evil reputation and the rulers were very effective in their ruling their nations but also in some phase of their life they were extremely ruthless and sadistic.
No Timur? Dude was literaly knowm as "the prince of destruction"
What a man 👁
Tamerlane?
Right?! But more people know Genghis Khan and he's been in a movie so I guess he goes on the list instead... even though if you've read one book about the guy you would never put him on this list.
@@WillGodar Could you expand on that?
@@jwal1992 Sure! When you think evil kings you think torture, tyranny, greed, and unchecked ambition. None of that applies to Genghis. He was unquestionably brutal and his conquest of the Khwarazmian is particularly notable in that regard. But he also outlawed torture and wife kidnapping and didn't partake in any of the religious intolerance or ethnic massacres that plagued Europe during the same period. Jack Weatherford has a few excellent books on the subject. The Secret History of the Mongol Queens is my favorite but he has another on religious tolerance and his first focuses on how many of his reforms created the modern world(Kublai would go on to create public schools for peasants and nearly abolish capital punishment in China). There are definitely some truly evil rulers throughout history but Genghis Khan is, in my opinion, far more complex than that.
holy shyt, atila the han is being played by Sandor Clegane aka "the hound" no wonder he is at the top of the list
Henry VI of England? I can't think of a less evil ruler in English history. Or one who was less effective, talented or wise. He was many things, but evil was not one of them. More easily led than sinister.
I agree. Henry VI may have been politically inept, easily influenced and suffered bouts of madness but he was also described as deeply religious, peaceful and kind. There were many men who said he would have made a better friar or abbot than a king.
Spot on. Henry VI was prone to fits of madness, which resulted in factionalism and discord in England. However, he was not evil by any stretch of the imagination.Henry VIII , Mary I had far bloodier reigns.
Englands Bealor the Blessed.
Adril Tythorin Attila would make Henry his bitch
I agree they should have put Henry VIII in his stead.
Vlad the impaler reminds me of Ramsay Bolton.
Did u recognize #1 ? The Hound !
I was about to say... Atilla the Hun reminds me of The Hound. Lmao
I suspect that Vlad the Impaler was inspiration for the Boltons generally, knowing George. R. R. Martin
Tobias Olds even though Vlad only did it to scare off the Ottoman Empire and saved his nation and basically reduced the thieving population to zero. He’s considered a hero to his nation and a monster everywhere else
@@dragonstouch1042 No matter the reason impaling people and skinning them alive is not honorable
Stop say "in History" when what you call "History" is always anglo-centered.
And most of them were not "evil". They were either conquerors, either incompetent.
Yeah, I noticed that too.
Yes they were evil... In the name of'conquering" there has been more innocent lives willfully taken and in brutal fashion then we will ever know. Every one of thease rats were wicked. Some may have been mentally ill to but not so much, they were not aware of what they were doing.
Basically a lot of them were successful conquerors and that’s why their actions killed lots of people it’s not evil but they still murderd a lot of people. Kings who weren’t winning wars and gaining lands are just not as well remembered and thus be forgotten
@@john.d193 murdering isn't evil for u?
@@john.d193 by that account shouldn't Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Napoleon etc. be here considering they murdered plenty of people too?
Calling Ivan IV "The Terrible" is actually the result of a mistranslation; the original Russian word for him ("Grozny") is more along the lines of "The Imposing". Also, even though I would by no means call him likeable (and his reign was followed by the infamous "Times of Troubles"), in terms of numbers of victims his timesake Henry VIII of England outdid him. England just was lucky to have someone as capable as Elizabeth following; still, I'd say Henry VIII should have been in this list instead of King John, and in a higher position than Ivan IV.
Elizabeth was worse than Henry. Sje was no great ruler as she was a puppet for the Cecil's who only cared about what benefitted them.
Grozny means ugly not terrible
Still, Ivan the Terrible has stuck, and it suits him.
I am surprised Henry VIII didn’t even get an honourable mention. Someone foretold he would begin his reign as gentle as a lamb and end it worse than a lion, and they weren’t kidding.
@@W01theonlyonetowon As I stated, "Grozny" means "Imposing", which is neither "terrible" nor "ugly".
This video is so very poorly documented, some of the arguments are superficial and full of preconceptions. For instance, did you know that Vlad Tepes, the Impaler, is a Romanian national hero? This much beloved king stays along the great leaders of our history.
