Which historical villain gets a bad rap?

Who was just misunderstood? Who was truly evil? Who was merely lame?

On edit - I voted for Richard.

Despite the revisionism...

Except maybe Nero and Caligula. Napoleon is interesting, as he may not be a villain at all, it all depends on which side you take on his wars.

napoleon was a big fat lyer.

Who's trying to restore his reputation.

And I refuse to mention that person's name.

Terry

...I believe William F. Buckley wrote some stuff too...

The flagship conservative magazine, was a McCarthyite rag at its inception. The guy's been a lifelong McCarthy apologist.

many of the Revolutionary leaders thought so too and said as much so B. Arnold thought he should be the spokesman given that he was already a hero and was G. Washington's friend. I can think of worse people. Bush will be considered more of a traitor if the Dems write history, a hero if the Repubs write it. B. Arnold became the scapegoat of a failed mission and the icon of betrayal.

Most of the stuff written about him was written by his enemies, arguably to demonize him. To his people, he was a real hero. Now, everyone thinks he was Dracula.

And is impaling your enemies really all that bad? I mean, consider it in the context of medieval warfare, where enemies were stabbed, sliced, chopped, butchered, spooned, forked, shellacked, buttered, cooked and ripped apart on a daily basis. Impaling fits right in.

Have you ever read about his solution to the homeless? He gathered them up, held a feast, locked the doors and torched the place.

He wasn't genocidal as some historical villians...Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot...

Terry

I suppose the villain reputation comes from his obsession with war.

can apply to some current world leaders as well.

Terry

I am pretty ambivalent towards Napoleon.

Napoleon was very much a mixed bag, but he spread modernity throughout Europe.

such as the Napoleonic code of law.

I'd say all are somewhat unjustly maligned, with the possible exceptions of Genghis Khan and Vlad the Impaler, about whom its kind of hard to say much of anything good.

And it just isn't a poll without Genghis!

But then maybe I'm just blinded by her beauty and female charms ... or at least wish I was.

In his march through Ireland, he is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths. His "To Hell or Connaught" campaign sent 50,000 as slaves to the West Indies.

In Drogheda, the old, the women, and children sought sanctuary in the church. After dispatching the defenders of the town, he had the church doors barred and burned to the ground with all inside.

He was an absolutely evil piece of work.

by their treatment of the Irish, you're going to come up with a very short list of good English.

A few years after his death, his body was removed from Westminster Abbey, hanged, drawn & quartered. The head was detached & put on display, the body was tossed into a pit.

still can't get a break.

I may be biased toward the head of the House of York as a Yorkshireman but there is little denying that the Tudors did do quite a bit of "historical revisionism" on the guy. Not to mention Shakespeare's play of course.

There's as much evidence that Richard murdered the Princes as there is that Margaret Beaumont, Henry Buckingham or Henry Tudor did. That is, very little. Richard strikes me as the perfect patsy for a series of inconvenient actions.

Henry Tudor was a much better king than Richard. He may not have been a very nice guy, but he brought the Renaissance to England, and with it learning, prosperity and power.

Richard was likely what we would today call a religious fundamentalist, but Henry usurped a crown he had very little claim to. The fact that he was a successful monarch only adds to the complexity of the era.

is because of the massive historical revisionism Henry instigated against Richard III when he became king. The only reason any of that came to England is because the wars of the roses had ended.

Plus he fathered Henry VIII whom I dislike intensly.

Henry Tudor was a master propagandist. There's no doubt about that. Tudor goons, Thoms More notable among them, did much to attack Richard's character. But you can't deny that Henry Tudor brought the Renaissance to England. Richard didn't bring Torrigiano to England. Richard didn't destroy the nobility and crack down on the Church. Richard didn't build the Navy.

Plus he fathered Henry VIII whom I dislike intensly.

How can anyone dislike Henry VIII? ;-)

Look, I'm trying to draw a difference between private and public life. Privately, Henry VII was a really nasty guy. Henry VIII too. But they were still great kings.

To be fair, Richard didn't get much chance to do anything, did he?

While the rest of Europe was becoming civilized, Britain was raising sheep. Henry Tudor changed that.

NOT!!! :eyes:

besides, the decision to split from Rome was a bad decision, made for bad reasons which brought in centuries of massive anti-catholic bigotry in Britain. In order to sell that policy to the masses Catholicism was quite literally portrayed as the work of satan and that view still persists today in Ulster as we all know.

