Who is/was the most evil man in history?

True evil demands genius.

Bush is definitely aiming for the top 10 though...

"LXXV. The people were so glad of his death, that at the first news of it some ran about shouting, "Tiberius to the Tiber," while others prayed to Mother Earth and the Manes to allow the dead man no abode except among the damned. Still others threatened his body with the hook and the Stairs of Mourning, especially embittered by a recent outrage, added to the memory of his former cruelty. It had been provided by decree of the Senate that the execution of the condemned should in all cases be put off for ten days, and it chanced that the punishment of some fell due on the day when the news came about Tiberius. The poor wretches begged the public for protection; but since in the continued absence of Gaius there was no one who could be approached and appealed to, the jailers, fearing to act contrary to the law, strangled them and cast out their bodies on the Stairs of Mourning. Therefore hatred of the tyrant waxed greater, since his cruelty endured even after his death. When the funeral procession left Misenum, many cried out that the body ought rather to be carried to Atella, and half-burned in the amphitheatre; but it was taken to Rome by the soldiers and reduced to ashes with public ceremonies.

Obviously, it was a sign of God's displeasure with Turner for even talking out loud about colorizing Citizen Kane.

Hitler, Amin, and Pol Pot are up there pretty high.

Stalin was responsible for the deaths of, what, 20 or 30 million people?

Not that Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, Genghis Khan, Tamerlane, Caligula, Saddam Hussein, Himmler, Torquemada and Pauly Shore didn't perpetrate monstrous crimes of their own.

But Stalin's utter ruthlessness and lethality is on such a massive scale that he's really in a class by himself.

watching the Dallas reruns on SoapNet too?

Cheney (I don't think * was really in the loop -- too stupid)

Ivan the Great.
Depends on whether you were a Russian lead by him, or one of his enemies, I suppose.

That is a pretty good list.

+

that seems centuro-centric.

was a pretty evil son-of-a-bitch too.

Here is one that would freak some here out. Andrew Jackson for the trail of tears. It was not just a tragedy but his hatred of the Cherokees and other tribes was deep.

+

makes them even more evil. Hitler, for instance, presided over the #1 cultural and scientific nation in the history of the world up until that point--there's something about that which makes him even worse.

Here's who is in it:
Caligula
Nero
Attilla the Hun
King John
Torquemada
Prince Vlad Dracula
Francisco Pizarro
"Bloody" Mary I
Ivan IV "The Terrible"
Elizabeth, Countess Bathory
Rasputin
Josef Stalin
Adolf Hitler
Ilse Koch
Pol Pot
Idi Amin
The above is hardly a complete list, but it can at least give people ideas of who is in the running.
After reading the book, I would vote for Countess Bathory or Ilse Koch. Both of them, although they didn't end up killing as many victims as the other ones on the list, took a particular sick fascination with the idea of inflicting pain and the power that came with it. No real reason or goal to it, they just got off on the idea that they could hurt people. Monsters.

who sacked Baghdad and rampaged through the Moslem World?

I remember awful stories about that campaign. About the worst I ever heard for pure murder for terror's sake.

He was just a general for the Khan. Since the Mongols did not like cities, they tried to destroy as many as possible.

and don't think Mary belongs on the list anymore so than Edward I or Henry the VIII which a case could be made. There were also more Romans that should have made the list. History is full of cruel people. Unfortunately, the world currently has some as well. Hey, where's Saddam Hussein?;-)

I wouldn't have included Mary or John, personally. I don't think they did anything more evil than any other corrupt leader. The author herself said that the list is somewhat subjective too.
I'd still say Countess Bathory and Ilse Koch should be recorded as 2 of the most heinous, mean, evil people in history.

and my historical facts could be wrong (probably are), but legend has it that the Pope personally confronted Attila and persuaded him from sacking Rome. John Keegan's "History of Warfare" suggests that seasons ended Attila's horses' grazing and so he had to withdraw. Sparing Rome moves him down on the list.

Perhaps how evil you are has some measure of how successful a pirate (pyrate) you are.

I think whoever ends human life on earth will win the prize bigtime. I'm sure it's a cooperative effort, but due to technology, current efforts are amplified. If you don't count intent (or brains as the first post suggests), I think G.W.B. is breaking in front out of the gate. Hopefully, it will be a long, long race.

Really, to put him in the same league as Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot is unimaginable. His role as a German spy is very much unproven, so what's left? Did he adulterate his way to infamy?

I read him as a minor miscreant, whose murderers (especially Prince Felix Yussupov) are far more deserving of the "evil award".

I assume he's on the list because of fame, really. The rationale behind calling him evil is that he misled the Russian roayl family into a "depraved" state-things got pretty weird under his influence, almost like a cult.

better known as Tammarlane. 2-3 generations after Gengis Khan, he took the Mongels and gave them the reputation we still know them by... as bloodthirsty, double dealing barbarians. If Hitler had to slaughter people the hard way, he'd be no match for Tammarlane. If Tammarlane had the technology of Hitler and Stalin, most of mankind would have ceased to exist.

