Mithras

Misanthrope
If you were in charge of a politics course, and you had to find Kings/Emperors/Presidents/Prime Ministers to use as examples of what NOT to do, who would you pick?

King Jayanegara of Majapahit - Turns out, lusting after not just the wives of nobles and the greatest statesman in South East Asia, but also your Physician is a one way ticket to a darwin award

King Charles I of England - Alienating parliament to the point of outright civil war

James Buchanan, US President - Handled the issue of the looming Civil war in the worst possible way

King Louis XVI of France - There's a reason France associates Kings with Beheading
 
Adolph Hitler-Murdered millions, picked a fight with three superpowers at once, got his country bombed into oblivion, invaded, and split in half. Hard to beat that.
 
I mean, the obvious answer is to look for people who took powerful, dynamic countries and managed to destroy them. Hitler was going to come up in that context. (Conversely Japan's leaders get off the hook because Japanese leadership was A Mess and blame cannot be apportioned easily.)

Conversely, Charles I, Louis XVI, and James Buchanan actually escape this one simply because their countries manage to survive them; wounded, perhaps, but still very much viable. Louis didn't even manage to successfully end the monarchy, thanks Napoleon.

In that vein, I'd nominate Sulla: his efforts to ensure the Roman Republic at any cost instead took vital slack out of the system so that it could no longer accommodate people like Pompey and Caesar. Similarly, before Sulla Pompey's quote about "When will you cease prating of laws to those of us with swords at our sides?" that ultimately defined so much of the politics of the Roman Empire would have been a far less likely occurrence.
 
Last edited:
Honorable mention goes to Vlad Tepes of Wallachia. When you bring up the murder of a large percentage of your own people through driving a stake from their anus to outside their chest cavity, for offenses such as stealing, and the response you get is, "yeah but those were the kinds of people who deserved it" it doesn't make your legacy any better than becoming the Dracula of later generations.
 
Nicholas II. His misrule ensured that the nails were hammered into the coffin of Monarchy in Russia.
I like the section of China Mieville's October dealing with the Tsar during the events of the February Revolution.
Rodzianko telegraphed the tsar.
'The situation is serious.' His warning sped along the wires by the railway lines, across the hard countryside to Mogilev. 'There is anarchy in the capital. The government is paralysed. It is necessary immediately to entrust a person who enjoys the confidence of the country with the formation of a new government. Any delay is equivalent to death. I pray God that in this hour responsibility will not fall upon the sovereign.'
Nicholas did not reply.
The next morning Rodzianko tried again. 'The situation is growing worse. Measures must be adopted immediately, because tomorrow will be too late. The last hour has come when the fate of the fatherland and the dynasty is being decided.'
At the High Command headquarters, Count Vladimir Frederiks, Nicholas' imperial household minister, waited politely whilst his master read the message unspooling from the machine. 'That fat Rodzianko has written me some nonsense,' the tsar said at last, 'to which I will not even reply.'
 
Rodzianko telegraphed the tsar.
'The situation is serious.' His warning sped along the wires by the railway lines, across the hard countryside to Mogilev. 'There is anarchy in the capital. The government is paralysed. It is necessary immediately to entrust a person who enjoys the confidence of the country with the formation of a new government. Any delay is equivalent to death. I pray God that in this hour responsibility will not fall upon the sovereign.'
Nicholas did not reply.
The next morning Rodzianko tried again. 'The situation is growing worse. Measures must be adopted immediately, because tomorrow will be too late. The last hour has come when the fate of the fatherland and the dynasty is being decided.'
At the High Command headquarters, Count Vladimir Frederiks, Nicholas' imperial household minister, waited politely whilst his master read the message unspooling from the machine. 'That fat Rodzianko has written me some nonsense,' the tsar said at last, 'to which I will not even reply.'
And on that note, the ending of a dynasty has ended with the mandatory canned laughter of a sitcom.
 
Last edited:
Francis II of France may not have been the "worst" but he looks as if he wasn't really suited for the job.
 
I like the section of China Mieville's October dealing with the Tsar during the events of the February Revolution.

It's not without its flaws (work work isn't), but it's a good book and I'd easily recommend it on the subject.

As for bad leaders...hmm, I suppose the first and last sovereign of the Empire of China*, General Yuan Shikai deserves some honorable mention, even next to the comparative failures of the leaders of the Republic of China upon its defeat in the Civil War, or in the darkest days of the Pacific War before that, or the leaders of the People's Republic during the Great Leap Forward, or the KMT purges in Shanghai, etc.. While people have gotten more tolerant and perhaps come to see him as pathetic as much as anything, in his own era he was basically looked with the sort of scorn reserved for the aforementioned Adolf Hitler: the fragile republic that came with an enormous economic and human cost, seemingly the lone hope for the civic future for almost a half billion people, snuffed out because of one man's ego and self-aggrandizement. Any man could've been a military dictator--Sun was one too, and he wouldn't be the last--but it took a special kind of reactionary conservative to decide that the title of generalissimo wasn't enough, and what was good for him, and by extension the rest of the country, was a doomed effort to rewind the clock and bring back the delusion of a monarch mandated by heaven over a glorious empire from Burma to Mongolia.

You know it's bad when, during the martial law period, it's not Mao or Zhou Enlai that my mother's generation told the most memorable jokes about. It's the would-be Emperor Yuan. They're generally like this:

Yuan Shikai watched a basketball game. He was impressed by the players' talents, but asked a courtier, 'Why don't we just give each man their own ball and solve the problem?'

