I published this article back in July of 2006. I'm reposting it here to allow discussion to continue. I've been working on this project off and on as I have time. Feedback and thoughts are more than welcome.

There are several "lists" out there that try to rank dictators, conquerors, and rulers. The problem I've found is that the lists are nothing more than sensationalism or they're just plain inaccurate.

There are many books written with the theme of listing the most evil people. The Most Evil Dictators in History and The Evil 100 are a couple of examples. The books are all the same. You can expect them to include Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Khan. Each evil person has a three-page bio about their evilness.

If there is a ranking, there is no measurable method to it (For example, so-and-so killed the most people, so he's clearly the most evil). The Evil 100 includes people like Hitler and Stalin at the top of the list, yet Osama bin Laden is ranked number eight. While I'll be the first to admit that Osama is an evil son-of-a-bitch, I wouldn't put him in the top ten when compared to everyone else throughout history.

In terms of inaccuracy, there is a top-ten list called 10 Men Who Conquered the Most Square Miles floating around on the Internet. The source is a bathroom reader book that was originally published in the 1970's. While the list is mostly accurate in terms of how many square miles were conquered by the ten men discussed, they are not the ten who conquered the most. The list should be called "A comparison between a bunch of guys who conquered land".

The bigger issue with the conqueror's list is that it has been googled to death and reposted on countless websites creating a chain of misinformation that started in the 1970's.


A top ten list for the rest of us
What's been missing is a top ten list that focuses on a type of person (In this case, dictators) that has some sort of realistic ranking system. Instead of trying to rank something abstract like evil, I've been working on a system that awards points based on tangible data that can be calculated to provide each dictator with a score.

Measurable information includes:

• Total number of people killed
• Total population controlled
• Percentage of the world population controlled
• Years in power
• Years in power over a high population
• Length of empire after reign
• Total square miles controlled
• Total square miles conquered

To spice the list up, bonus points are awarded for dictator-like acts such as:

• taking power through force/manipulation
• not losing power before death
• driving a group of people to cannibalism
• destroying books

There is also a set of qualifying criteria to weed out the wannabe dictators. To make the Top Ten Dictators of All-Time, a ruler:

• Must have had absolute control over at least one country
• Must have been responsible for the death of at least 500,000 people
• Must be dead

Being dead is crucial. People like Napoleon and Vlad III Dracula have shown us that just because someone has been locked-up that they are not down for the count.


The Top Ten Dictators of All-Time
I have spent a considerable amount of time researching dictators and have come up with an official top ten. Finding estimates on some of these guys is near impossible. I believe this is the reason that no one has attempted this feat in the past.

The list is not about being evil; it's about being a dictator. Dictators maintain absolute control over a country, and in some cases, over multiple countries. Some empires lasted years after a dictator died while others faded away almost immediately. All of this is taken into account for the final score.

The next article will cover the scoring system I've put together to rank the dictators. After that, each dictator in the list will be revealed one-by-one in a countdown fashion starting with number ten.

All numbers have been researched and are referenced with a reliable source. When I say "reliable source", 9 times out of 10, this doesn't include the Internet.

Most people seem to have a couple of names they expect to see on the list. To see who does (or doesn't) make the list will shock some people, and the name at the top of the list will surprise even more.

Sensationalism? Not when I have the numbers to back it up.

It's been almost a year from when I first had the idea for this project. I've learned more about dead rulers than I ever thought I would. On paper, I believe I have what I would call the Top Ten.

But...

There were 1,000's of people throughout history who meet the criteria I set above. As I search more and more, I find more guys. Some could possibly qualify and even break the Top Ten depending on how I do the calculations.

There are several ideas to deal with this.

1.) Do the rankings based off of time period
I could start off with the Top Ten Dictators of the 20th Century. This is very easy to measure. Then I could do previous centuries or time periods. Such as Top Ten Dictators of the Dark Ages, etc.


2.) Do the initial Top Ten, but then keep adding
I could start off with a top ten, but then keep adding to the list as I acquire data. Maybe every few weeks announce "And coming in at #27..."

Thoughts are appreciated.

Could be a mammoth project. Could be Mrs Scott might forget who you are if you run with it.

#2 sounds good.

Regards Bob.

-My most evil man in history:

Hypothetically speaking, if he was not truly the son of god but instead the creator of the greatest hoax of all time I'd say Jesus.

-But more seriously I'd say TheDCGuy.

Slick, do you have any thoughts on the concept of ranking the dictators using the statistics and criteria I described? I don't really care about who is the "most evil", because that is all subjective.

PS - I removed the exchange between you and Vass. I do want to stay on topic with this thread.

-I think that ranking them by stats may make for an interesting list. Even more fun would be to take those "Good" leaders in history, plug their stats in to see how they rank against the "Evil" leaders. I'd like to see how let's say Pope Urban compares to Hitler using your method.

As I suggested to you earlier, ranking them by time period might be more manageable when you are compiling all the data. You could have several time periods, then the number 1 person in each of these time periods could go on your top ten overall list.

The most obvious issue here is that assembling all the subjects in a single list places an undue emphasis on the technological means of murder they had at their disposal by virtue of living at a certain time. Possible partial remedies include using relative deathcounts instead of absolute numbers, dividing the toplists in periods of history, etc.

Find a population curve for the world.

Divide total people killed by the dictator by total world population.

Then you can base each dictator off percentage of the world population they killed instead of raw number

for sure. a crucifixion should be worth more than shooting someone and burying them in a mass grave - it took more materials and time, and prolly hurt a helluva lot more.

You should share your method of scoring with us (so Dex can correct it).

I said the same thing.

Smily and Faithdies definitely have the right answer. The same thing applies to total number of people under the power of the dictator. Genghis Khan gets a boost for the amount of people he slaughtered and controlled back in the 1200's as does Alexander for the amount of people he killed/ruled.

The calculation I've been toying with is as follows.

• 1 point for every percentage of the world population controlled for one year.
• 1 point for every percentage of the world population killed through war.
• 1 point for every percentage of the world population killed through democide (government policies - Genocide, forced famine, etc).
• 0.5 point for every year empire lasted after reign.
• 1 point for every 10,000,000 square miles controlled for one year.
• 1 point for every 1,000,000 square miles conquered.

Bonus Points

• 50 bonus points for taking power through manipulation/force.
• 50 bonus points for not losing power. Dying of natural causes while ruler.
• 40 bonus points for forcing people to cannibalism.
• 30 bonus points for burning books.

This ends up giving me a nice number between 1 and about 900 for anyone that I'm ranking.

None of this is sacred and I'm more than open to feedback.

Of course if you're relying on mathematical formulae for statistics your points table is going to differ from one era to another. The further you go back, population estimates and casualty figures are going to be less reliable.

Maybe you will have to develop a handicapping system.

Regards Bob.

I think the bonus points may be a little too high. Dying of natural causes and killing half the worlds population are worth the same amount of points on this scale.

Fair enough, but what kind of edge should be given for someone who held onto power as opposed to someone who was assassinated?