We have all heard of the evil, brutal dictators, but have their ever been, in history, good, gentlel dictators?
I got to thinking and couldn't really think of any, so I ask you guys this question.
If so what did they rule, and what time period?
Printable View
We have all heard of the evil, brutal dictators, but have their ever been, in history, good, gentlel dictators?
I got to thinking and couldn't really think of any, so I ask you guys this question.
If so what did they rule, and what time period?
Edward Bouverie Pusey,
born at Pusey House, Berkshire, 22 Aug., 1800
died at Ascot Priory, Berkshire, 16 Sept 1882
gentle dictator to the English Church Union
B.
Was Ceaser not a dictator? He rulled farley kind towards his people. The reson there arnt that many good dictators is because power corupts........ how sad the world is today..
I think he was named Consul for life in the end.Quote:
Originally Posted by tibilicus
He didn't spend much time governing though, he was fighting Senate armies for 2 years after he achieved that position. Then he got butchered after he defeated them.
Cyrus the Great, Cambyses II, Darius the Great... all enlightened despots.
All the monarchs noted in history as 'enlightened absolutists', such as Catherine the Great, Frederick the Great and our very own William I, were also 'gentle dictators' (although I have some doubts about ol' William).
~Wiz
caesar was dictator 5 times (that is in 5 years) than he became dictator for 10 years and then for life but he was murdered few months after
he also was consul 5 times
caesar as you know never took the crown
he was loved by the people but the aristocracy hated him
Wow ceaser was killed because he was to good. A message here be good, but not to good.
How did Franco rule after he got power?
I beleave that's an oxymoron.Quote:
We have all heard of the evil, brutal dictators, but have their ever been, in history, good, gentlel dictators?
He was almost as bad as Stalin minus all the purges. He dissallowed art and literature and he brutalized many. He's one of the worst examples.Quote:
How did Franco rule after he got power?
Franco caused a civil war i think anyway, suported the Nazie rageim and denied spain Marshall aid because of this. Who knows if there wasnt a civil war and Franco did suport the Nazies...... The world could be a lot different today. And i probably wouldnt be alive.
Hehe i know about how he took power, but ive heard spanish people talk relatively well about him. I think it depended on which side you were on in the civil war as to how he treated you afterward?
I think quite a few kings and queens were 'good' dictators in the day, Caesar was already mentioned, but what about Augustus ? He designed Imperial Rome, and tried to do good for the provinces.
It all depends on how you look at it though, everyone who ever had a position with virtually absolute power has done some horrible things, hard choices need to be made.
Julius Caesar did some fairly brutal things while fighting the Gauls and the Germans, but they were enemies of Rome. He would definately qualify as a benevolent dictator, at least as far as the Romans are concerned.
"...a man who had become strongly committed to the popular cause and highly experienced in the exercise of power, was murdered in the senate-house by Brutus and Cassius out of jealousy of his immense power and out of longing for the traditional constitution. The people in fact missed him more than they had anyone else; they went round hunting for his killers, gave him a funeral in the middle of the forum, built a temple on the site of the pyre, and still sacrifice to him as a god."
Appian, I, 4.
How about the Egyptian Pharaoh Akhenaten ?
Yes, I was thinking of Napoleon as well. Compared to the revolution's bloody reign of terror, and the failed monarchy before it, his dictatorship seems rather "gentle" for his French citizens. And his social reforms and approach to wts./measures/sciences were quite progressive. That need to conquer the world makes it a tough sell though. However, since nearly all of Europe was dedicated to restoring the French monarchy and crushing France, I find this distraction quite understandable, if lamentable.
Sorry Red I edited Napoleon out as the question wasnt benevolent dictator but Gentle. One might say Napoleon was benevolent but I dont think you can make a very good argument that he was gentle. I mean he was a General who personaly led men in battle. So are we only looking for gentile dictators or will benevolent ones be incuded? If so that opens up a whole lot more possibilities.
Lets open it up to benevolent/good dictators. People that ruled well and helped their people out, not slaughter them and do evil acts.