On a side note, James II gets a bad rap too. The glorious revolution was not glorious but a reaction against James's valiant attempts to introduce some level of tolerance into Britain on the Catholic matter. After the glorious revolution Britain was effectivly an apartheid state until Catholic emancipation in 1828, brought about only in order to prevent civil war in Ireland.

I guess I just don't like seeing Christians bashing fellow Christians.

I had no idea that so many posters were knowledgeable about the subject. Some very interesting viewpoints expressed very well.

Hope to see more on the subject.

This is one of the most interesting threads I've read on here in a while. Very educational...I've learned some new things here today.

I hope this thread continues, also.

Terry

But we're really just killing time until the next opportunity for copycat threads comes by. :evilgrin:

I can't tell you how much I didn't want to resurrect the religious wars.

I think the decision to split from Rome was a good decision, if made for a less than charming reason. It greatly expanded the power of the English state and that centralization of power allowed England to go from being a relative backwater of European affairs to being one of Europe's leading states.

And James II was a bad and ineffectual king. James wasn't trying to introduce some level of tolerance on the Catholic matter, he was trying to make Britain Catholic. And that was impossible. James' older brother, Charles II was, however, interested in religious tolerance. And he was clearly one of England's better kings.

I guess I just don't like seeing Christians bashing fellow Christians.

Well, as a Jew I don't really care as long as I can watch from the sidelines! ;-)

Henry VIII's decision to break from Rome set the scene for religious bashing in Britain, and the reasons behind it were a damm sight less justified then those of Martin Luther for instance.

And no, this sort of bigotry spreads. Just look at the situation in Northern Ireland where bigorty is rife not just towards Catholic and Protestant but also towards blacks, Jews etc to a greater degree then anywhere else in western Europe. The Nazis did not just go after one group as we all know.

And no, James II could never have re-introduced catholicism, but he was trying to make it tolerated, and to allow Catholics to hold positions of power. As it was the protestant lords just would not accept a Catholic on the throne and would not allow him to rule effectivly. James II failed because the ruling classes in England were not prepared to be tolerant towards Catholics.

book Daughter of Time.

Scotland Yard detective recuperating in hospital - prides himself on accurate reading of character from face - friend brings him a bunch of pictures, one of them Richard III

He's shocked that it's Richard III and investigates - reads histories, contemporary accounts, etc.

Absolutely fascinating book.

(As are all Tey's mysteries.)

Nobody wants to talk about the Virtue.

Textbook bad rap.

http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Communism/ROBESPIERRE'S%20SPEECH.htm


That link won't work because of the apostrophe or something. Here's another:

http://www.geocities.com/robespierre_et_saintjust/speeches.html

The numbers involved were tiny.

Once the conquering was finished Pax Mongolia came into effect in which a woman could walk with a gold dish in her hand from the Pacific Ocean to the Ukraine without anything happening to her.

Not to mention, biggest LAND empire EVER!!! Only Britain had the biggest TOTAL empire ever.

I bet if DU was around back then we'd all be rooting for him. I read somewhere yesterday that he was actually quite liberal and tried to instill democracy in a lot of places.

Who knows if that's true - I'm not a French historian.

doesn't exactly scream 'I love democracy'
But he did establish some important legal codes that still exist today.

...were rooting for him, certainly the Whigs in Britain, lead by Charles James Fox were admirers. However, it was William Pitt the younger in power at the time.

Had I been around at the time I would have been a Whig myself, although I would not have been as keen to make peace with the guy as Fox was. Napoleon had his good points, but he was a megomaniac, and IMHO it is a good thing that we beat him eventually.

but many liberals stopped supporting Napoleon after he crowned himself Emperor. Generally, however, you're right - Napoleon was associated with modernity, liberalism and even republicanism (although he was no republican). I think he was a bad man, but I think his defeat was worse for Europe. The Congress of Vienna, what you guys set up after his defeat, artificially prolonged Europe's despotisms and really set the stage for all the bloodletting of the twentieth century.

Things might have been different for liberals in the US, where the government (rightly) was neutral and there were strong pro-British and pro-French camps. I dread to think of the flame wars had DU been around then. :eyes:

Little Boots was not so much evil as he was immature, unfit to govern and in over his head. He only became emperor because of the family name and the acquiescence of the Senate and citizenry. And a mercifully short reign, too.

Starting to sound a bit like someone else we know. Except, maybe, for the "not so much evil" part.

Shudder.

