Printable View
really i thought a dictator was sosme 1 who told you what to do,
you dont get to vote on it
and you just do as he said or els.
You know like america
Go bash America in the backroom where we can tear your argument apart.
I hope the edit is acceptable PanzerJager - Gregoshi
Hey come on guys. When this thread was started it drew and excellent disscussion. We had some of the best members on here talking, which is excellent. This is the Monastery, a history forum, that means we stay objective here. Lets try to refrain from bringing petty arguments and country bashing into this forum.
Augustus was certainly a benevolent dictator.
Caesar can be considered too, but he was very bloody in war (the Gallic conquest brought about the genocide of the Gauls - they were finished once and for all). Augustus didn't really led any of those bloody wars himself (Agrippa...).
But what do you want? A dictator that IS cruel when necessary but brought the empire/country/kingdom/state he ruled to greatness or only a benevolently kind dictator?
Could the Bis man be considered a dictator (bismarck)
i disagree about augustus being more benevolent that caesar if bloodshed was the criterion. augustus was the leader of a faction in the civil wars between the successors and assassins of caesar. he was also the leader of a faction in the civil wars between him and anthony. he was also the impetus behind the drive for the annexation of the germans that ended with varus and herman the german. it could be argued that augustus was more bloodthirsty than caesar because he dared to kill his roman political enemies in cold blood during the proscriptions. something that caesar, bloodthirsty as he was, was not bold enought to attempt. so that when augustus finally achieved supreme power, everybody that had withstood him had already been killed during the civil wars and the proscriptions, and he was only surrounded by sycophants who of course painted a postive propaganda picture of him.
Singapore
The Pope is an absolute ruler of the Vatican.
I'm sure there are quite a few cases of rulers who where from democracies who have been not good. Democracies are not automatically benign and dictatorships are not automatically evil. Democracies just tend to have more accountability built in which in turn tends to make them more 'nice'.
Papewaio there are no "angel" dictators. Even the one in Singapore(probably the nicest of the modern world) is accused of at least a few human rights violations.
There is an ample room between "a few human rights violations" and outright killing anybody on the dictator's whim.
There are a few "basic human rights", as defined by the European Union, that even I would throw to the toilet if I were a dictator, for example the right to live comfortably on the jobless benefit paid by the stupid who work.
Just like there is an ample room between the dictature of Franco and the gazillions of people killed by Stalin and other leftist dictators.
If you want to focus on more modern dictators I've would say that Omar Torrijos Herrera in Panama was one of the better and quite benelovent.
Most human right violations seems to have come from poor prison conditions (guard abuse) and that exist in some democracies too.
He seems to have been poor on economics though, but that isn't a crime.
Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus was Roman consul in 460 BC and dictator twice, in 458 BC and 439 BC. His first term as dictator began when Rome was being menaced by the Aequi tribe from the east and the Volscians from the southeast. The Roman Senate pleaded with Cincinnatus to assume the mantle of dictator to save the city.
The career of Cincinnatus has become so tied up in legend that extracting actual events is impossible. According to analysts, Cincinnatus had settled into a life of farming and knew that his departure could mean starvation for his family if the crops went unsown in his absence. He assented to the request anyway and within sixteen days had defeated the Aequi and the Volscians. His immediate resignation of his absolute authority with the end of the crisis has often been cited as an example of good leadership, service to the public good, and the virtue of modesty.
He came out of retirement during his second term as dictator (439 BC) to put down a revolt by the plebians.
Named in his honor are the town of Cincinnato, Italy and the American Society of the Cincinnati (for which the city of Cincinnati, Ohio was named). George Washington, General of the American Revolution and the first President of the United States, was considered a latter-day Cincinnatus; he did not seek political power after winning the Revolutionary War in 1783, and even after being elected President, he retired permanently after two terms of office.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnatus
If kings and other similar "by default" more-or-less autocrats count, I've got a few candidates. There was Henry IV of France (incidentally the first of the Bourbon line), murdered in what was it, 1610?, by a Catholic fanatic, who so far as can be told genuinely tried to get the Catholics and Huguenots (French Protestsants; he used to be one himself) to coexist peacefully - the Edict of Nantes and so on. Although the infamous St. Barthomelew Massacre happened "on his watch", he had nothing to do with instigating it and was probably himself at risk during the riots.
Another would be (warning: names may be wrong) the czar Paul I, son of Catherine the Great, who tried to abolish serfdom and got assasinated by the nobility for his troubles.
But personally I'm not entirely sure if "good kings" would fit the idea sought after in the topic. Monarchs were "dictators" pretty much by default, so it's a little debatable if they count. "Dictator" would seem to imply more modern times IMHO.
That aside, old Fidel Castro down in Cuba would probably be a decent contender for a modern "enlightened despot". Sure, his regime persecutes dissidents (what dictatorship doesn't, anyway ? It seems to come with the territory), but it would also appear to have managed to provide its subjects one of the highest standards of living, education, healthcare and social security in the whole Latin America - and certainly looks positively benign in comparision to the right-winger military juntas that have plagued the hapless LatAms over the past century.
