Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the format Name#Password
[i]Italic Text[/i]
[b]Bold Text[/b]
[spoiler]Spoiler Text[/spoiler]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace Text[/pre]
[super]Superset Text[/super]
[sub]Subset Text[/sub]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists


420chan is Getting Overhauled - Changelog/Bug Report/Request Thread (Updated July 26)

Crazy Kings and Leaders

- Tue, 20 Jan 2015 01:43:46 EST IIEMocfo No.54643
File: 1421736226172.gif -(135851B / 132.67KB, 555x255) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Crazy Kings and Leaders
Any instances of leaders/kings slowly going insane and losing their minds?

Cambyses was one, the Cambyses who was the son of the Cyrus that beseiged Sardis.

Basically, the guy slowly went insane and made his army continue to march against a mythical tribe of Africans in the woods while his troops converted to cannibalism due to ration shortage. Or that time that he shot an advisor's son with a bow and arrow because he disagreed with him being an alcoholic? Or how about that time that he decided to kill his own brother because he had a dream? Or when he killed his own wife because of something she said at the dinner table? Or how about that time he started burning shit in the temple of Hephaistos?

He was probably the only king who didn't give a fuck about the hellenistic gods, or any for that matter, because he was crazy.
Eliza Dollerlock - Wed, 21 Jan 2015 09:42:23 EST WO0qELX5 No.54650 Reply

Both Brezhnev and Reagan were losing it while in office (senility). Some more historical examples: King George III, Peter III of Russia, Ludwig II of Bavaria. I am sure there are hundreds of others.
Nigel Senkinfidge - Wed, 21 Jan 2015 15:12:39 EST kNHUFtbQ No.54653 Reply
It was quite common for Roman emperors to go crazy because they liked eating a really sweet jam that was only cooked in lead pots.
Hedda Pittfield - Fri, 23 Jan 2015 02:57:21 EST Lqrrk4aI No.54658 Reply
The Qin Emperor. He might have started off brutal, but drinking Mercury seriously sent him off the deep end
Reuben Sabbershaw - Fri, 23 Jan 2015 07:38:37 EST +5Assre1 No.54659 Reply
I never thought I'd feel sorry for Reagan, but there's a part in the end of the eponymous documentary about him(10/10 documentary btw) were they discuss his sudden senility and it is quite sad. There's a story about his wife finding him holding an aquarium ornament from their goldfish bowl and him saying " I don't know what this is, but I think it was incredibly important to me" and it turned outt to be a little White House.
Ian Tillingville - Sun, 08 Feb 2015 14:49:41 EST h8wgSU2R No.54744 Reply
Albrecht von Wallenstein is very famous for his descent into occult practice and insanity while leading an army during the 30 years war

There's even a classical trilogy written about him
Jenny Hiddleway - Mon, 09 Feb 2015 10:18:34 EST K8P/HEDD No.54751 Reply

He wasn't really into occult stuff, he just believed in astrology but he was also fucked in the head from syphilis.
Cyril Brabblefoot - Wed, 11 Feb 2015 14:11:46 EST Wj7Sa5Z7 No.54755 Reply
1423681906365.jpg -(124044B / 121.14KB, 976x796) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

Graham Wellybanks - Thu, 12 Feb 2015 11:25:40 EST 6nKr2p8x No.54760 Reply
I can't wait for bathing to be in style
Fuck Muzzlekirk - Mon, 23 Feb 2015 07:31:45 EST +fpzaN5Z No.54798 Reply
My vote is for Nero the Roman emperor. He was known to parade through the streets pretending to be a lion and terrorize people.
Jack Baddletut - Mon, 02 Mar 2015 10:16:27 EST Vxn3KaCO No.54843 Reply
I don't know where you got that story, but according to Suetonius he did attack gladiatorial victims' "private parts" while dressed as a lion or a leopard.
42 Years at Bernie's - Tue, 07 Apr 2015 03:36:25 EST DLmt4NiI No.55095 Reply
Vlad the Impaler is a good one. Got a tattoo of his face on my leg. Not as a tribute, but as me not believing humans being capable of such brutality. I'm not into Vampires or Twilight so fuck off before you even type >.

I believe he was forced to convert to Islam in captivity at age 13 but had previously told from someone I trust he was a Christian leader. I need to buy a book on him, I should probably know more about the man on my leg.