It was a dreamy reverie of events that never happened, but they all sounded vaguely familiar. When Stephen envisioned Bush making his horse a senator, I realized the source. (Of course, Bush really doesn't have a horse.) He was picturing Bush II as Little Boots.

However, I remember John Hurt's great portrayal in "I, Claudius" & proclaim that he showed much more style than our own little emperor. A bit perverse, perhaps....

Roman historians painted him as a monster...

Most of what you heard was wrong... don't believe the hype.

But I love the movie anyway.

And Eve, too. She was framed, ya know.

Ok, they are mythical, but they still get a bad rap.

I mean, he is history after all. And judging from some of the post I've seen lately I'm sure he'd get some votes.
For the record I voted for Genghis Khan. Cultural relativity & all that.

Most of his evils were of a personal nature. Given the opportunity to kill the Johnson's Great Society, Nixon expanded it. He also created the Environmental Protection Agency. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Vietnam. Cambodia. I remember. But give even the Devil his due.

He was quite evil. </understatement>

V

Aside from those huge pyramids of skulls, he wasn't so bad. I understand he loved children and dogs.

I read somewher that if a city surrendered to him on the 1st day of a siege, the men would be enslaved but all others spared. On the 2nd day the men would be killed and women and childern sold into slavery. After that no-one would surive. I don't know if its true, but its a good story.

V

200 years after his death!

Everyone knows the Autobots were Republicans.

And doesn't he remind you of someone we know?




Let's all get on board the DFA (Decepticons for America) train!

:evilgrin:

Try as I might, I just can't get any hate! :cry:

Lets get hating!

:loveya:

He set John Wilkes Booth's broken leg after Booth assassinated President Lincoln and he was executed as a co-conspirator for that.

This is where the expression "his name is mud" came from.

Come on!

maybe a little paranoid, but he did much to increase the power of Russia. He was a very good Czar.

:eyes:

Ivan the terrible is IMHO the most evil ruler of all time. All the Russian Czars were bad but the crimes Ivan commited set the scene for centuries of misrule.

Are there any kings, princes or potentates that we can agree are either good or bad?

:grr:

That 'grr' smiley is both ostentatious and immoral. It displeases me, and upsets the morals of the community. REMOVE IT IMMEDIATELY OR FACE MY PURITAN WRATH!!!

;-)

:grr:

Your brief dictatorship, with its frequent 'suga' decrees, was hardly the best DU has seen. :)

:) I closed down the gulags.

I mean, sure, he's evil.

But come on, he's still a pretty fun guy!

:) I did close down the gulags and if you guys help me I will start up again :D.

Sure, building a massive victory feast platform on top of your captives and eating to the screams as they are slowly crushed seems nasty, but he really was nice to his horse.

and i'm related to him, heh

A perfect example of religious persecution carried to the furthest extreme. There are many Englishmen who did their part to subjugate and persecute the Irish,but he deserves his "special" place.

Anybody who gets up and says, "I am your leader!" is a dick.

for Cardinal Richelieu. He was a pretty cool guy, all things considered. His battles against the Hugenots were ordered by Louis XIII. Richelieu was actually religiously tolerant, but he had to follow his King's orders. He truly believed in religious freedom.

He united his people, brought writing to the mongols and brought peace to much of Central Asia in the Pax Mongolica.

Kinda cool guy.
Couldn't kill him.

Poisoned him, shot him, throttled him, tried to drown him in the frozen Neva river and his hands were still clawing to escape.
:)

Lover of the Russian queen etc....

Sorry, just couldn't resist. :eyes:

...that the British conservative party adopt that song as their election theme tune.

It was a pretty damned incredible story, and Palance (a master storyteller) did a great job with it. You could really picture those guys starting to go nuts when Raspy JUST...WOULDN'T...DIE!

ripley's was a fav show from my childhood

OK, mostly because I love Katherine Hepburn but also because she was a great patroness of the arts and dressed up as a topless Amazon warrior on the journey to the crusades.

That queen Eleanor of Aquitaine was considered a villan!

Her son king John on the other hand is widely considered to have been the worst ruler in British history. Here's an old Stanley Holloway monologue for you on the subject.

http://www.monologues.co.uk/Magna_Carta.htm

I'll tell of the Magna Charter
As were signed at the Barons' command
On Runningmead Island in t' middle oft' Thame
By King John, as were known as 'Lack Land'.

Some say it were wrong of the Barons
Their will on the King so to thrust,
But you'll see if you look at both sides of the case
That they had to do something, or bust.

