Russian leaders

Why have the majority of Russian leaders been bad?

Peter was great, so was Catherine

They like strong leaders. Genocidally strong.
Not many nations put their butchers in mausoleums.

He locked his wife in a dungeon for her entire life and was an abusive alcoholic.
"great"

Peter was, Catherine II was a bitch. The "great" was how she liked to be called. It wasn't like with Peter, Alfred etc. People's lives didn't improve under her rule, she was wasting money, great commanders were losing their position because they fell out of favor "Great" shouldn't be given to anyone.

By what metric? Since Muscovy centralised control over Russia, its leaders have built one of the largest empires in world history that was never at the mercy of foreign powers. That's a pretty good track record.

If you want to see shit leaders, look at Poland. They had all the aces in their sleeves, but still managed to get cucked three ways due to governmental incompetence.

Buttblasted manlet spotted

retard

Not all of them. But many Russians are institutionalized. So I guess retarded. If you live in a poor country you might as well have a feared leader. A rather lousy trade off

Since Russia as we know it was founded by Muscovites, who were prone to Steppenigger tier despotism.

>beat the vikings, teutons, mongols, napoleon, hitler
>all countries have to go through russia to get to the international space station

Yup, terrible.

Rurikid ancestry.

Are you in the wrong thread perhaps?

Novgorod should have won

Won what? It never tried to consolidate power, it wasn't even conquered by the Mongols.

>Kiev should have won
FTFY

>can't handle strong leader
wew lad

They can't. Maybe that's why they worship their murderers.

W*man spotted.

Alexander III was the best tsar after Peter.

Rulling is hard.Most leaders are considered shit if you ask the people that they rulled.There have been a handful of good leaders in history

He ruled three years. I don't know anything about him. Why was he so great? I thought Alexander II was good.

>three years
Try 13. And Alexander II was a dumbass.

Peter wasnt great, he just copied western countries, defeated a heavily outnumbered Sweden and built a new capital with slave labour.

A lot of their early Viking type leaders were good who unified them and helped spread Christianity.

...

Right. My bad. The dude doesn't look very promising.

>>beat the vikings
vikings literally conquered them and made foundation of their culture/countries you retard
russians couldn't create their own state without their help and rurikovich dynasty came from vikings

He was a hardliner reactionary who ruled with an iron fist, unlike the cuckolds that were his father and his son. This ensured he presided over the longest period of peace in Russian history, was literally nicknamed "Peacemaker". Also despite being a royal he was down to earth and had the mentality of a peasant which means the people loved him.

I'm sure his son was greatful for this legacy of a police state. I hope the people were happy at least.

>He fell for the Normanist theory

The German, horse fucker bitch ain't great

Sounds great to me, he put those peasants to good use. Considering how Russia looked before his reign, its a big deal.

She died on a toilet (which she made out of Polish throne) no due to horsesex.

Oh shit its the Big Show.

His son was an incompetent cuck who probably couldn't tie his own shoes without help.

Great for Russia maybe but not compared to the rest of the world

>This many people not getting the joke
Come the fuck on Veeky Forums.