Vlad saved Romania from the Ottoman invasion
@@erictyson5947 by sacrificing entire villages and showing their dead bodies to the Ottoman to scare them and make them go away
@@deezeezee4644 whatever works
You can said he is national hero because he is already dead, but at that times any commoners were afraid of him.
@@erictyson5947 not saved just maked it harder.
King Henry the VIII, was worse than King Henry the VI, js, as an honorable mention.
Henry VI was bad, not evil
I agree and where the heck is richard iii
Irfan nurhan he didn’t kill the princes it was Beaufort/Tudor ask yourself who has more to gain and then look who wrote the history Tudor cus they won
He was bad not as evil as some
He had 5 innocent men executed along with his wife on totally made up charges so he could remarry. He even designed the details of her execution including the scaffold himself. Anyone who failed him ended up on the block too throughout his reign.Utter monster.
So glad to see Leopold made this list. He was a real monster and is often overlooked.
King Joffrey: “Hold my Pigeon Pie”
Hold my pigeon pie*
Fellow Templar that does in fact sound better
Yeah, imagine what these psychopaths did in real life they they couldn't dare show on TV....
Vlad Tepes is still vaunted as a hero in Romania.
He gets bad press because he Saxons whom he drove out were able to access the printing press.
I am in România and vlad is a Hero
The Saxons were selling out to the Turks.
Reminder: Most of what Vlad impaled where Turkish soldiers impeding on his land.
mr scoler
actually they were the ones who had his father crowned in return for a tribute each year . His father was a weak ruler who had lost the crown & had asked the Ottomans to reclaim it for him .
so he had wealth wealth get u what ever u want your blinded if u can t see
Vlad was a hero.
how so
No Qin Shihuang did not die merely because he fell into a pond. He was known to have been poisoned by mercury which he constantly thinking that it could give him immortality.
Jun Kitami Qin Shihuang wasn’t even on the list...
Quin Shihuang is not in the list. He mentioned an Emperor in the Ming dynasty. I would not say that Ming Emperor was the most terrible since the country was prosperous and he did not give any harsh rules to citizens. His personal life was a mess, but he did not intend to torture and kill his concubines. He got so many and neglected them. He was weird making his officials to act like merchants, one who refused got fired. But he was not a tyrant like Qin Shihuang.
That.. That.. was Zhengde mate
I’m so happy that you put Horrible Histories in this 😂👏🏻
Now I’m expecting the song about the evil Roman emperors for Nero.
Vlad the Impaler was actually celebrated throughout Europe during the early part of his reign because of his success at turning back the Turks. He was considered a hero of Christendom for successfully revolting and holding the Turks off, including his own brother who was sent by the Turks to take the land back.Vlad was later smeared by his technical superior who was provided with funds from all over Europe to fight the Turks but embezzled the funds instead. In order to distract from his use of the funds on himself, the king started spreading stories of atrocities that he claimed were committed by Vlad in order to scapegoat him.Yes, Vlad used techniques that would be considered barbaric today, but were almost certainly effective in helping discourage and weaken the massively larger enemy forces he had to fend off. He fought a psychological and morale war in order to win the real war.
O king was just being jealous?
Did the king end up digging his own grave?
William the Conqueror really deserves to be on this list
William just got no respect -- hence all the rebellions he had to put down, both Norman and Saxon. It's tough to be a conqueror.
Most of what is "known" about Nero and Caligula is based on the work of seutonius, who can best be compared to a national enquirer reporter in terms of veracity
Nero got a bad rap because he cracked down on the new cult of christianity, and most of the writings we have on him were written by said cult. Caligula, by most accounts, was pretty insane. Even conservative Roman historians tend to agree on that.
some would argue that tiberius was actually worse than nero, who reportedly did everything he could to help citizens of rome during the great fire - not a fiddle in sight! I read that some people believe the book of revelations was written about nero's treatment of christians
Caligula was a total psycho
I don't think Tiberius was worse than Nero because Nero left the Roman Empire with no money and in complete chaos. He murdered his steph-brother Britannicus, his mother Agrippina (she was horrible but still) and his mistress Poppaea. He also build his new palace on the destroyed area after the great fire of Rome and many people couldn't return anymore. Tiberius was not the most beloved emperor, but he became paranoid because there were so many people trying to kill him including the leader of the Praetorian Guard Seianus. And some argue that the new leader Macro killed Tiberius shortly after because he tried to get Caligula on the throne. Nero's bad reputation didn't just come from nowhere. Tacitus wrote in his "annales" about everythig Nero did. Both the good and the bad stuff. And for Caligula... apparently the first six months of his reign he was beloved by the crowd, but then he got a complete breakdown and then started acting like a psycho. Some say this could have something to do with him growing up in an army base.
