The Most Evil People with title "The Great"

The Most Evil of All? (keep in mind that this is a multiple-choice poll, and therefor

  • Akbar the Great

    Votes: 14 8.5%
  • Alexander the Great

    Votes: 25 15.2%
  • Alfred the Great

    Votes: 4 2.4%
  • Antiochus the Great

    Votes: 9 5.5%
  • Catherine the Great

    Votes: 23 14.0%
  • Charlemagne the Great

    Votes: 13 7.9%
  • Constantine the Great

    Votes: 11 6.7%
  • Cyrus the Great

    Votes: 6 3.7%
  • Darius the Great

    Votes: 11 6.7%
  • Frederick the Great

    Votes: 10 6.1%
  • Gustavus the Great

    Votes: 8 4.9%
  • Justinian the Great

    Votes: 9 5.5%
  • Otto the Great

    Votes: 3 1.8%
  • Peter the Great

    Votes: 17 10.4%
  • Pompey the Great

    Votes: 12 7.3%
  • Timur the Great

    Votes: 119 72.6%
  • Theodoric the Great

    Votes: 11 6.7%
  • Theodosius the Great

    Votes: 6 3.7%
  • Xerxes the Great

    Votes: 26 15.9%
  • Other (please mention)

    Votes: 7 4.3%

  • Total voters
    164
Why is Gustavous in this poll?

He was a great king and a great man!:mad: Get him off this poll!

Then again 1632 might had made him too sympathetic. But Eric Flint said that he had the rapists and theives in his army exicuted. And pretty much every darn army in the 30 year's war did that. It was also nothing compared to the sack Madenburg(hope I got it right) by Count Tilly. So get him off this poll!

Also Fiedeck the great was just awesome, that is all.
 
Probably the most religiously-tolerant ruler in the Mediterranean in the 5th or 6th centuries, and you single him out as a persecutor? He was flawed. He wasn't as tolerant as we would expect of our time. But he denounced pogroms, and took measures to prevent them. And you don't single out his contemporary Justianian, who was a persecutor?
No, he wasn't.
Theodoric in his final years was no longer the disengaged Arian patron of religious toleration that he had seemed earlier in his reign. "Indeed, his death cut short what could well have developed into a major persecution of Catholic churches in retaliation for measures taken by Justinian in Constantinople against Arians there"[3]

Theodoric was of Arian faith. At the end of his reign quarrels arose with his Roman subjects and the Byzantine emperor Justin I over the Arianism issue. Relations between the two nations deteriorated, although Theodoric's ability dissuaded the Byzantines from waging war against him. After his death, that reluctance faded quickly.
Theodoric the Great was an Arian Christian and despised by the Catholic Church for a persecution resulting in the deaths of Boethius, Symmachus, and Pope John I. Theodoric's death shortly after these killings was seen as divine retribution and in a church tradition dating at least from Gregory the Great's Dialogues,

And the fact that Justinian was an Arian persecutor doesn't really affect the fact that Theodoric was a Catholic persecutor.
 
That's very clever!

I'd vote for Timur - I'm not really sure what his positive vision was, but it was to be achieved by mass death and destruction

Maybe he was just misunderstood?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
He believed he was the inheritor of Genghis Khans empire and believed he should take his birthright by force, he was pretty crazy.
 
And the fact that Justinian was an Arian persecutor doesn't really affect the fact that Theodoric was a Catholic persecutor.

The fact that one stands out as a persecutor [in matters of religion], and the other stands out as being relatively tolerant, does matter. And I don't trust your sources here and I do wonder what you are trying to do.

There's no real evidence to suggest that Theodoric persecuted anyone over religious differences. Whereas Theodosius and Justinian both shut down opposing churches, and Justinian crucified non-trinitarian clergy. There's no dispute that Theorodic faced repeated Byzantine attacks, raids, and conspiracies, and there's no reason to assume his actions persecuted them for religious reasons instead of for suspected involvement in these conspiracies. Making him about as nasty and paranoid as any other ruler.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, because we aren't the person who invented gun or sword, then it's perfectly fine if we kill people around by using these weapons.

Good job, sir. :rolleyes:
So you condone execution as a whole? It makes no real difference, and frankly, you can't call him evil for this. It wasn't part of his grand plan or anything, and frankly the same way you could call the Rajputs themselves evil for imbuing in their women the idea of self-immolation if they were to go fight a battle which they could not win. Not to mention that before Akbar, this act (sati) and child-marriage were legal and he banned those things, as well as bringing the Mughal economy to an all time high. He wasn't evil. The act may be evil, but as a man, he wasn't.
 
Herod the Great. What a bastard! As Caesar Augustus said, better to be his pig than his son! (Or wife, or other sons.) Secular history makes the sacred history of the slaughter of the innocents believable.
 
The fact that one stands out as a persecutor [in matters of religion], and the other stands out as being relatively tolerant, does matter. And I don't trust your sources here and I do wonder what you are trying to do.
I'm trying to say that Alexander and Timur aren't the only "Great" people who have done some evil things, and that people like Akbar, Charlemagne, or Cyrus weren't peaceful and benevolent rulers who going around by spreading sunshine and rainbows everywhere.

I dare to say that the only things that "biased" here are some opinions of the posters who refused to accept the fact that their "heroes" possessed some degree of evilness.

And it's perfectly fine if you are preferring some historical sources, but refusing to trust the other ones. It's called, ah, a "personal liberty".
So you condone execution as a whole? It makes no real difference, and frankly, you can't call him evil for this.
So you don't?
And anyway, I can't call a person who has deliberately and purposefully slaughtered the whole inhabitants of a city as evil? Really?
He wasn't evil. The act may be evil, but as a man, he wasn't.
"Nazi Germany wasn't evil. The Holocaust may be evil, but as a country, it wasn't."
How can those entire statements make any sense at all?
 
I'm trying to say that Alexander and Timur aren't the only "Great" people who have done some evil things, and that people like Akbar, Charlemagne, or Cyrus weren't peaceful and benevolent rulers who going around by spreading sunshine and rainbows everywhere.

Compared to the other "greats" like Charlemagne, Timur, and Alexander the others really arent bad at all. Certainly they made a few questionable decisions and did a few bad things but they where very good by the standards of their day. Standards of their day. Standards of their day. You are holding them to standards we would set for modern leaders when they where legitimately some of the most progressive leaders in the world during their reign.
 
People voting for Alexandros while Timur is on the list makes me very disappoint. Compared to that maniac, even Alex seems like a saint.
 
Top