ITT: Underrated great leaders

>in b4 edgy /pol/

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=1boQIi_GZ1g&t=14s
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedro_II_of_Brazil
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

youtube.com/watch?v=1boQIi_GZ1g&t=14s

Aurelian

L V C I V S · D O M I T I V S · A V R E L I A N V S · A V G V S T V S · O P T I M V M · I M P E R A T O R E M

ALTHOUGH HE IS ONLY UNDERRATED NOW; HE WAS WELL RATED IN HIS OWN TIME.

— ADOLF HITLER.

— HUSSAIN IBN ALI.

— THOMAS SANKARA.

— MUAMMAR QADDAFI.

— AGUSTÍN DE ITURBIDE.

— MUHAMMAD ALI JINNAH.

— ANDRÉS MANUEL LÓPEZ OBRADOR (MAY SOFIA BE WITH HIM).

>problem?

Charles was shit

...

Charles was great.

If Peterboos are a thing then I definitly am one

The first person to weaponize autism

>Literally a puppet dictator
>/po/turds consider him a good leader because le helicopter XD

Based Mael

>"kill da mufugging crackaz"
>live in shit for the next 200 years

Stannis

He, at least, seemed like a good man. I'd say Philip II is also underrated due to the black legend.

Carolus Rex

>underrated great leaders
>posts an overrated leader

>Liberated England from the Danes

>underrated
In any case overrated, He and his family inherited very luckily one of the best kingdoms (if not the best at that moment) of Europe and basically destroyed it through the time with eternal and unnecessary wars.

‘I am not going to hesitate and if the country is to live and if we have to exterminate 10,000 republicans, the 3 millions of our people are bigger than the ten thousand.’

Did this nigga actually do anything apart from inheriting a fucking huge amount of land?

...

>Gulf War 1
>Panama
Both were beautiful wars you can't deny it

Defeated the french in Italy, fought against the Turks. Also, the Spanish destroy the Aztecs and Incas.

This.

>Not posting Hiram I
Absolute Haram

Carlos deserves it, he didn't kill Luther when he had the chance, he divided the vast empire he had inherited based only on muh honor like an asshole and made Spain suffer from an inflation that would cause its fall.

>loses the empire

>invading unprepared sandniggers and Caribbeans with 16 soldiers is somehow impressive

and so did Napoleon

>eternal and unnecessary wars.
>defending the faith from piece of shit anglos and protestants was "unnecessary"

You probably are an anglo scum.

Literally a benevolent dictator

...

...

What wars did he actually start? All wars in the old world were pre-emptive or defensive. Specially his main attention focus, the several defenses against unjustified french aggression.

He micro managed literally every inch of that land except the Americas. He went to personally talk with the local elites, and he personally lead expeditions like the ones in Africa.

elaborate my fellow Veeky Forumstorian on the puppet dictator part?

>not posting the real Carolus Rex

this is an ancestor of mine~

...

>Carlos I

you're still around?

Under Gustav Stresemann Germany's economy went under much recovery following the second world war and the Treaty of Versailes. He is largely overlooked because he is in the shadow of Hindenburg and Hitler but he rally made some improvements to a wrecked German state (e.g. dealt with hyper inflation, renegotiated many of the post-war burdens on Germany and joined the league of nations).

Charles only gets called Carolus by sabaton because it would be to nazi like to say his Swedish name or am I wrong?

HOUARI BOUMEDIAN.

READ READ READ. TONIGHT YOU READ.

>iraq
>unprepared

Epic meme.
He used his latinized name as a signature. Pic related.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedro_II_of_Brazil

>country is prosperous and stable
>likable monarch
>get overthrown

Right. But that's from an Imperial Habsburg perspective.

From a Castillian perspective, what was the fucking point of defending [insert random Burgundian realm province] against French agression? or fight to restablish Imperial authority over those Northern German princes? Number of fucks given tends to zero.

Even more when it was actually Castille that had to carry the lion's share of this Imperial Habsburg stance both in moneys and men.

>cant bake bread

he has such a brilliant statue, one of those leaders I genuinely respect

you're thinking of Jean Jacques Dessalines

I don't think Leopold II was a great leader, but fucking hell wouldn't it have been awesome to be him and fucking around in Prague in your great menagerie?