For John, from the moment they crowned him,
Started acting so cunning and sly,
Being King, of course, he couldn't do any wrong,
But, by gum, he'd a proper good try.

He squandered the ratepayer's money,
All their cattle and corn did he take,
'Til there wasn't a morsel of bread in the land,
And folk had to manage on cake.

The way he behaved to young Arthur
Went to show as his feelings was bad;
He tried to get Hubert to poke out his eyes,
Which is no way to treat a young lad.

It were all right him being a tyrant
To vassals and folks of that class,
But he tried on his tricks with the Barons an' all,
And that's where he made a faux pass.

He started bombarding their castles,
And burning them over their head,
'Til there wasn't enough castles left to go round,
And they had to sleep six in a bed.

So they went to the King in a body,
And their spokesman, Fitzwalter by name,
He opened the 'ole in his 'elmet and said,
Concil-latory like, 'What's the game?'

The King starts to shilly and shally,
He sits and he haws and he hums,
'Til the Barons in rage started gnashing their teeth,
And them with no teeth gnashed their gums.

Said Fitz, through the 'ole in his 'elmet,
'It was you as put us in this plight.'
And the King having nothing to say to this 'ere
Murmured 'Leave your address and I'll write.'

This angered the gallant Fitzwalter;
He stamped On the floor with his foot,
And were starting to give John a rare ticking off,
When the 'ole in his 'elmet fell shut.

'We'll get him a Magna Charter,'
Said Fitz when his face he had freed;
Said the Barons, 'That's right and if one's not enough,
Get a couple and happen they'll breed.'

So they set about making a Charter,
When at finish they'd got it drawn up,
It looked like a paper on cattle disease,
Or the entries for t' Waterloo Cup.

Next day, King John, all unsuspecting,
And having the afternoon free,
To Runningmead Island had taken a boat,
And were having some shrimps for his tea.

He had just pulled the 'ead off a big 'un,
And were pinching its tail with his thumb,
When up came a barge load of Barons, who said,
'We thought you'd be here so we've come.'

When they told him they'd brought Magna Charter,
The King seemed to go kind of limp,
But minding his manners he took off his hat
And said 'Thanks very much, have a shrimp.'

'You'd best sign at once,' said Fitzwalter,
'If you don't, I'll tell thee for a start
The next coronation will happen quite soon,
And you won't be there to take part.'

So they spread Charter out on t' tea table,
And John signed his name like a lamb,
His writing in places was sticky and thick
Through dipping his pen in the jam.

And it's through that there Magna Charter,
As were signed by the Barons of old,
That in England today we can do what we like,
So long as we do what we're told.

And had a reputation for scandalous behavior (if not outright villainous.)

she's still considered a bit of a heroine. Maybe the French don't like her?

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Eleanor+of+Aquitaine&ie=ISO-8859-1&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

but in the middle ages and throughout the Renaissance she was considered the epitome of feminine evil by most religious leaders.

Most of those links are to recent theses by scholars and don't really address historic perceptions of her.

history books label him as 'insane', but he was a good, though misguided man.

in the end, his actions sparked the full-blown cause of abolitionalism that freed the slaves during the civil war

One may not agree with his means (which, of course, involved killing people), but his goal was both honorable and reasonable.

The same thing can be said of the war to follow. Hundreds of thousand of dead Americans was a terrible price to pay; but slavery was ended and the Union preserved.

And Brown was as sane as sane can be.

John Brown is one of my heroes too. How can you support Santorum and John Brown? That does not compute.

Click on one of the links... that's it.

Damned Richard spent England into oblivion with his medieval jetsetting, and stuck John with a bill no one wanted to pay. The Magna Carta was just a fancy ploy to keep the rich from having to pony up for their tab.

He's a fantastic owner and his record proves it!

He was a really interesting guy-he had a genuine healing ability, witnessed by many doctors who loathed him. Contrary to the Warner Brother's cartoon, he loved the royal family and their children and never would have sought to kill them. He did tell the empress that if her was killed by nobility, she and her family would all be killed. A true prediction does not make him the personification of all evil.

Richard III had the princes in the tower killed, his own nephews who were children at the time. He deserves the bad rap he got.

who innocently treated Abe Lincoln's alledged assassin. He didn't do anything wrong.

But we even have that saying "your name is Mudd" if you get in trouble.

That's what I get for not reading the whole thread before posting.
This exact thing was already said. Sorry.

Where do I pick up my prize? :)