Well its your thread, your the boss ~:)
So then Ill go back to Elizabeth the 1st. Lets not leave out Peter the great who almost single habdidly brought Russia out of the dark ages. And while were talking Russia lets not leave out that other Great one Catherine the Great. There are many many examples of benevolent despots out there. Heres a gentle one that was mentioned in another thread. The Dalai Lama. You could even include the Pope.
*sigh* once again, isn't that an oxymoron?Quote:
Lets open it up to benevolent/good dictators. People that ruled well and helped their people out, not slaughter them and do evil acts.
*sigh* once again, isn't that an oxymoron?
In Germany after ww1, many people longed for the good old days when there was one strong ruler in the country and they didnt have to deal with the mess of the new republic... So no. ~;)
BP yes it is quite an oxymoron, but only because we have heard of evil dictators. So the evil images becomes the same as the image of a dictator. This is why I made this thread. I wanted to know if their were some good dictators throughout history.
There were probably as many good dictators as there were evilones. Dictators are only human just like the rest of us ~:) No better no worse.
The word dictorship only implies one-man rule, nothing more. Thus a benevolent dictorship isn't an oxymoron.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
I'm pretty sure calling nigh any Russian czar after Peter the Great, nevermind the man himself, a "benevolent dictator" amounts to flat historical revisionism. Well, except maybe for that Alexander the Second, the "liberator czar" who abolished serfdom and was well enough liked that there's still a statue of him standing next to the Finnish president's office... although I'm pretty sure Russia was engaging in hardcore imperialism and fighting brutal wars with Turkey also during his reign.
But old Peter ? Get real. The man was a straight tyrant who all but invented the thereafter stock Russian practice of doing nigh anything in the most costly, bloody manner possible. The construction of St. Petersburg on a bloody mosquito-infested swampland, which cost the lives of thousands and again thousands of Swedish POWs and drafted Russian serfs is merely the tip of the iceberg. And do you have any idea of the kind of treatment his enemies tended to get en masse ?
In his later days it was something of a hobby of his to invent new taxes to pay for his assorted modernization projects and wars. That Russians these days tend to view him as a "great man" mostly shows they have a few collective screws loose; it'd be much easier to feel sympathetic for the poor buggers about the bloody-handed tyrants they seem to get as leaders if they didn't build altars for those psychos.
That's actually more or less the case with most result-producing "great leaders". In most cases to view them as "great men" and "benevolent rulers" requires overlooking, explaining away or bluntly ignoring a whole lot of atrocities, bloody wars, internal repression and assorted personal shortcomings. I mean, the damn Saddam Hussein was actually something of an enlightened despot - back when he could still afford it (ie. pre-1991) he was pretty big on supporting education, progressive social developements etc. and if you didn't cause trouble odds were you could live pretty nicely under his reign.
But I don't think I need to go over his repressive policies or how he treated "troublemakers" (including, as usual, people who spoke ill of "great and benevolent leader"), now do I ?
From what I have heard Catherine the Great was an enlightened despot, not a benevolent or good dictator. She slaughtered peasants for trying to get out from under surfdom after all.
A dictator means one man rule yes. But in order to keep that rule then the person in power will have to be brutal. The beginner of this thread asked if there was a dictator that did NOT brutalize people, and that is an oxymoron like for example "good war" because in order to become a dictator and maintain it, it's inherent to become brutal or to be brutal. Name one that didn't commit hanous crimes in order to get there. :book:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
really i thought a dictator was some 1 who told you what to do,
you dont get to vote on it
and you just do as he said or els.
Even if your not telling your own country what to do,
and in fact your telling a Nother country what to do,
then your a dictator as well.
ive edited the bit where i mention a country,
But not many go round trying to tell people what to do dictating the law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tibilicus
oh it is a surprise for you ? so think about kennedy who was not a dictator but was killed ? and he was good
Kennedy was only kind of good.
Vietnam was escalated under his rule & I think the Bay of Pigs happened too?
Very few political leaders have ever been truly and entirely good regardless of how they got to be in power.
I still feel strongly abou the Vietnam war. All that life was lost for nothing it was unwinable from the start. Thts my fear ofer the wars of the future there will be to much resitence from rebels e.c.t. to ever win.
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