(Sorry for spelling or grammar mistakes)
p.s. It's not that I totally disagree with you. This is just what I learned.
In fact, as also reported by Suetonius, Galba, who succeed to Nero, had to walk over 10 000 dead civilians supporters of Nero, 6 months after the death of Nero, to enter into Rome. Nero was maybe not popular among the aristocracy, but he was surely popular among the people, to have 10 000 of them willing to oppose the Senate.. to death! Even added to that, and Otto (who assassinated Galba) and Vespasian started their rule claiming to continue the work .. of Nero! Vespasian would have not done that if Nero was unpopular, at that very time! (Maybe Otto would, though). One hundred years later, Suetonius, just after having been fired by emperor Hadrian, wrote his un-famous pamphlet like story of the first Caesars! Indirect vengeance?
The book of Revelations was written shortly after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. by Titus.In the eyes of both Jews and Christians,the destruction of this site,the holiest of them all,gave rise to the belief that the end of the world was aproaching.
I knew Caligula would be on there... He literally declared war on the sea. I thought Nero might be there too
Caligula "declared war on the sea" to punish a mutiny by having the high & mighty Roman soldiers pick up seashells because they refused to get on the ships to invade Britain. He probably wasn't as insane as was presented by substantially after-the fact propagandists like Suetonius...
@@nicholaswilley9001 I can’t remember much else about him off the top of my head, but I’m pretty sure he did some other crazy shit too. Also his own men turned on him and killed him so that’s usually a strong indicator of either a really bad, really crazy, or both kind of leader
Is it any suprise that they're related with each other?
There's a watch mojo uk!? Man, marathoning vids begin now lol
keshia hunter :D
keshia hunter I just found this out too I dont know why they have a channel for some specific country but I'll watch anyway
geez your hot...
ALL COUNTIES HAS HATE AND I'M GAY MALE AND LOVE ALL
kez_ h agreed
I saw henry 6th but not henry 8th. Thats just silly
Henry VIII was a giga chad
Henry VI lost the hundred years war and proved incompetent, not only that but was mentally unfit - he was often incapacitated by mental breakdowns. His misrule created the power vacuum which the nobles attempted to fill, leading directly to the wars of the roses
@@ottocooper4256 but he was in no way evil, he was mental (but not cruel) from being an incest child
@@fredbarker9201 congratulations for stating the obvious 😉
@@ottocooper4256 so did you
I consider Joseph Stalin The reincarnated of Ivan The terrible .😱
8:26 he forces hounds (towns) to pay loans
Sandor what are you doing you were the chicken eater , you were supposed to help hounds not swindle them.
was attila in the last clip played by the hound?
Edward Longshanks and Henry the Eighth should be on the list as well!
Tbh I wouldn’t say Edward because he was willing to get the land restored and said he’d do anything he had to the other reason for this though is he murdered loads of Scots in order to claim Scot with gave him the nickname Hammer of scots
Edward was a described by his fellows as a great and terrible king which is exactly the reputation you needed to keep control of a medieval kingdom and he was highly regarded at the time of his reign for keeping England safe and stable. He was nothing like the loon depicted in Braveheart. He was devoted to his wife and quite religious.He believed he had been appointed by God to keep England safe and that meant interferring in Scotland and Wales.
Edward Longshanks was actually a pretty good king as well as a good general. Don't get your history from Mel Gibson.
That's so really nice of you that you mentioned movies name ❤️
King John also locked 22 knights in a castle and left them to die of starvation.
Thing is, Vlad III isn't remembered as monster by Romania, but rather as a hero that defended his principality. Also those were all common methods of torture and execution back then, Vlad wasn't the only one who used them.
Damn, The Hound really got mad for not getting his chickens
The Hound as Attila the Hun
Get Hype
Attila the Hound
King Richard 1 spent very little time in England and so, when his brother John took over the crown, it was probably the best thing that every happened in this country.
Cause He was Fighting in the Crusades.