See my post. The best interpretation I've seen is that the Mongols saw all other people as herd animals to be slaughtered. It sort of set the paradigm as far as recorded history goes. Everyone else has been trying to play catch up.

Timur was unrelated to Ghengis (Timugen) Khan. He claimed to be his great Nephew, but almost certainly wasn't.

The reputation of the Mongels was made by Timur; the acts ascribed to Ghengis were commited by Timur almost 60 years later. Timur was the guy making pyramids of skulls where towns used to be; Ghengis liked trade goods too much to slaughter everybody in a city without a reason.

Has to be Stalin...we'll never know the exact number of millions of people killed in eastern europe by this monster, but I know he far exceeded Hitler.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I'll let the mods handle this instead.

n/t

it's a close toss up between cheney and KKKarl Rove.

Read the history. Best pronunciation...Jengis. See "Wait, Wait Don't Tell Me" or listen to British historians.

This thread should stay alive. There should be thousands of entries. Some would include husbands and wives. (But no one that I've ever been married to.) (Sorry for any typos...both hands in casts.)

But from evil, good things can come. Here's some propaganda, then look deeper.
http://www.lacma.org/khan/intro/

It has to be Tinki Winki. The good Rev. Fartwell sez he is the biggest menace in the world,yes verily,Satan himself!!...Run for your lives!!!!!!

Tinki Winki cavorts with Stalin, Pol Pot, Genghis Khan and others... (by making an appearance on this thread)... oh my goodness - Falwell was right... *gasp*

I've had a couple beers and I get a little mischevious when I pop a top sometimes. :evilgrin:

And that is funny as hell! Poor ole Tellitubbies or is is Tellytubbies?

Have the potential to go down as some of the most diabolical motherfuckers in history. By the very nature of what they do,they can easily convince a shitload of people that evil is good and vice versa.

Whether you are a religious person or not, from an historical perspective they are so far from what Jesus actually taught. I don't know whom I despise more, Falwell, Robertson, tele-evangelists like Robert Titlton or the people who are dumb enough to follow them.

I have it from people who know him, that Falwell knows it himself.

Perhaps that makes him more evil, no ... eh? Probably not.

Try watching that with a toddler at 7 in the morning before a cup of coffee. It makes your head spin.

Evil! I tell you! Evil!

Thank God my little ones are more into The Wiggles.

I'm just rolling on the floor, laughing. I needed that. Thanks!

It seems most here are picking leaders of something whether it be countries, explorations, the Church, etc...

But what about these guys:

John Wayne Gacy
Jeffery Dahmer
Charles Manson
Dr. Harold Shipman (Killed 200 patients in England)
Ted Bundy
David Berkowitz
Timothy McVeigh
Wayne Williams (The guy who murdered those African-American children in Atlanta in the early eighties)
Erzebet Bathory (killed and mutilated 600 victims in Hungary in the 16th century)
Andrei Chikatilo (Killed 53 in Russia)
Pedro Lopez (Killed 300 girls in Colombia, Ecuador and Peru)
Bruno Ludke (Killed 80 in Germany)
Henry Lee Lucas (claims to have killed 200)

Also, I am surprised no one mention Saddam Hussein, whether you are against the war or not, that man was evil as were his sons, especially Udai.

but a mass hysteria that unleashes homicidal attacks...

on one scale - the environment that led some areas to have relatively frequent lynchings.

on a much larger scale - the rampage in Rwanda.

What about the racial cleansing in the Balkans too?

but was that state directed - or mass public hysteria? End result is evil - either way.

So maybe Milosevic needs to be on the list.

The Inquisition,The Crusades,The Salem Witch Trials etc. etc.
Talk about mass hysteria.

hadn't thought of the witch trials. Would count the first two as institution directed (earlier eras where the church had a much power as a state).. and the latter while church related - conducted through mass hysteria.

but of course the Inquisition didn't just ocurr in Spain, but Torquemada did take it too extremes. The Salem Witch Trials was evil hysteria. It's sort of like the far Christian Right of today. They can't live their lives because they see evil in everything. They live in fear.

As an undergraduate Philosophy major, Hitler was always used as an example whenever the problem of evil was discussed. My problem with using him as an example, was it failed to examine how he could appeal to what otherwise was a somewhat rational nationality. It "romanticized" evil. "How could Hitler appeal to a non-evil people?" If asked, the answer sometimes came back that the people were evil. Not the best choice. See current events.

The current administration likes to personify evil. See bin Laden, see Saddam, see Sadr. Let's hope history is kind.

The excesses of the Cultural Revolution devastated the country, destroyed or crippled its intellectual capital, and of course the Han Chinese were often brutal with the other ethnic groups in the area. It was within maybe the past 10 years or so that we saw a new era of "tolerance" where the name of a given ethnic group was no longer followed by the word "dogs".

In HS I saw film of mass executions. I've had nightmares ever since. For that, I'll put him in my top 10.

