Official Mt Rushmore Game Thread..

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

very, very nice list...but not THE mt rushmore ( obv since I changed it to pre 20th). I will give a hint, Leopold IS on the list, and that was a toughie.

[hank213 1,823]

very, very nice list...but not THE mt rushmore ( obv since I changed it to pre 20th). I will give a hint, Leopold IS on the list, and that was a toughie.

leopold, genghis, vlad, atilafinal answer.

[brvheart 1,752]

Pre makes it too hard. You have to really know your history to have a shot at it.Mao should be on every single evil dictator list ever, regardless of the parameters. I'm not sure there is any other leader in history that killed 40,000,000 of their own people.pre-20th century could easily be made up of all Roman emperors. Some of those dudes were pure evil.

[CaneBrain 95]

Does Robespierre count? He wasn't really a dictator per se but he was pure evil.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

I'll allow Robes... And I'll allow Cromwell.I don't think anyone beats pol pot in terms of per capitia numbers. He killed like a 5th of his own people or something insane like that. Here's a spoiler alert.. there are NO romans Emperors on the list. There is just not the right combination of successful warlord and crazy tyrant. Caligulia was ****ed up, but on a relatively small scale, and didn't fight any wars or commit mass atrocities. The only one I'd even consider is Augustus, who established the Imperial System, fought a bloody civi war to do it, then purge all his enemies. But, after his power grab, he was a really fair and just ruler, and did a lot of great things, so he has too many mitigations for me to seriously consider. The rest of the roman emperors just simply didn't do enough conquering. The roman boundries were almost wholly established by the time Augustus died, only expanding a small amount. Most of romes wars after that were either defensive wars against barbarian invaders, or like their never ending war with Parathia/Persia that never amounted to anything. Now they did crush a lot of rebellions, sometimes really viciously (Hadrian in particular is in consideration for causing the jewish dystopia from isreal, but again, he is historically considered one of the "5 good emperors" who ruled Rome well, so it's not easy labeling him evil). Ultimately I think the viciousness of the Roman Empire, the true viciousness of it, wasn't really because of any one emperor doing some ****ed up things. It was the nature of the empire itself. Trying to rule a huge, multicultural empire often required some really brutal tactics in establishing that empire, and maintaining control over that Empire. So it's really hard for anyone emperor to stand out.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

I'm going to hold off answering till morning to give the morning crew a shot. I would also love it if scram found his way in here, as I think he probably has the best shot of coming up with the definitive mt rushmore.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

And I'm going to warn you guys right now.. my answer could start a land war in asia.

[brvheart 1,752]

My official guess:Leopold, Genghis, Ivan IV, Vlad

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

My official guess:Leopold, Genghis, Ivan IV, Vlad

I like your list, but I'm sorry, this is not the mt rushmore. I think Ivan 1V's terribleness is due largely to marketing. If he was Ivan the Bold or something, he wouldn't be on this list.

[brvheart 1,752]

I think Ivan 1V's terribleness is due largely to marketing. If he was Ivan the Bold or something, he wouldn't be on this list.

...He was torturing and killing like 1,500 people per day at one point in his reign. He beat his pregnant daughter in law and killed his own son when he protested the beating of his pregnant wife. That dude was a pretty big *******, no matter how good his PR team was.If we break down the list, it's gets very short. Genghis is on there. He is easily my pre-20th century Lincoln pick. Some estimates say that he killed up to 30% of the total population of the earth, and wikipedia says that 1 out of every 500 Asian men are directly related to him today, due to he widespread raping. That's unbelievable.You already said Leopold was on the list.I don't see how you could leave off Vlad, which brings us to the last pick. I'm sticking with Ivan for my personal list, but the "correct" answer can't be more than a handful of people in the 4th slot. I think Nero would be a good choice, but you already nixed that. Attila? Some of the "Christian" crusaders were pretty bad.