Woodcut art really is a thing of beauty. I think the image I'm included was "pamphlet" distributed by Germans after his first reign to note his cruelty, so it's probably not a picture of woodcut art, but check some out if you get the chance.
Albert Brooklock - Tue, 07 Apr 2015 09:03:42 EST 11sDZ2su No.55097 Reply
1428411822653.jpg -(432565B / 422.43KB, 1280x960) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>Got a tattoo of his face on my leg. Not as a tribute, but as me not believing humans being capable of such brutality.

So you got a tattoo that makes it trivially easy for anybody to prove you wrong? All they have to do is point at your leg and say "He was a human".
42 Years at Bernie's - Tue, 07 Apr 2015 13:33:37 EST DLmt4NiI No.55103 Reply
Yes, it's not very big and only cost $50, legs are pretty much free real estate, I never wear shorts
Matilda Bardforth - Tue, 07 Apr 2015 19:32:28 EST JqKlJSjD No.55106 Reply
1428449548202.png -(177562B / 173.40KB, 500x368) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Jim come get your damn land
sorry I just wandered over from /b/ I'll see myself out good thread guys
42 Years at Bernie's - Tue, 07 Apr 2015 20:31:49 EST DLmt4NiI No.55110 Reply
Ya done good, Ya done real real good. Come back any time
William Sullernirk - Sat, 11 Apr 2015 02:13:18 EST EsogoLGJ No.55158 Reply
My bet is on Tamerlane. We don't know a lot about him, but what we do know tells us he had to be a pretty fucked up guy.

So much of what we know about Roman emperors is probably based on propaganda so it's hard to take some of it seriously

I mean most people in positions of great power are sociopaths or display some similar illness (because who else could stomach the shit you have to do to get into those positions), but do you really think Caligula made his fucking horse a senator, or ordered his men to attack a river?

Maybe some kids will be sitting in class some day a thousand or two years from now reading about the mad king Obama, the Kenyan socialist muslim usurper
Hamilton Soffingmuck - Sat, 11 Apr 2015 04:05:15 EST /5fjrOS9 No.55162 Reply
Charles VI, one of the Kings of France during the Hundred Years war had bouts of psychosis, he killed one of his knights while hunting because he went into a paranoid panic and every once in a while would shut down and refuse to see anyone but his wife, he thought he was made of glass and the slightest shock would shatter him. Needless to say France didn't do so well during his reign.
Albert Bettingtune - Sat, 11 Apr 2015 17:31:53 EST Vxn3KaCO No.55172 Reply

I totally believe that Caligula did those things. We have multiple sources for other, even more crazy ass things that happened in history; the fact that Caligula was DEFINITELY crazy and DEFINITELY had near-absolute power means that really anything his deranged brain thought up could and most likely would have been carried out (at least until they got sick of him and ran him the fuck out of town/living).
Albert Bettingtune - Sat, 11 Apr 2015 17:34:27 EST Vxn3KaCO No.55173 Reply
Grrr, I clicked enter and it decided to submit my post early. My other point is in regards to your "Mad King Obama" statement, which is quite hilarious but almost certainly not going to happen. We today have massive amounts of video, imagery, writing, etc. which would clearly contradict this. The only way this would happen is if human civilization was basically obliterated and only a few select pieces of firebrand republican lunacy survived as our historical record of the time. Which would probably mean we're all living in vaults a la Fallout or something, because seriously what could possibly do that much damage aside from nuclear annihilation or alien invasion? We wouldn't HAVE fucking schools to be teaching about it in, so it's really a moot point. Which is a shame because it is a funny image.
Caroline Fezzlefield - Sat, 11 Apr 2015 20:44:19 EST 8hSk1rC9 No.55174 Reply
1428799459156.jpg -(407378B / 397.83KB, 1253x1262) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
We don't stop making records the moment an event is finished, tertiary sources tend to have a much greater impact on perceptions than primary or even secondary ones.

Most Americans believe Regan and (therefore, sources depicting him), lowered taxes, increased revenue, lowered the national debt, made the government smaller, and won the cold war.
This view becomes more pervasive as more and more sources depicting as much are generated.