And as far as the most evil man in history, I don't think we will ever know the answer to that question.

as evil takes place....


.......such a thing enables evil and allows it to flourish.........

it's hard to pick just one. There are also the Turks who killed off Armenians for no good reason. And people in Bombay in the early 90's who thought it would be a good idea to pour gasoline on children and light them on fire.

Chairman Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Adolf Eichman, Emperor Hirohito....and the list goes on.

Imagine Hitler pointing at Bush and telling God, "Well, at least I'm not that bad."

Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, and Mussolini are the biggies, but then what? The Caesars? Some were certainly brutal, Tiberius has been mentioned already, Nero and Caligula were no angels, Julius himself has plenty to answer for. The early Chinese emperors of the Han dynasty were at least as vicious. Barbarian leaders, like Atilla and Genghis Kahn? History has shown them to be somewhat misunderstood -- if still quite ruthless -- and their personification of evil is qualified by their upbringing. Tomas de Torquemada? A perpetrator of great evil, to be sure, yet very much the product of a religious institution; it's hard to see him as the personification of the evil that spanned all of Europe under some very loose guidelines.

I think we have to start looking at "Indy" evil, the small-label stuff, the petty things our historians would just as soon forget. Idi Amin, Fulgencio Batista, Anastasio Somoza, Augusto Pinochet, all come to mind. But there's one guy who really stands out: Roberto D'Aubisson, leader of El Salvador's fascist Arena party, who organized the infamous death squads that killed so many thousands in cold blood, leaving their corpses to rot in the sun of El Playon. Even the murderous SOB who followed him, Jose Napoleon Duarte, was a mild mannered reformer by comparison.

For some reason, D'Aubisson's US-backed legacy of atrocities seem to have slipped away into the cellars of history.

as such but this thread seems to take it as the most bloodthirsty or the person with the biggest "kill count" - if you look at it in terms of percentgaes of population then the monsters of the 20th century don't even get a look in.

Anyway - most of the people mentioned from the 20th century in this thread didn't act alone, the people who collaborated or looked the other way are every bit as much to blame for the slaughters of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler etc

the Ayatollah in particular.

but I will add Heinrich Himmler and Reinhard Heydrich to the list. They have the distinction of being among the worst of the worst.
Scott

followed by Torquemada.

Followed closely by Hitler, Idi Amin, and David Arquette.

Just throwing it out there, prolly not number 1.


I think the correct method of answering this question isn't asking "How many people did they kill?" but "What events did they intentionally put into motion that killed the most people?"

Hitler started WWII AND the Holocaust resulting in 54 millions some-odd deaths; so he's up there.

UK kind of evil.

The money that they deprive the people in that country is shameful. I really don't know how they can live with themselves. You should only be able to have the wealth they have if you CONTRIBUTE TO society and CREATE wealth. You shouldn't be able to have that kind of wealth from depriving society of wealthy and taking wealth out of society.

They really have no excuse either. It's the 21st century. They need to get with the times.

But on a measure of murderous evilness, and not just wealth and happiness depriving evilness, the answer is obviously Hitler -- who actually liked the royal family enough not to bomb their palaces inentionally (they accidently dropped a bomb on Windsor palace once, but nobody was hurt).

Stalin is up there, higher on the list than Hitler for sheer body count.

Heydrich was a serious SOB, so was Mengele and Von Ribbentrop and Himmler and Eichmann.

Surprised I haven't seen Mao on this list - his Cultural Revolution oversaw the deaths of 10's if not 100's of thousands.

The Cultural Revolution was high Stalin-esque butchery. Like a Pol Pot inspiration tape.

+

So let's just say: any man who ever let children starve, made them ill, or mutilatated them on purpose.

Surely Hitler, et Al, could be "evil", but they were just horribly misguided, and thought what they were doing was for the benefit of (their version of) mankind. I don't mean to be apologist for them at all, especially on Holocaust Remembrance Day (is it official, or just here?) but while Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc, may have had higher body counts, it's one thing to send an order to do something, and wholly another to do it.

Also, there's a few mass murderers out there who fit the bill, and are most certainly evil bastards, but don't fit the "most evil" category simply by comparison. Berkowitz, Dahmer, Gacy, Bundy, Gein, etc.

Elizabeth Bathory, IMO, is the most "evil" female of all time. she reveled in physically torturing people, and mutilated young girls to bathe in their blood, because she felt the blood rejuvenated her skin. She personally, or through the help of 4 of her chambermaids, killed almost 700 people over ten years, and when she was finally caught, had several more battered victims still alive, waiting to be killed.

As for the most evil male of all time, that has to go to the Auschwitz "doctors". I'm not even going to try and compare each of them to try determine if Mengele was worse than Clauberg, or Oberhauser (who I know is a woman, but she fits here) was worse than or vice versa, because there's no way anyone could do it.

It kind of makes you wonder what we don't know, though. After all, the victors write the history books, and if the Nazis had won the war, we'd be regarding them as heroes. I wonder how many of our "heros" were really monsters that we don't know about...