Yes, I believe that Nero and Caligula were two of the worst Roman emperors in history. They were definitely the heads of governmental administrations that were so unpopular that they are remembered even to this day. It's almost a shame that such an amazing civilization is remembered most for their hubris and sadism.
You want to talk about terrorists or terrorist cells, you should take a look into the barbarism of the past. The atrocities today are nowhere nearly as heinous as they used to be. Nero and Caligula were two of the most brutal leaders the world has ever seen, and we better hope we never see anything of the like again.
Nero almost certainly had his mother executed and his stepfather poisoned.
He may have had part of Rome burned so he could build on the land, though
historians still debate this. He was a bad enough emperor that the Julio-Claudian
dynasty ended with him—he killed himself after Galba was proclaimed emperor
in his place. Classical sources paint Caligula as a sadistic sexual pervert and
a tyrant, and he was the first emperor to be assassinated. If these two were
not the very worst, they were bad enough.
Nero and Caligula were two of the worst Roman emperors in history. They were quite bloody rulers, with stories that books and movies are based upon even today. We can compare them to people like Hitler, but even Hitler was not as bad as Caligula. It is hard to believe human beings can get as bad as these emperers.
No, I do not think that neither of these men were bad leaders, and are not the worst in history. These two men were very smart, and knew a lot about how to run a kingdom in a way that would make it successful and be able to fight others.