Of course, he has some redeeming qualities (I suppose even Hitler backed the Autobahn), but they're all inevitably buried in his catastrophic failures, and how close he came to smothering the Chinese Republic in its cradle for the worst reasons possible. Its one thing both sides of the civil war could agree upon, in fact. Maybe if Yuan's meager accomplishments weren't so weakly meager (and often undermined by other things he did), he'd be given some credit, but instead he's just another failed Emperor, except without the excuse of the dynastic emperors that they hardly had any other option.

*See what I did there?
 
Last edited:
Constantine I of Greece - Wikipedia

The guy that almost declared war to the Entente at WW1 was ousted and when he returned took the Greece of 2 continents and 5 seas and reduced it in half? And all that in a measly 2 years. I mean he did not outright destroy it but sure it must rate up there?

Good general. Horrible ruler/
 
Last edited:
It's kind of an interesting question the more I think on it. Some, like Hitler and Pol Pot, are so obviously evil rulers with inhumane stupidity that at first glance they seem to fit the bill completely but regardless of what they did with their power they had to navigate the politics of their time, inspire followers, and then take control at decisive moments in order to get there in the first place. It's the ones that were handed power on a silver platter and then still fucked everything up that I feel are clearer examples of the worst rulers ever.

Nicholas II and Louis XVI are obvious examples of this, bumbling through life and seeing the destruction of their dynasties as the people rose up against them but one of the best examples, in my opinion, would be Leopold II who ran the Congo so badly, to the point that near 10 million Congolese died under his rule which was close to half the population, that the international community stepped in. When you have France telling you that you're running your colonies harshly, then you know you've fucked up.
 
Whether you count him as a ruler is perhaps questionable (he was more a leader of a rebel movement, but it did hold some defined territory for a decade or so), but surely Hong Xiuquan, the self-proclaimed Chinese son of God, warrants a mention?

He spent most of his time secluded in his palace in Nanking, transcribing his conversations with dad and beating his wives, whilst the vacuum of leadership left his generals to squabble amongst themselves (...culminating in them murdering each-other and massacring tens of thousands of each-others followers) and allowed his worthless brothers accrue too much influence because he was suspicious of everyone else.

The Taiping 'Heavenly Kingdom' which he led also implemented policies that alienated literally all of their possible supporters (banning opium and treating proper Chinese Christians poorly to scare off Europeans, advocating radical land reform to freak out gentry, angering the masses by destroying traditional idols and temples etc.).



Also, maybe that guy who led Paraguay into a war with Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay, which resulted in the country suffering catastrophic casualties?
 
Whether you count him as a ruler is perhaps questionable (he was more a leader of a rebel movement, but it did hold some defined territory for a decade or so), but surely Hong Xiuquan, the self-proclaimed Chinese son of God, warrants a mention?

He spent most of his time secluded in his palace in Nanking, transcribing his conversations with dad and beating his wives, whilst the vacuum of leadership left his generals to squabble amongst themselves (...culminating in them murdering each-other and massacring tens of thousands of each-others followers) and allowed his worthless brothers accrue too much influence because he was suspicious of everyone else.

The Taiping 'Heavenly Kingdom' which he led also implemented policies that alienated literally all of their possible supporters (banning opium and treating proper Chinese Christians poorly to scare off Europeans, advocating radical land reform to freak out gentry, angering the masses by destroying traditional idols and temples etc.).



Also, maybe that guy who led Paraguay into a war with Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay, which resulted in the country suffering catastrophic casualties?


That leader of Paraguay would be Francisco Solano López Who's leadership saw Paraguay's compete and utter defeat in the war of the triple alliance with the war ending only with his death as well his counrty's population of 525,000 being reduced to 221,000, 106,254 of which were female, 28,746 were male, and 86,079 were children. It also left Paraguay in complete ruin in massive foreign debt and occupied for six years after the war finally ended.
 
That leader of Paraguay would be Francisco Solano López Who's leadership saw Paraguay's compete and utter defeat in the war of the triple alliance with the war ending only with his death as well his counrty's population of 525,000 being reduced to 221,000, 106,254 of which were female, 28,746 were male, and 86,079 were children. It also left Paraguay in complete ruin in massive foreign debt and occupied for six years after the war finally ended.
And the only reason Paraguay exists to this day is because the President of the United States stepped in to make sure some of it was left.

What about Bokassa and his self-styled Central African Empire? Which somehow bankrupted the entire nation just through the coronation ceremony.
 
Akhenaten was pretty bad. I get wanting to reduce the influence of the priesthood and get he had his religious beliefs but trying to force Monotheism on an empire that kind of depends on the priesthood to actually function is what one would call a bad idea.
 
Leopold II, Caligula, Nero, Pol Pot, and definitely Constantine I of Greece for losing large swathes of Balkan Greek territory as well as delivering victory to the Turks. I added Caligula and Nero because, not only were they handed everything and all power without having to work with it, they were so transparently tyrannical egomaniacs, that Caligula actually ordered the statues of the Gods to be remade with his face on them all. I mean... the dude literally fancied himself a god. Not to mention his extravagant self-aggrandizement projects resulted in a financial crisis and famine in AD 39, and some of them were some utterly Redneckian stupidity such as fucking race tracks and large phallic obelisks and what have you. Large wastes of time like sending the military out to collect fucking sea shells. And Nero got himself killed over ridiculous tax policies inciting rebellion. There may have been worse Roman Emperors and if anyone knows of them off hand feel free to add addenda...
 
Back
Top