Caligula wanted a statue of himself erected in the Temple of Jerusalem for his worship.....That truly is a 21th century meme
You overlooked the fact that there were TWO Herods. The one who tried to kill Jesus as an infant (2 or 3 BC) and the one that reigned during Jesus' ministry. It's no wonder some think that the massacre in Bethlehem didn't happen. They're overlooking a very important detail and basing their conclusions on their ignorance.
There were 4 Herods I believe. Herod is kind of like a last name. Herod the Great was the first, then there was Herod who reigned during Jesus' ministry. There was Herod Agrippa who reigned when Paul ministered to the Gentiles. I think there was 1 more but I can't remember off the top of my head.
@@ah2451 Yes Agrippa II, the son of Herod Agrippa who ruled when Paul ministered as recorded in the Book of Acts.
Timothy Chapman they lost me when they brought up the Bible which NEVER HAPPENED
The massacre of Bethlehem happened during the reign of Herodes who massacred the children during the reign of Augustus of Rome.
why was he trying to kill Jesus?
I would personally put Timur the Lame instead of Attila, the dude massacred cities and stacked the heads of the dead in pyramids one source says of a pyramid made up of over 70,000 heads. I would also put the Qianlong Emperor for causing the extinction of the Dzungars, massacring over 500,000 men, women and children and finally I would put Hulegu Khan ahead of Genghis. The massacre in Baghdad in 1258 alone makes many of Genghis's atrocities pale in comparison, over a million men, women and children were killed along with every dog, cat and rat in the city. The Baghdad House of Wisdom was destroyed and legend says the Tigris and Euphrates ran black and red from the ink and blood from the massacre. The devastation was so great that the fertile crescent never again reached it's former glories and was left to rot, it continues to this day Syria and Iraq are a fucking shithole.
Tulga Badrakh I agree Timur was a monster, and its disgusting how some people still look up to the fucker
Tulga Badrakh read about nadir shah attack on Delhi ,or about mahmud of gazni ,or of Ahmed shah abdali
Tulga Badrakh totally agree he almost destroyed my country (Georgia) by invading it many times and killing thousands. Those were the darkest times in my country` history.
I was like, “where tf is Joffrey?” Then I realized that this wasn’t fictional LOL
Many on this list were undoubtedly ruthless, but not necessarily evil, Vlad and Genghis Khan for example were known for being brutal on those who opposed them, but they also did their job in securing their states and protecting the people who were loyal.
The fact that Vlad is put on this list means the person making it knows NOTHING about history. FAIL!
Why?
@@jordanscott4254 His actions stopped the Turks from taking over his country.
@@BrianScottGameNight well...they didnt did they?
@@jordanscott4254 you're on the spectrum.
True, during Vlad's reign thieves were close to non-existent, and that's a feat in itself especially for that era, and he was one of the only voievods that actually managed to protect his lands against the ottoman invaders, and by doing so, keeping the ottoman armies from ever reaching other European countries. Same goes for Attila, was he a ruthless leader? there is no doubt that his enemies saw him that way. But for his people, he was a god, and he did manage to conquer half of know world back then.
I imagine if we knew the names of the Aztec and Olmec kings this would be a very different list lol
ALSO, RICHARD II WAS JUST A LOVER OF FIGHT. HE WANTED TO DO BATTLE ALL THE TIME. THAT DID NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT HE WAS EVIL.
That's Richard I you are talking about there
Richard the 11 was not like that. In fact he was totally against the wars with France. He was in fact a piece loving man. This video is bullshit, they don't no anything.
And what about Edward Longshanks?
Victoria McReyd that fucker..
William the Conquerer.
What about him?
Is he outstandingly evil? I watched that film and just figured he was probably about par for the course in those days haha
He became Tywin Lannister in Game of Thrones
10. John was actually a hardworking King, the only problem was that he lacked consistency, one minute he was brilliant, the next he was terrible.
8. Vlad was brutal to be sure but was a necessary evil to fight the Ottoman Turks
7. Leopold II wasn't responsible for what happened in the Congo, he didn't know half the stuff that was going on in there.
2. Ivan was actually a great and effective leader that Russia needed for the time. most of his worst atrocities were against not the common people but the Boyar nobles who were greedy and corrupt. his nickname 'The Terrible' was actually used as a compliment because he was terrible to their ancient enemies the Tatars.
