Worst Leaders in History

In his defense, the empire was already very unstable when he rose to the throne, and he was posed against fucking Alexander the Great.
Nero on the other hand was handed down a stable and prosperous empire by Cuckdius and had no opposition whatsoever externally, and little internally, yet still managed to fuck everything up.

...

Wrong pic senpai.

...

I don't think so. 50 years later that would definitely be the case, but the emperor prior to him, Theodosius had been pretty damn powerful as an autocrat. It was never guaranteed that the empire would be taken over by strongmen, it was only having emperors like Honorius and Valentinian III having long as fuck reigns.

Commodus was way worse, and that's just counting Roman emperors.

Commodus
Carracalla
Caligula
Tiberius in the late years

All far more insane, violent, and damaging to the empire. Commodus probably did the most to fuck the Empire because of the time he was living in. Caracalla was probably the most evil.

Kek, never not funny

neckbeard

>Nero
>Antiochos
>No Caligula
Get on my level.

>Commodus
Why? He just liked fucking around in gladiator games and renamed Rome

>Carracalla
Massacres here and there but nothing major.

>Caligula
Suffered the same fate as Nero as far as senate propaganda goes.

>Tiberius
He didn't have a bad stain on his reputation like Nero and Caligula so he wasn't insane or messed up, just meh tier.

>Why? He just liked fucking around in gladiator games and renamed Rome

Because he bankrupted the empire playing hercules in the arena and didn't actually run the empire, turning it from the high point under Aurelius into a disaster in the reign of one moron.

Not to mention the constant purges that basically killed off all the competent elites who could have brought some stability to the empire.

>Caligula
>Suffered the same fate as Nero as far as senate propaganda goes.

True to a certain extent, but he was a fuck wit. Shit like destroying dozens of ships so he could ride a horse across a river makes him an idiot. Bankrupted the Empire doing retarded shit.

>Carracalla
> Massacres here and there but nothing major.

Rode around the Empire eating people out of their homes, raping, and butchering people when they complained. He bankrupted the treasury paying out massive bonuses to the army to keep him safe. He basically poisoned the military.

>Tiberius
> He didn't have a bad stain on his reputation like Nero and Caligula so he wasn't insane or messed up, just meh tier.

No, but he left Sejanus to turn Rome into a police state and did fuck all to repair the problem. Endless show trials and purges weren't great either.

I did miss Elagabalus who also comes out below Nero.

Shit, I'd add Diocletian as well because setting standards for gold coins but not silver and copper coins, and then making trades hereditary pretty much set up the start of feudalism.

Add in that "muh Tetrarchy" was set up in such a way as to make civil war inevitable and I have no idea why he is considered a good emperor, except that Constantine came along quick enough to restore stability again.

Caligula got silenced quite early on. You need time to fuck everything up, and thus effectively be the worst leader in history.

I actually love the guy though, he's just too much. Stuff like naming his horse senator made me unconditional on his person.

>Shit, I'd add Diocletia-

No. Fuck you. His economic reforms were a nice try that failed because the ancients didn't have a clue about how economics works.

>making trades hereditary pretty much set up the start of feudalism

This is a meme. Feudalism has its origins in the coloni system, which had nothing to do with Diocletian. It was a natural process.

>"muh Tetrarchy" was set up in such a way as to make civil war inevitable

No. Diocletian (with the help of a few prior emperors like Aurelian) ended the Crisis and led to twenty years of virtually uninterrupted peace, the only time that happened between 210 and the end of the empire.

>Constantine came along quick enough to restore stability again.

If you'd read any authoritative shit on the subject at all you'd know that Constantine pretty much takes the credit for all of the good shit that Diocletian did, particularly when it comes to army reforms, administrative divisions etc.

Diocletian was probably one of the greatest emperors, and his reforms (as misguided as some of them were) are pretty much the reason the empire lasted anywhere near as long as it did. He threw away the last vestiges of the principate system which was an obstructive relic of the republican age, that usually leads to a lot of salt from SPQRboos which I assume a lot of this stems from. He was the only emperor that willingly abdicated when he thought his work was done, that single handedly elevates him to Marcus Aurelius tier.

> He was the only emperor that willingly abdicated when he thought his work was done, that single handedly elevates him to Marcus Aurelius tier.

And he set up a 4 man succession where two of the Ceasars were loyal to one Augusts, basically dooming the Empire to civil war.

Fail.

I actually mispoke. Constantine was the one who made gold coins a standard weight.

Diocletian introduced retarded prices lists that literally no one paid attention too. Commy tier.

believe what you want, but history ain't going to be kind to this dipshit

I think many historians already rank him quite low.