If the conception of Obama as a Kenyan, Muslim, socialist liberal coward who hates America fits whatever narrative those telling the story want, it's only going to become more popular with time.
Barnaby Duzzledock - Sun, 12 Apr 2015 02:43:54 EST gS7J47zZ No.55178 Reply

He was not exactly dealing with Gandhi at the time, not that I am defending him, but I understand the idea of absolutely horrifying your enemy so they don't want to fight.

Also, you paid $50 to get a tattoo if a guy you barely know anything about on your leg?

This, thats probably the reason you can play as Mao Zedong, Stalin, Attila and Genghis Khan but not Hitler.
Caroline Fezzlefield - Sun, 12 Apr 2015 05:39:10 EST 8hSk1rC9 No.55183 Reply
But all the primary records we have indicate Hitler was fucking retarded. The brits wouldn't have won the battle of Britain if he hadn't ordered the luftwaffe to stop attacking the airfields.
The germans wouldn't have lost so much infrastructure if he didn't specifically forbid them from attacking bombers over the channel during the daylight.
They wouldn't have had so many encirclements if he didn't forbid any retreats in Barbarossa.

Stalin's officer purges speak for itself.
Jarvis Blatherbanks - Sat, 18 Apr 2015 06:15:57 EST Vxn3KaCO No.55237 Reply
The reason tertiary sources are relied on so heavily today is because we have relatively few primary sources which have survived for more than a few hundred years. Until the advent of digital data storage systems we had no means to preserve our records for longer than a carved stone tablet or an inked parchment would survive the elements. I repeat that in the future, unless we have suffered some terrible cataclysm which has nearly destroyed the vast amount of stored data we have accumulated, we will have little need for tertiary or even secondary sources. Even today, where we have primary sources, they are heavily preferred to secondary or tertiary sources. Consider the examples of Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar. We do not, unfortunately, know of a preserved copy of the "Deeds of Alexander" by Callisthenes, perhaps the only primary source regarding Alexander's life. Nor do we have copies of Ptolemy or Cleitarchus' works, which would be considered secondary sources largely derivative of Callisthenes' earlier work. Therefore, we rely on tertiary sources such as the writings of Diodorus, Arrian, Plutarch and Curtius Rufus. Caesar, in contrast, left us his own personal writings regarding his campaigns in Gaul and during the Civil Wars, and possibly (though not likely) other volumes detailing the wars in Africa and Iberia. As a result, we draw heavily upon his writings for knowledge about the era, knowing full well that they are undoubtedly biased in his favor. Such is the power of the primary source that no academic would willfully use an obviously biased tertiary source as his primary font of knowledge of a subject if they had access to even an incomplete or questionable primary source.
Jarvis Blatherbanks - Sat, 18 Apr 2015 06:31:38 EST Vxn3KaCO No.55238 Reply
The reason for this has much to do with the fact that it is much easier to see through one layer of bias, but much more difficult to distinguish truth from falsehood once multiple layers of cultural and personal bias from each author touches the historical account. Each author sees through a unique set of lenses, each author purposefully or inadvertently changes the record to suit their own personal beliefs and tastes. Callisthenes was somewhat of a sycophant, from what we know, who was set up as Alexander's personal biographer. His account, as a result, was said to be filled with references to the Iliad and other fables which were meant to draw parallels between those great heroes and Alexander. Ptolemy, whose work drew on that of Callisthenes as well as his own personal knowledge, was primarily interested in playing up his own contributions as well as legitimizing the newly installed Macedonian regime. Rufus would have seen things through a much different lens than either, being a Roman from an old patrician family. I could continue but I believe you will understand the point by now. Caesar's Commentaries are undoubtedly biased, however it is fairly easy to see why and how the account was twisted in most places, since we have but one layer of bias to "scrape off" to reach the truth. This is why it is very unlikely that we will use sources which are so obviously biased against one person in the history of tomorrow; we will simply not be experiencing the same knowledge-drought which we deal with in regards to pre-Digital antiquity, as it may be called one day.
Phineas Mublingdock - Fri, 01 May 2015 01:19:24 EST nHkVfReA No.55335 Reply