Leopold acknowledged it writing he was aware of human rights abuses in the Congo. He may not have been aware of the extent, that is true. But he knew, missionaries told stories.
To me that's like arguing Hitler didn't know the true extent of the Holocaust. He may not have. It doesn't make a difference. It happened in their name, they knew it was happening, they had the power to stop it and did nothing. I'm sorry that makes you just as responsible.
"Starved to death over lack of food."
You dont say
Also, Nero didn't fiddle...... I think he played lyre
eeshan vaidya
He apparently did neither I believe. But I think it was a metaphor for him literally doing nothing about the fire until it neared his palace.
Trials of Apollo?
Caligula is like the real life version of Joffrey
It would actually be very easy to make a list of the 10 000+ worst rulers in history but i challenge you to make a list of only 10 benevolent rulers.
very nice video
The character from "Rome" you show is Herod Agrippa, Herod the Great's nephew.
Vlad the Impaler is a hero in parts of Europe.
Attila wasn't a bad king !! Yes he was ruthless but without him the Huns would later fall apart.
Mao Zedong the late Chinese communist leader is easily number 1
You're right,but Mao wasn't a king.
Ο Τραπεζίτης/Τhe Banker yeah but neither was Caligula or Nero, this video was a poorly researched cashgrab there is no point arguing
As I scroll through the comments, I suddenly see Freddie Mercury. I'm happy to know that you're keeping up on your history Fred! 😅😅😅
Kings have not got to be King by being nice
Vlad was a hero to his people...
Vlad the impaler wasn't evil. He only defended his lands from the ottoman invaders 😔
Vlad was nightmarishly just
Aye he did. Still evil he was
Virtually any of the Assyrian rulers would easily out-evil half of this list.
Name of channel: WatchMojo UK
Number of English Kings on the list: 1 (3 if you count Honourable Mentions)
Chris Kasper IKR!! I feel offended rn 😑🇬🇧
It said "History" not "English History".
but this is the Watchmojo UK channel -_-
Yea no one gets ignored in history more than the english...
really? :o what about Portugal?
Caligula was Nero's uncle so the 🍎 didn't fall too far from the 🌳... Although considering Nero had sex with his sisters & Nero's Mom was one of those sisters, I wonder if Caligula wasn't Nero's uncle/Dad... That would explain Hero's extreme insanity...
Genghis Khan were just to his people, loyal to his friends and family who stood by him. He might be brutal and ruthless but that is the harsh way of the steppe. You have to be merciless to your enemies to survive in that time. He set his rules either become my friend and join me I will support you and not betray your people will be my people, I will treat them well or become my enemy and I will destroy you and your people. Modern people who live easy lives softened by the abrahamic monotheistic religions can not understand this. For me an evil ruler in medieval times is one who deliberately harms his own people, firends or family his own people curses him. Genghis on the other hand builded a great nation for his people and provided them with new riches, his people loved him till today. Thus he is a good man.
1.Pharoh Ramses II
2.Nimrod
3.Shadaad
You could probably fill up this entire list with Roman emperors
The hound as Attila? ....yeah I can actually see him do a great job there :D
THANK YOU for putting AD before the date (cf. Caligula)!!!!!!
1 million thumbs up!
Hitler, Stalin & Mao weren't exactly lightweights either. Let's wait a little while & see if Putin makes the list. He's a real go-getter.
Lorraine Clark that’s very funny
Lorraine Clark did you ready the title 10 most evil “kings”
What about Tamerlane? Was he not close to being a possible genocidal manic too?
When Caligula was assassinated by his own guards, that's karma for you.
i could name a few works leaders today who deserve the same treatment
Vlad the impaler was loved by his people, only the nobles hated him
Good clip but where can we go more in depth on King Leopard II?
Vlad Drakula wasn`t evil. He was fighting for independence of his country against MUCH stronger opponent. He had no other option than to be ruthless. And boy, he was. Still, pretty effective too, for a time. In fact there is no record that he really enjoyed his slaughters, rather he did that for strategic reasons.
He scared the crap out of the Muslim Turks. We need him in 2020.
Why do they not have Xerxes I of Persia here?! He walked on his own people
blasphemy
Henry viii should be mentioned...he likes to chop everyones head
Agreed
@@louisa5518 not just his wives but so many men who were once close advisors to him like Thomas More and Thomas Cromwell. Also anyone with the slightest relation to the Plantagenets (kings before the Tudors)
King of Swamp Castle: One day, lad, all this will be yours. Prince Herbert: What, the curtains?