Dunno if something similar could be said of Gaddafi - Libya isn't one of my stronger areas of erudition.
Ghengis Khan
We know that Ghengis conquered ruthlessly, but his dominion was incredibly peaceful and tolerant of all peoples and religions. His grandson Khubilai expanded upon his policies even to the point of building homes and giving plots of land to the beggars, widows and the poor. He even went so far as to make sure that every farmer in his empire had the proper tools - paying for these things out of his own treasury. In conquests of the Sung empire he showed that to conquer a people one does not need senseless slaughter, just a gentle touch.
~:)
Uhh... and right after he was done with the Sung he went and enacted a total massacre on Khwarimzam, on the grounds that the Khwarimzamshah was being an obstinate ass. Some analysts claim that region of Central Asia never wholly recovered from the Mongol invasion...
And Khubilai ? He's the one who tried to invade Japan. Twice. On both times any Japanese commoners that got in the way didn't exactly have a good time. The logistical build-up for the second invasion attempt placed such a strain on the Koreans that they revolted - and got suppressed with predictable brutality.
Sorry, but the Mongols - or for that matter any other steppe conquerors - were just too gleefully destructive to make it even near the list.
Are we talking about the way they conquered? No. We're talking about rulers who had total control and who were gentle with such power. Granted, Khubilai was rather wreckless with his military strength and the lives of those in the army. Stubborn he was, but those civilians he did conquer were gently treated. The Japanese were never conquered, or even close to it, so he was never their dictator.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
You're confusing "Gentle Conquerers" with 'Gentle Dictators"
One is the act of killing people to rule over them, the other is ruling over them.
I feel I should point out that I agree fully with those that feel Central Asia has never fully recovered from the Mongol invasion and subsequent massacres of resistant civilian populations. The center of Islam and Persia were mutilated and it pains me to think of the possibilities that could have come from that region had they not been destroyed so utterly. :embarassed:
The way that the Mongols conquered was brutal, ruthless and unflinching; hardly gentle. However, the way they governed was tolerant towards all races and religions. The most inspiring thing for me was the congregation of all known religions being brought together to have a discussion about their various beliefs. Now that's forward thinking. The dominion of the Mongols was so peaceful it was said an unprotected virgin could carry a bag of gold from one end of Asia to the other without molestation.
Alexander the Great. Benevolent to the point of foolishness really. Took very little for himself, used the survivors of armies raised against him to fight for him, didn't change the status quo in his conquests, founded cities across the world, laid the foundations for the intellectual revolution in the Arab world and Alexandria...... and so on.
I'd say he's one of the closest you're going to get to a benevolent dictator. True he did commit a few political assassinations (e.g Parmenion), but I guess when you're a dictator you've got to be cruel to be kind right? His achievements and visions were always going to be held back by his Greek companions and contemporaries who couldn't envisage a world of tolerance and equality with the barbarians.
Caesar was benevolent to his own people and later to the Gauls who pledged loyalty to him. In many ways like Alexander, except Caesar forced the loyalty of the Gauls by performing several mass genocides in Gaul. More like a bulldozer and a rebuilder. Being benevolent to a specific group in your dominion can't make a gentle dictator otherwise you could argue Hitler was quite benevolent to people he considered ethnic Germans (well probably not actually but you get the idea).
Surprisingly, Alexander, Tamerlane and Ghengis Khan all ruled with the same sense of tolerance towards all peoples and religions (once they were their subjects that is).
There's nothing particularly surprising about that if you study history - it's something every sensible wannabe emperor does. It used to be something of a Golden Rule #1 of Building and Keeping Empires not to give a jack about what your new subjects thought and did as long as they paid their dues and didn't rebel.
Trying to keep a polyglot, multi-cultural, multi-ethnic empire together without adhering to that principle is a real good way to create endless trouble for yourself and likely lose a great many disgruntled provinces. Just look at how well the newfangled nationalism fitted in with the old-established empires like Austria-Hungary or Russia back in the 1800s to see that point illustrated.
Relative tolerance and internal security were the hallmarks of any competently adminstered empire - just ask the Romans or Chinese. And seeing as how they're something of default norms sensible emperors aspired towards, I don't consider adhering to them a very high criteria for "good dictator" pre late 1800s.
Although it's a pretty good way to tell the competent ones from the narrow-minded dumbasses, mind you.
hi
people confused monarchy with dictatorship
kings ruled in gods name (for their point of view) , from father to son . with out asking the commons , they were democratic , aristocratic or tyrannic and so on
dictators were usurpers , they leaned on the army and the people for the people or against groups in the community , when the people hated them they fell - always !!! they never managed to became kings etc'
gingis was chan emperor not dictator
the kings of england were .... kings