eh, vlad wasn't crazy. harsh? definitely! brutal? maybe, but he lived in brutal times.
Clara Fickledadge - Fri, 01 May 2015 04:04:29 EST Vxn3KaCO No.55336 Reply
... Do you understand exactly what impalement is? Essentially, a sharpened (or blunted, depending on how long you want the process to take) wooden stake is inserted into the rectum and the unfortunate victim is left to slowly slide down the pole until his internal organs are perforated and/or he dies of blood loss or sepsis. It was not at all a usual punishment, even in those times. The process could take hours or days, depending on the exact technique used. If all the stories are to be believed (which they probably should not be, but they likely have some small basis in fact...), he also roasted children alive and drank (or washed his hands in, depending on the source) the blood of his victims. In other words, the dude was straight up nuts. Vlad definitely qualifies for this thread.
Beatrice Clopperman - Thu, 07 May 2015 14:59:16 EST RR1NHH97 No.55347 Reply
>I repeat that in the future, unless we have suffered some terrible cataclysm which has nearly destroyed the vast amount of stored data we have accumulated, we will have little need for tertiary or even secondary sources.

There’s more to it than merely accumulating and storing digital data. That data has to be retrievable and to be retrievable it has to be stored in a format which is current or for which the hardware and software is available. Digital information is fragile in ways that differ from traditional technologies, such as paper or microfilm. It is more easily corrupted or altered without recognition. Digital storage media have shorter life spans, and digital information requires access technologies that are changing at an ever-increasing pace. Some types of information, such as multimedia, are so closely linked to the software and hardware technologies that they cannot be used outside these proprietary environments. Because of the speed of technological advances, the time frame in which we need to consider archiving becomes much shorter. As the time between manufacture and preservation is shrinking data needs to be continually copied to new formats to be accessible otherwise we’ll end up preserving only electronic bits, in the hope that in the future, someone with appropriate skills and resources can figure out how to render the object or otherwise make it useable in then-current technology.
Polly Purryfed - Fri, 08 May 2015 20:55:34 EST 46Ivwr3B No.55352 Reply

>only electronic bits, in the hope that in the future, someone with appropriate skills and resources can figure out how to render the object or otherwise make it useable in then-current technology.

You forget how many autists there are, working to crack old WW2 codes and other engagements. A digi-archeologist will simply create an assembly to process the machine code.
Hedda Blacklock - Fri, 08 May 2015 22:34:52 EST 8hSk1rC9 No.55353 Reply
1431138892446.png -(18437B / 18.00KB, 737x358) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Maybe for the public domain, but stuff that is under copyright and not profitable is continuously lost
Sophie Buzzdock - Sat, 09 May 2015 02:21:53 EST wTxBF4lI No.55354 Reply

someone watched a ted talk

at least credit it if you have nothing original to say.
Polly Purryfed - Sat, 09 May 2015 02:29:07 EST 46Ivwr3B No.55355 Reply
1431152947838.png -(1931219B / 1.84MB, 1366x768) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

True knowledge is lost. But knowledge lost means that human researchers still have proven value. They have to reinvent what other humans have already discovered. This is important because its not the knowledge base that is specifically important, but the ability to retain a critical mass of competent individuals capable of obtaining such knowledge. If we reset every few centuries that would help things.

The democratic and open internet lends me to believe cromulent information will be saved. A Ghanaian neckbeard king might order the contents of wikipedia.gh be etched forever into the sandstone. An Otaku might actually own print copies of shit.

As the population size reaches nigh infinity, every single problem or question you have had has been thought of by some people. Some of those people have actually done something about it or are doing something about it. The human mass consciousness has this tautological grasp over and we act in accordance with it.
Hedda Blacklock - Sat, 09 May 2015 19:55:17 EST 8hSk1rC9 No.55359 Reply
1431215717446.png -(63635B / 62.14KB, 1642x570) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>The democratic and open internet
Congress is happy to take the RIAA's money while passing the DMCA.
Universal is happy to pay Google for the ability to circumvent Fair Use.

>cromulent information will be saved.
The bits that are chosen aren't selected at random.
Having all of evidence of history serves to embiggen the effect of the truth compared to bits of whatever to be convenient to someone's perspective hundreds of years ago prior.

People who don't learn from the past tend to invade Russia in winter.
Hedda Blacklock - Sat, 09 May 2015 19:56:46 EST 8hSk1rC9 No.55360 Reply
>Having all of evidence of history serves to embiggen the effect of the truth compared to whatever bits were selected because they happened to be convenient to someone's perspective hundreds of years ago prior.
Eliza Clagglestetch - Sat, 09 May 2015 23:38:01 EST 46Ivwr3B No.55368 Reply

>compared to bits of whatever to be convenient to someone's perspective hundreds of years ago prior.