While his military fuck ups and failed adventurism weren't quite as unpopular or as costly as Vietnam, they are also harder to explain (huge gaps in planning).

LBJ at least has a legacy that liberal like. Bush ran up a huge debt and oversaw the build up of the biggest economic crisis in almost a century.

Still, due to the checks and balances of the American system, and term limits, he is far and away better than some of the madmen who have been allowed to rule nations.

>And he set up a 4 man succession where two of the Ceasars were loyal to one Augusts, basically dooming the Empire to civil war.

The tetrarchic system could have worked, if only Roman leaders weren't inherently scumbags who were raised in a system which forced them to seek power at all costs. It only failed because his own immense personal force held it all together, and as soon as he retired the other dumb fucks started fucking with the system.

Besides, the empire was fundamentally doomed to civil war anyway from the minute it became clear that emperors could be made away from Rome in the 3rd century. Diocletian managed to briefly stave that off, for that alone he should be commended.

>prices list

Yeah that was the nadir of his attempts, but like I said how could you expect a Roman emperor to know shit about economics? They didn't even have a word for it. All emperors fucked with coinage by debasing it, Diocletian had at least had the gall to try and stop the disgusting price gouging by traders by setting maximum prices to stop mass food riots like there had been early in his reign.

Elagabalus, that's it.

If he wanted to make Rome important again you think he would have visited it before 19 years into his reign.

Most critics are retarded salty democrats. Go ahead and list reasons you think he was bad and i'll shit on you.

> Planning to use the Iraqi army to keep the peace in Iraq after the invasion and having no back up plan if they disbanded.

That's a pretty giant fucking mistake.

> Not bothering to do anything about climate change until the last minute when he pushed for cap and trade after all his political capital was gone.

>Wall St. bailout with few strings attached, not making Goldman et al. eat losses on the AIG default.

>Letting North Korea get nukes

Not who you're replying to or particularly knowledgeable about him but I'll try.

Major deficit spending

Lying about WMD to get into the Iraq War (this is something that's ciruculating but I'm not sure it's true, nonetheless he got us into the messes that were the Iraq and Afghanistan War)

Patriot Act (technically passed by the Legislative Branch but he still could have vetoed or took executive action against it. If you support it please explain)

Set up of 2009 Housing Bubble (lack of regulation lead to irresponsible spending)

>Iraq is shit no matter what
>muh climate change could destroy us at any monent
>My president totally would have made legislation against sub prime mortgages xDDD
>barking chiwawa country gets nukes

>governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=30&p=3
>Not knowing that all branches are kept on life support so we can export weapons and be ready for total war at a moments notice
>Oh no I feel so violated when I get searched at airports
>My president totally would have made legislation against sub prime mortgages xDDD

>obama
>x3
But bush was awful yes, fuqqed up real gud

The deficit spending is a big one.

Cutting taxes and sticking to big tax cuts while fighting two wars AND doing expensive shit like Medicare Part D was asinine.

WMD thing is a little different. In their actual policy memos, they make a case for invasion even if WMD aren't there. The fact is, we now know from Iraqi documents and interrogations that Sadam was planning on restarting the WMD programs as soon as sanctions crumbled. Thanks to France and others, sanctions were already crumbling.

Also, US enforcement of the no-fly zone meant that an international incident was brewing anyhow.

Still, they sold it to the people by playing up current WMD stocks and connections to Al Qaeda that were spurious at best. Policy elites knew the full rationale for the invasion though.

Housing bubble is Bush's fault for not stepping in on, but the origins date back to the Clinton and Reagan years.

Tacitus go home

Tiberius fucked up pretty bad. Maybe conspired to get Germanicus, one of the best, killed, then slowly had his power usurped by his Praetorian Guard, and when he finally died people tried to throw Tiberius into the Tiber river. Basically set the trend for the Praetorian Guard having power over the Emperor.

I'm the second person you responded to.

I agree that a deficit is not necessarily bad, but Bush's was just stupid. As said, he cut taxes while trying to fight two wars. The article you linked to talked largely about government investment in the economy, not paying for war:

>For Stiglitz, the key is to spend that deficit money on things like education, technology, and infrastructure that lay the groundwork for future economic expansion.

You didn't even respond to the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars.

Also, please expand on why you thing the Patriot Act was not so bad.

Yes, a good president would have seen the irresponsible lending and stepped in to prevent the bubble and subsequent burst. I don't know who you're referring to when you say "My president" but a competent president would have been able to prevent it or at least lighten the impact.

Angela Merkel. O.O