[iZuma 764]

man I wish bigd would hurry up and wake up cause this one is boooooring

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

lol @ 30% of the population of the earth, that's ridiculous hyperbole. Maybe if you include the plagues that got spread because th because of the silk road, but I still think that's a silly number. Here's the reason Ghengis won't be on the list...I'm not going to punish Ghengis because he was such an effective conquerer. I feel like he's held in such terror largly because he was so effective. But he never killed without a reason. Yes, he sometimes utterly slaughter a town that resisted him, but there was a purpose in that. THe next town wouldn't resist him, and would surrender without a fight. And when towns did that, when they just gave Tribute, the Mongols were extremely fair to them. The mongol Empire was in many ways extremely tolerant ( and the beginning, before they converted to islam). All religions were freely allowed to be practiced. The silk road was never safer, as the mongols had packs of troops riding up and down it, hunting down bandits who tried to raid traders. The effect of that was an exchange of information ( and disease) between the east and west that largely lifted the West out of the medieval ages. So yes, Khan was a vicious warrior, and yes he'd be a butcher. But i feel he's more a pure military figure, and if I put him on, I'd have to put guys like Napoleon on or Alexander the great or something. I'm not going to punish him because he was more successful than most warlords But, the most important reason, is there is going to be a guy on the list, who is the lincoln, who is the most underrated Evil Tyrant in history, who is the Evolutionary Ghengis Khan, Ghengis 2.0. THe two figures are too similar to both be on the list, as they are both steppe war lords, and 2.0 is CLEARLY more evil in my mind.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

Alright, alright... So here is your list. I REALLY wanted to add an Assyrian King, as ancient Assyria was so notorious for their evil and butchery, but Assyria suffers from the same problem the Roman Emperors do.. it's hard to pick any one of them. They all would do vile things like Stake living prisioners to the front of their chariots during battle to serve as human shields, and what not. HEre's your official list... Sulla: Pre-Imperial Roman dictator, who was largely trying to "Fix" Rome, as he saw it. But his fix was trying to disempower the people of rome, and solidify the traditional power of the rich roman aristocracy. After the savage civil war, the Sullian purges wiped out a generation of romans. While Sulla tried to save Republican Rome, what he actually did was destroy it, and give people like Caesar and Particularly Augustus the formula for doing it. Plus, Sulla was a savage military leader, waging wars of genocidal distraction all over the world, from North africa, to asia minor, and particularly savage was the Social War, where he slaughtered whole tribes of former Roman Allies in Italy, who were revolting merely to become citizens in an empire they were dying to make wealthy. He was a really brutal guy, and I think Rome needed to be represented by SOMEONE. Leopold II ( I felt colonialism had to be represented by someone, and what he did in the Congo Free state really stands out as incredibly savage and evil, in an era of savagery and evil)Vlad the Impaler is my Rooseveldt. I really wanted to leave him off in favor of an Assyrian, but i couldn't. THe problem with Vlad is that he was such a minor eader, and that it's hard to say how much of his Evil was real, and how much of it is hyperbole by his enemies. But, when you ge a nickname like " the Impaler", it's not from because you showered people with kisses, and I have to give him a little credit for being the historical basis of Dracula. And my lincoln, and I honestly don't think it's close, is Timur the Lame AKA Tamerlane. For those of you who don't know, Timur was a warlord based in central asia during the late 14th century. He claimed to be a mongolian Descendant of Khan, but that's a dubious claim at best. But he was certainly a Turkic Horse warrior of the same style as Ghengis. But the reason I put him on the list, and not Ghengis, is while Ghengis was actively trying to establish an Empire, Timur really wasn't. He was just a looter. he was more akin to the Viking Raiders, except he commanded 100's of thousands of horse backed warriors, and he slaughtered towns from india to russia to the middle east. And while Ghengis, if a town surrendered without fighting.. would leave it largely intact.. Timur often would not. He'd slaughter and depopulate a city and loot it. He conquered one city ( Aleppo, I think), by piling 20,0000 human skulls up in a giant pyramid outside the wall, that they had brought from the last city they had looted. In another city, he erected a pyramid of 70K human skulls. He beheaded 90K people in bagdad, and in Damascus he herded thousands of prisoners into the great mosque, and then set it on fire. Timur never really established administrative control over any of the places he conquered, often not even requiring tribute. He just looted the town of it's wealth, artists and scientists, and brought them all back to his capital, which he blinged out pretty hard. Oh, and he did this, kicking the ass of basically all central asia, after sustaining a hip injury that left him crippled and unable to walk without aid. Thus, Timur the Lame. This cripple was able to loot asia based on the sheer force of his evil personality alone.