That only describes all of human history up to this point.

Nevertheless, all forces are market forces. I believe you are part of that macro-conscious drive to save human wisdom. Therefore, please continue.
Henry Fuckingbanks - Fri, 22 May 2015 23:34:23 EST PiT5cm0T No.55437 Reply
You know, we just don't really have the capacity for that level of insanity here. With so many advisers, handlers and limits on power, the President or PM etc. could go quite insane and just be kept on perma-vacation or inexplicably "busy" for the remainder of his term, mostly just an impotent weirdo hidden from public view, not the all-powerful, maniacal leaders of antiquity.
Cedric Dittingstone - Sat, 23 May 2015 10:51:42 EST WlQeJvi+ No.55441 Reply
We're all insane.

And citing people of explosive character and brutal accomplishments as "insane" is just stupidity.

You want an "insane" ruler? Look at George III or some of these Hapsburg inbreds. But even they weren't so much insane as incapable.

True insanity is to be found in psych wards, and I'm not talking about the inmates.
Isabella Cettingwurk - Sat, 23 May 2015 13:05:00 EST 46Ivwr3B No.55442 Reply
1432400700020.png -(1264076B / 1.21MB, 1366x768) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Insanity is the inevitable result of the law of non-contradiction. If one cannot understand the world, one must simplify it. Thus an insane person can claim power as a "reformer," who offers the sweet song of simplification to those who also walk the path of no return.

History will call them Republicans.
Cedric Dittingstone - Sat, 23 May 2015 13:37:12 EST WlQeJvi+ No.55444 Reply
If Hitler "learned from the past" in a way you suggest it he would never attack France through Netherlands just because it didn't work 20 years earlier and the Iron Curtain would then be on English Channel
Lillian Murdhood - Sun, 24 May 2015 15:01:16 EST fSy3hhdw No.55454 Reply
Do you understand crucifixion? You nail a guy to a stick and wait for him to suffocate or starve to death while giving him occasional water over several weeks. This was the "normal" death penalty for heinous crimes for an entire society...
Do you understand what it feels like to die by VX gas, or to be burned by white phosphorus? Do you understand how people die from blister agents?

War sucks, and it draws out the worst humans are capable of offering, but compared to the individuals listed in


These are people who had obvious psychotic breaks or otherwise had very real degeneration in their nervous systems (reagan/brezhnev being physically senile, and Qin having long-term mercury poisoning).

Vlad executed some corrupt nobles, instituted "hard on crime" policies and fucked up some muslims. Harsh, but not bad considering that he lived in the war-border between the middle east and europe in a time where such things weren't scrutinised by some UN council or what have you.
Bombastus !!HToBa9dh - Sun, 24 May 2015 15:41:51 EST ccIKPGhE No.55455 Reply
Just clarification on crucifixion. They would normally tie someone to the cross because nailing would inhibit the movement (people believe nailing was more popular because of jebus) Tying their arms down, they would slowly suffocate as their body shrinks lower and lower crushing their airway.

Graham Fuckingham - Mon, 25 May 2015 00:00:24 EST 46Ivwr3B No.55459 Reply

>This was the "normal" death penalty for heinous crimes for an entire society

Actually, citizens were normally exempt from this penalty. Only slaves and barbarians could be put to death in this way.

For perspective, the English had their share of fuckups. For example the default punishment for women in capital cases was death by burning. Men could get away with a hanging. The last execution by fire in England wasn't even for witchcraft, but some unlucky girl who was caught with counterfeit money.

