Who should be on team evil and team good; Team Evil: Tamerlane Idi Amin Reimagined Gowron Dr Mengele and he should throw chemicals at people Team good; Kirk Spock Surak Alfred Noble and he could throw dynamite or do some fancy tricks with explosives.
Why would they use a 24th century Klingon like Gowron? I would think they would use Molor, unless they want to go with "evil Kahless" like in the original series.
I always tought of NuTrek as mirror, not an alternate universe. Just roll with it or give me your list.
I stipulate that a) history isn't my strong suit, and b) perhaps Wikipedia isn't the best resource for this type of thing. But I was curious, based on your question. From his Wikipedia article: So maybe not "evil", depending on your definition, but he certainly doesn't seem like he'd be up for any "good neighbour" awards. I stand by to be corrected by those who know more about history than I, however.
^Conquest was how people built nations back then, and thus you could say that pretty much every imperial ruler committed evils by our standards (considering that they were undemocratic monarchs, usually kept slaves, etc.). Morality has advanced so far in modern times that even the best people in the past would be pretty rotten people by today's standards. Timur was much like Alexander or Genghis and many other imperial rulers: using brutality to create his empire, but then using the unity and stability of his empire to foster notable advances in art and culture, the study of history, mathematics, astronomy, economics, etc. If not for the progress achieved under empires like the Timurids and il-Khans, Europe would never have adopted Arabic numerals and the zero, and Copernicus would never have solved the riddle of planetary motion. This is the paradox of the ancient world, that so much progress and enlightenment went hand in hand with such brutish violence. It's what I've been saying, that you can't understand history by reducing it to some cartoon battle of good and evil. For the Wikipedia article to say Timur has a "predominantly barbaric legacy" is inexcusably biased; a statement so judgmental should never be permitted in a scholarly article. The downside of Wikipedia is that anyone with an axe to grind can rewrite an article to replace fact with propaganda. The upside, though, is that anyone can fix it.