Who was the most evil ruler during the Medieval Period?
Medieval Bad Guys
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Henry V de Plantagenet, easily
Look at what he did to PoWs after Agincourt
Cromwell was worse than Hitler.
>Cromwell
>medieval
What would you have done in his place?
Close enouugh
Anyone wearing pl*te armor instead of lamellar or chainmail.
Would've tried to consider myself English and to improve the life of my people, instead of wagining this stupid war to take over the throne of my family's ancestral homeland
Literally 200 years apart you brainlet
200 years is a blink of the eye in the grand scheme of human evolution, pleb
Human evolution still hasn't reached Ireland
the Turks, this is indisputable. I don't even know why this is a discussion
t. B*lkan
>200 years is a blink of the eye in the grand scheme of human evolution, pleb
that's a stupid argument and why can't you just admit you don't know what you're talking about
Gilles de Rais, Marshal of France and serial killer.
en.wikipedia.org
Because I did an oopsie and instead of owning up to it and leaving the thread I would rather argue in favor of it with bullshit semantics to annoy other people trying to partake in the conversation because I find other people's frustration to be humerous
Ezzelino III da Romano (aptly nicknamed "the tyrant") is likely Italy's most despised middle ages character.
He was just a veteran with PTSDs buttfucking kids in his castle without bothering anyone
What the fuck are you talking about? Medieval Turks were absolutely based. Hemmed between city burning Mongols and eye gouging treacherous Greeks, they not only managed to survive, they forged an empire and brought peace to the land.
>Hemmed between city burning Mongols and eye gouging treacherous Greeks...
...They took inspiration from their neighbours and did both with alarming frequency.
Well face cutting in general rather than eye gouging specifically, but whatever.
>it was real in my mind
meanwhile: in real life
People generally mean the ottomans when they say *T*urks, not the seljuks. The ottos have plenty of episodes of prisoner torture and city razing.
From what I understand, weren't the accusations purely political
The king was just jealous because of how much power and money he had
And des rais just pleaded guilty so he would not be excommunicated
Yea I remember the Ottoman sultan executing the crusading prisoners after the battle of Nicopolis AFTER he found out that the crusaders killed a bunch of civilians before the battle.
a nice guy to me
>muh two wrongs make a right!
Pathetic. Do you also remember Marcantonio Bragadin?
Yeah. He was also accused of murdering Turkish prisoners. Face it. The Ottomans were a lot more generous to Europeans then the other way around.
From the same siege:
>The Ottoman commander generously agreed that, in return for the city's surrender, all Westerners in the city could exit under their own flag and be guaranteed safe passage to Crete; Greeks could leave immediately, or wait two years to decide whether to remain in Famagusta under Ottoman rule, or depart the city for any destination of their choice. For the next four days, evacuation proceeded smoothly. Then, at the surrender ceremony on August 5[3] where Bragadin offered the vacated city to Mustafa, the Ottoman general, after initially receiving him with every courtesy
When things happened the other way around the europeans would generally slaughter everyone and everything with no regard like a bunch of beasts.
t*rks are subhuman
> generally slaughter everyone and everything with no regard like a bunch of beasts
To be fair, the Turks could easily replenish their forces, while the Crusaders were almost always outnumbered and desperate for more men. So I'm sure part of the logic was destroying as much of the enemy as possible.
Liberal propaganda to make mudslimes look like the "good guys"
Remember how it spread?
Richard I didn't seem to have the best interests of England at his Lion Heart, though I don't know that this makes him "evil".
>always outnumbered and desperate for more men
And another wh*te fairy tale. An entire continent outnumbered and desperate for more men against a single country. Sure kiddo.
Do you know what the Turkish population was in 1900? Around 10 million. Either wh*tes are exaggerating as always or they bred like rats.
I was specifically talking about the crusades, idiot. Not to mention the logistics of sending troops to the middle east are never simple.
Are you trying to imply that Bragadin was aware he was going to be slaughtered? How fucking biased can you be?
The turks simply went back on a truce agreement and slaughtered a man they had welcomed. It doesn't get much worse than that. Outright slaughter without pretenses is invariably considered less infamous.
The crusaders also killed jews and even other christians along the way. I don't know why you're defending them.
Why should a Frenchman care about England?