[ShakeZuma 585]

bigd, I do not agree with your methods in this game. I don't think anything can be considered "definitive" if most people wouldn't agree with your answers, or if most people have never even heard of your answers. I mean horseradish? fucking come on bro! that's barely a condiment!

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

bigd, I do not agree with your methods in this game. I don't think anything can be considered "definitive" if most people wouldn't agree with your answers, or if most people have never even heard of your answers. I mean horseradish? fucking come on bro! that's barely a condiment!

GO ASK A PERSIAN OF AN INDIAN IF THEY'VE HEARD OF TIMUR.

[JubilantLankyLad 1,957]

bigd, I do not agree with your methods in this game. I don't think anything can be considered "definitive" if most people wouldn't agree with your answers, or if most people have never even heard of your answers. I mean horseradish? fucking come on bro! that's barely a condiment!

Agreed. His answers are well thought out, informative, and interesting but fail by definition.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

WELL VG, HAVE YOU?

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

Also, if you guys haven't heard of Sulla, you should really learn about western civilization. He was one of the most important leaders in history, and his actions, that lead directly to the fall of the roman republic, still effect us to this day. I know he didn't have a porno movie made after him or anything, but I promise you his evil had a greater effect on world history, by a factor of... something big.

[hank213 1,823]

i'll buy it. the only one i'm hesitant about is timur. he just doesn't seem to have the gravitas of an atila or genghis and I think that plays a bigger role in designating them as a monumental figure than was given credit in your deliberations. i mean if we were to poll college students that just completed a world history course I think more would know of atila than timur.--edit furthermore, while his actions were subdued in some instances, the sheer volume and scope of barbarity relative to the time seem to lend support to genghis. but again, not a bad list especially considering the subjectivity of the determining factors.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

i'll buy it. the only one i'm hesitant about is timur. he just doesn't seem to have the gravitas of an atila or genghis and I think that plays a bigger role in designating them as a monumental figure than was given credit in your deliberations. i mean if we were to poll college students that just completed a world history course I think more would know of atila than timur.

I get that, but the Mt Rushmore wasn't who was the most famous dictator, it was who was the most evil, and I just don't agree that either Atila or Ghengis are evil enough for the list. The were successful warlords, but nothing about their lordship makes them stick out compared to other warlords, other than the success of the war they waged. Atilia for example has an overblown reputation, because everyone writing about him he was fighting and was terrified of him, but there are no hunnic sources to balance things out. It seems to me that the romans were just really scared of the Huns. They were a scary looking people, literally. They bound their children's heads at birth, to make it look like a conehead, basically. So they were extremely foreign. Coupled with the military success they had against the romans, the romans were likely petrafied of them. But were they really more savage or evil than the barbarian warlords that were allied with rome at the time, and were de facto ruling the western empire? I don't really think so.

[YonYonson 156]

whats next?

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

ASK YOUR BOY SHAKE, HE'S SO SMART.

[Sal Paradise 57]

fuck timur I'm pissed about the horseradish

[YonYonson 156]

SHAKE WATS NEXT BRO

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

SO SORRY DISGUSTING MIRACLE WHIP DIDN'T MAKE THE CUT FAT BOY.