In typical Christian logic they determined it to be a mercy, since hanging would expose the undies.
No - Wed, 27 May 2015 18:27:03 EST Vxn3KaCO No.55488 Reply
1432765623455.jpg -(51971B / 50.75KB, 635x715) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Your attempt to portray impalement as a "normal" punishment is rather laughable. You draw parallels between crucifixion and impalement, in an effort to show that impalement is no worse and so therefore is "normal". Without even arguing about whether impalement or crucifixion is the worse punishment (which is certainly a debate of its own), crucifixion was in fact not a "normal" punishment. Crucifixion was one of, if not THE most brutal and harsh punishment the notoriously brutal and harsh Romans had at their disposal. It was reserved for the worst criminals, those who were being made examples of in rebellious provinces or as a result of their blatant disrespect for the authorities, or when particularly cruel emperors needed a laugh. Likewise, impaling people is not normal now, it was not normal in Roman times, nor was it normal in Vlad's time. The people around him were so horrified by his actions that stories about him spread all across the known world and are still well known today. His crimes were not reserved for Muslims he wished to "fuck up", corrupt nobles or heinous criminals. Most stories have Vlad taking particular pleasure in finding new ways to impale his victims, with various types of stakes and various points of insertion, purely for "entertainment" purposes. He is also commonly said to have enjoying torturing animals, especially during his periods of captivity where he was unable to put to action his bloodthirsty urges upon human victims. I hardly think Ronald Reagan compares to this level of depravity and mental illness, whatever your opinion on his policies and/or the extent of his Alzheimer's symptoms while in office may be.
Hedda Pollyford - Thu, 28 May 2015 00:38:16 EST ji4ZwBrd No.55496 Reply
>the most brutal

haha no
There are much, much worse ways to die

And what do you know about mister Vlad anyway? For all we know he was so successful that later his enemies have forged Vlad's legend just to justify their own failure to conquer him.

>I hold that it is bad as far as we are concerned if a person, a political party, an army or a school is not attacked by the enemy, for in that case it would definitely mean that we have sunk to the level of the enemy. It is good if we are attacked by the enemy, since it proves that we have drawn a clear line of demarcation between the enemy and ourselves. It is still better if the enemy attacks us wildly and paints us as utterly black and without a single virtue; it demonstrates that we have not only drawn a clear line of demarcation between the enemy and ourselves but achieved a great deal in our work.

Or, perhaps, he wasn't that famous centuries ago, and his reputation grew during the Victorian age together with romanticism and vampires?

Who knows. Like I like to repeat, no history can be verified, and what is "truth" is decided by you and you alone. Different truths can exist at the same time, a hero of one is an unknown nobody to the other, and, once a revered tyrant can turn into a petty warlord in the eyes of the following generations if the Zeitgeist demands so.
Still No - Fri, 29 May 2015 01:17:29 EST Vxn3KaCO No.55512 Reply
1432876649830.png -(318801B / 311.33KB, 410x570) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
It is hard not to notice that you conveniently fail to mention any of these "worse ways" the Romans used to execute people.
Yes, we can all think of terrible ways to hurt people, but that does not mean they were used or certainly that they became standard practice.
Crucifixion was indeed the most brutal punishment the Romans were in the habit of using.

I have no clue where you are pulling that quote from, nor who it is supposed to be attributed to.
Not only that, but it is entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Undoubtedly his legend became distorted in the process of its popularization during the subsequent centuries.
The fact that his legend was known as far afield as Victorian England to begin with, however, is precisely the point I made in my previous post.

I'm done trying to rationalize my arguments to you, when all I get in return is "Who knows what is real, everything could be lies."
You belong on a drugs forum or /tinfoil/, not /his/.
Thanks for playing, however.
It was a nice distraction until it wasn't.
Fanny Hattingshaw - Fri, 29 May 2015 17:21:16 EST ISCVOutJ No.55520 Reply
>you said that truth doesn't exist and that made me butthurt

watch out for your blood pressure mane

Also, the quote was from Chairman Mao you uneducated negro
nb for ya
Just some guy - Fri, 29 May 2015 23:56:55 EST Uhv1/OKL No.55537 Reply

Naw, under Mao China made huge strides in economic development and technological advancements (industrial and agricultural), access to education, healthcare and housing, life expectancy increases, literacy increases, and any other metric for living standards you could possibly think of.

Doesn't mean fucked up shit didn't happen too, but I hate the HEY DID YOU KNOW STALIN AND MAO KILLED 45 BILLION PEOPLE narratives that ignore such dynamic and important times in a countries history.
Just some guy - Sat, 30 May 2015 00:04:39 EST Uhv1/OKL No.55538 Reply

That's not really a good argument either.

The fact that he was known throughout the world probably has more to do with the troubles he was giving the Ottoman's at the time, not his cruelty.

