I would go with Vlad the Impaler. He's more like an anti-hero kind of dictator.
Actually Stalin racked up more kills than Hitler. Its only because Russians have a love/hate relationship with him, The west never got to kill him or cause his removal that we perceive Hitler as the big bad. Also his crimes where against mostly his own people and due to being a commie and enemy of the west he doesnt get much coverage in history class. Also he didnt try to annihilate a entire minority of people but rather isolated cases within many class divides, ethnic groups etc. All due to his incredible paranoia.
But I picked Napolean because quite simply he is the greatest military general ever.
That's because his minions euthanized him at his request the day before justice was to be served. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_potIt was an interesting social experiment, wasn't it? Everyone is equal in the eyes on Ankgar, that is unless you where educated, lived in urban areas, spoke a different language besides Khmer, or even wore glasses. A truly progessive society. I do have one question: Why wasn't Pol Pot strung up and gutted? I mean it's the least that could have been done to him for his fine contribution to the world.
No way , he got beat all the time , ended up running and hiding , it has to be Ghengis Khan for military
Actually Stalin racked up more kills than Hitler. Its only because Russians have a love/hate relationship with him, The west never got to kill him or cause his removal that we perceive Hitler as the big bad. Also his crimes where against mostly his own people and due to being a commie and enemy of the west he doesnt get much coverage in history class. Also he didnt try to annihilate a entire minority of people but rather isolated cases within many class divides, ethnic groups etc. All due to his incredible paranoia.
But I picked Napolean because quite simply he is the greatest military general ever.
Wasn't he a great Christian leader fighting off the Muslim hoards?
I would go with Vlad the Impaler. He's more like an anti-hero kind of dictator.
Yadda yadda....England is geographically lucky its a island....Napolean busted his nuts in Russia just as Hitler would do later nuff said.
PS> Genghis Khan conquering most of China and Russia which is "half of the world" in this time period doesnt impress me, Dont get me wrong woefully arrogant of when this took place but I reckon if it was ancient greece time, The greeks probably would have handed him his ass......If later then the romans would have.
It was the guerilla aspect the romans couldnt handle and also the hard as nails highlanders who hung up around the mountains......Egypt was also powerful you just really cant compare. Old Gengis fought other clans and shit who fought the exact same way nearly all on horse back......Thing is ancient greece and romans has what ya call strategy and formations.....They would have specialist legionnaire squadrons as well as their own cavalry that could break a cavalry charge.....Pikes man.
Anyway I am digressing......NAPOLEAN FOR THE WIN(FTW)
That's because his minions euthanized him at his request the day before justice was to be served. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_pot
QUOTE]
I forgot about that! Makes sense though bullies (dictators) are usually cowards. Well if the is a hell he's roasting like a pig on a spit.
That's what was great about him. He fought Muslims. :hatsoff:
And what about François "Papa Doc" Duvalier, Hugo Chavez, Francisco Franco, Muammar al-Gaddafi and Mobutu Sese Seko?
Where is Idi Amin??? :dunno:
Well if you can conquer half the world on a horse , I would say that was some going & the Romans couldnt even conquer Scotland in there prime so they werent that great , thats why they built a wall to keep the Scots out & as for the Geeks they never wrote about there failures a bit like the Egyptians , so you only hear one side of the story & thats is how folklore and legends are built...................on myth
Yeah, and then he got dumped and imprisoned by the catholic church just for doing what they told him to do. VLAD, VLAD, VLAD!!!![]()
The Romans never had any wish or intention to conquer Scotland.They came to Britain for two reasons-they believed it had great wealth and it was a source of problems as opponents to Rome used it as a safe haven.They were protecting a flank.By the time Britannia was pacified and settled there was a political decision made not to extend the Empire.Hadrian's wall was never intended to keep the Scots out-how could it?-it was a demonstration of power.
As for the greatest general of all time, how about Alexander the Great? Or even the Duke of Marlborough who never lost a battle?