And she got HUGE...tracks of land..!
Amazing
What about King Kong? He literally destroyed a city.
King kong is a hero!
Where is he when we need him now?
Nero, the biggest piece of rot to plague Rome.
U may have mentioned King Aurangzeb , The last Mughal emperor.
He may have killed , tortured and troubled many but he was nowhere as evil as anyone on this list. The worst Indian Emperors were definetly Alauddin Khilji, Mohommad bin Tugluq and Pushyamitra Shunga. Aurangzeb wasn't the last Emperor either, you still had Faruksiyahr, Mohommad Shah, Shah Alam and lastly Bahadur Shah Zafar. The first two still maiantined a lot of territory and power and were more tolerant than Aurangzeb,
@@nirupamakumar3917 you forgotten the main cruelest kings taimur,mohamed ghori,nadir shah.
They plundered delhi and literally killed every people irrespective of caste and religion
@@adharsharunkumar3801 Ghori wasn't as evil
Herod’s guards weren’t there just to protect him...they were there to keep him from committing suicide.
Herod had developed a mystery disease, which may have been Fournier’s gangrene. It was so advanced, he had dozens and dozens of maggots bursting through the skin. He suffered tremendous pain, digestive issues, and convulsions. Herod was in constant agony from his itchy, burning skin. He attempted to commit suicide a number of times, but the guards always stopped him. Eventually, he died, likely of kidney failure. Given all these facts, it’s possible Herod had diabetes.
For those wondering exactly where on Herod’s body had gangrene: it was his genitals.
Now that you know, start at the top and read this comment again. *Try not to cringe...if you can.*
Herod wasn't as bad as you say he was.
Sure he was paranoid and believed everyone was out to kill him, which led to some horrible stuff, like the killing of Jerusalem's rich and powerful (including his own wife), but he was also, at times, very supportive of both Hellenistic and Jewish citizens of Judah. Also, the entire story about him trying to kill Jesus is pretty much made up, as Herod was already dead when Jesus was actually born.
Vlad the Impaler did the best as a king in the entire Europe! Please get your facts right WM.... You can offend people.
Vlad was mostly fighting pretenders to the Wallachian crown. He killed more Wallachians than Ottomans, although he did manage to unify his country until the Ottomans had the bright idea of supporting one of the pretenders.
Where is Jofrrey?
obviously nowhere you fucking dipshit as hes fictional. goddamn fool
@@godemperorofmankind3.091 r/whooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooshhhhhhhhhhhh
Henry VI wasn't evil, he was just inept
I think Henry VIII should be number 1
Killed 2/6 wives
Boiled people in strong acid
Killed 72000 overall
Had some people's limbs ripped off by ropes on horses
Made a lot of people be under extreme poverty
Had constant wars with his neighbours
Even Shakespeare had nothing good to say about him
If you ask me, Henry's death was definitely his own doing because of his greed, tyranny and terror
Ghengis Khan is not a fair choice here. Cruel i war yes, just like every conquerer, but he was way less evil than most on this list. He accepted all religions, all ethnic groups and subjects. He created stability all over Asia. Power hungry, absolutely, but not evil.
#10 Substitute Henry VIII for John.
You never mentioned Henry the 8th . Oh I forgot he only slaughtered innocent women.🇮🇪
Oh no he didn't he killed thousands of people.
King Henry was a good king because he and the other tudors made england strong that’s why and we killed Anne Boleyn because she actually betrayed Henry and had sex with someone else and gave Henry a girl. Also it was only two wives that were exucuted
@@alfiehurst7049 Henry VIII was in no way a good king.
Many if the charges against his wives were total rubbish.
Thousands of people were killed because if him
@@alfiehurst7049 two wives both on drummed up charges and thousands of people.
Executing someone because they bore you a girl is ridiculous.
What about the torture he put Catherine of Aragon through by tearing her from her daughter..Then for bidding them to communicate with each other.
Can you imagine how traumatic it must have been for little Elisabeth to loose her mother at the age of 3.
There was nothing good about Henry at all.
He was a vile despot
@@jacquelinedeigan3913 I’m not saying he was polite he was strong and made england rich