Legends of that cruelty first spread to Germany and Russia through the writings of Transylvanian Saxons, who were persecuted minorities under his reign, so most of the stories of his monsterousness are likely exaggerated.
Pimp C-Higgy !lfsExjBfzE - Fri, 04 Sep 2015 23:14:53 EST XB9W9h+B No.56087 Reply
Pol Pot was batshit insane
Doris Drurringkodge - Fri, 11 Sep 2015 13:52:40 EST h/FmVgfK No.56116 Reply

>industrial and agricultural advances

Lolno. He caused enormous famines because people were told to hunt down sparrows so they couldn't eat their grain but it only caused the insect population to explode. Also the great leap forward produced a lot of inferior steel, a lot of environmental destruction and only little actual progress. China only got successful once this fat faggot died and a new generation of politicians took over.
A Wizard - Fri, 11 Sep 2015 19:20:13 EST b0Z6XbnQ No.56118 Reply

You forgot to mention the forced agriculture in areas not made for it.
Lydia Cleblingsutch - Sun, 27 Sep 2015 18:46:18 EST yOL5fWZe No.56151 Reply
Charles VI of France also had a hand it destabilizing the English throne. His daughter, Catherine of Valois, was married to Henry V of England after Henry managed to conquer portions of France.

Henry VI, the son of Henry V and Catherine, ended up suffering from the same mental illnesses as his grandfather, most notably the belief that he was made of glass and would shatter if someone bumped into him. Due to his lack of leadership in England, Edward the Duke of York decided to proclaim his right to the throne, becoming Edward IV, and starting the Wars of the Roses.

Then there's also Juana the Mad, dunno if anyone mentioned her yet. Not sure if she counts since there is a lot of speculation as to whether or not she was actually mentally ill.
Lydia Gudgewater - Sun, 04 Oct 2015 15:45:28 EST 46Ivwr3B No.56170 Reply

I heard it was because she mostly spoke in Spanish and nobody bothered to translate.
Ebenezer Savingbog - Mon, 05 Oct 2015 14:19:06 EST VWhw2/Xw No.56172 Reply
I like to think that Caligula did all these things not because he was insane, but because he wanted to make a mockery of the roman empire. Just a practical joke backed with absolute power.
It's actually likely for the story about his horse : he probably just wanted to humiliate the human senators, and there's more than a few rationnal reasons for that.
George Bricklekudging - Tue, 13 Oct 2015 06:05:13 EST Vxn3KaCO No.56186 Reply
Surprise! It's me, the guy whose 6 month old post you quoted!
That's a really amusing thought, but Caligula really does seem to have been, by all surviving accounts, a colossal asshole and not just a practical joker with a penchant for satirizing his own regime.
I like your version better, though. Let's stick with that one.
Ghengis Dong - Tue, 13 Oct 2015 18:14:45 EST 2egVTEgC No.56188 Reply
1444774485781.jpg -(8303B / 8.11KB, 177x285) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Here's a report from the British Ambassadors to Castille wherein they describe the relative hotness of Juana la Loca in somewhat hilarious detail (They even try to describe her breath). The description begins with item V. under "June". It's quite interesting and from their description I would quite likely hit that.
Ghengis Dong - Tue, 13 Oct 2015 20:31:41 EST 2egVTEgC No.56189 Reply
>XVIII. To endeavour to speak with her fasting, and that she may tell them some matter at length, so that they may see whether her breath be sweet.
Could never come near to her fasting, but at other times have approached her visage as nigh as they conveniently could, but never felt any savour of spices, and believe her to be of a sweet savour.
Cyril Chennerway - Mon, 19 Oct 2015 22:52:59 EST 5ADmKFCq No.56208 Reply
The Ottoman Sultans had a crazy one in their line, Ibrahim the mad. Can't really recall any specific stories but modern psychoanalysts would have a field day with his diagnosis
Cyril Chennerway - Mon, 19 Oct 2015 23:15:46 EST 5ADmKFCq No.56209 Reply

Tamerlane wasn't crazy

His campaigns were brutal as fuck yes, but he didn't exhibit any mental issues and we actually have primary sources of Timur and his court, unlike all the turco-mongol raiders before him. You could argue that he was a fanatic islamist zealot but it seems more that his hardcore muslimness was a means for him to legitimize his rule, just like when he made the dubious claim that he descended from Chingis Khan. He was a peasant nobody, he needed to legitimize his rule among the turco mongol armies and claiming to be "The Sword of Islam" and a descendant of Genghis were ways for him to do that. Not sure where you got the idea he was a crazy.

Report Post
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.