>Sends soldiers to help the madman Idi Amin
>Tanzania and Museveni's rebels BTFO Amin's forces and slaughter the Libyans sent to help
>Gets butthurt at Sadat after Yom Kippur
>Chimps out and attacks Egyptian territory
>Egyptian military routs the Libyans and seize some Libyan towns before ceasefire is called
>Wants to annexe Northern Chad
>Chadians get on their fuckin Toyotas and route the Libyans in several successive engagements
>Africans in pickup trucks fucked over a modern army
>While all this is happening gives material support to several terrorist organizations around the world and attempts to foment unrest in the States multiple times
>Gives aid to and trains such wonderful murderous assholes as Foday Sankoh (RUF Sierra Leone) and Charles Taylor (Liberia)

While I will most definitely acknowledge the leap in living standard among everyday Libyans and the modernizing of his country, Gaddafi's foreign policy was fucked.

She got around.

he was a good boy
he did his best with what god gave him

Only modern leader to my knowledge who had the guts to rightfully consult necromancy when making decisions.

*wrong William Lyon Mackenzie

Behold! The real Carolus Rex
BROKEN DREAMS SO GRAND

How come his armor makes him look like he has a beer gut? Was it design with some practical function or was he fat?

>you now realize that Charles II was contemporary with Charles XII

Charles was not an authoritarian king. Even in Castille, one of the realms where he had a firmer grip (after the revolt was crushed, of course), no decision concerning the realm was made without consulting the local elites. Castillians could have refused to play this role.

Also, you talk like Castille was disconnected from Europe. It wasn't. Having the burgundian lands and castille under the same ruler was benefical, since castillian wool had it's main market in the netherlands (that's why Philip inherited both). Also you're forgetting Charles involvement in the Mediterranean. We could argue if the war against the turks was benefical, but it wasn't unpopular. His expeditions in N. Africa (no other Habsburg invaded it personally) benefited Spain and followed the path of Cisneros. His wars against the french were mostly italian wars (and again defensive so it's not like he had a choice) and inherited from the Crown of Aragon. So unless your ideal is the Catholic Kings being defeated and Castille falling under the king of Portugal you can't blame Charles. Every other king of Aragon would've eventually fought the french. His imperial adventures were also necessary, for Austria was in the border with the turks and he needed the collaboration of all the empire to resist Suleiman. Again, while not economically benefical, from a 16th century perspective it's positive for Castille to be in the same side as Austria against the turk.

He would be getting the recognition he deserved if his country didn't devolve into a bunch of hueniggers.

the sack of Rome was excessive and wrong

Sacra Cesarea Catolica Real MAjestad

He was an amazing conquerer on literally no one on ever talks about him.
Is it because his kingdom became a meme after he died?

ah yes, I too think IMG_9892 was a great conqueror

on 4chinz, he's seriously overrated

>on the internet, he's seriously overrated
ftfy

It was necessary tho

Well finally some appreciation

I don't get it

Difference is that in Castille the Parliament had become a merely consultive organ that wasn't even properly constituted as the King had retained the prerrogative to convoke Cortes whenever and wherever he wanted to and could levy taxes or dispose of moneys as he pleased (after crushing the Revolt of the Comuneros ofc) whereas in other realms there were lots of leverages against the King's power to act executive, pass laws or especially levying new taxes, collecting and disposing of funds arbitrarily.

Which meant that whenever the Crown needed more moneys, it took them from Castille.

Also his accession to the throne wasn't the Catholic Monarchs masterplan. That wasn't remotely the idea. It happened by pure accident because the 2 next in the line of succesion died, and Joana, married to Philip of Burgundy, happened to be the 3rd in line. And no, Castille wouldn't have fallen under Portugal at all. Though even that would have been a better outcome.

Everything else you said could have been done (or not done) simply by means of foreign policy attending the interests of Castille where mattered commiting as much, or as limited, as national interests would deem aproppriate.

Whatever Aragon does or doesn't do in Italy vs France would be of Aragon's responsibility, in military and economic terms, not Castille burden as it was. Whatever the issues in the HRE and the Protestant revolt wouldn't have consumed as much time and resources as they did. The Burgundian Realm defense from Franch ambitions would be their military and economic responsibility, again, not Castille's burden. And as for the Turks, the only scenario actually worth of direct Castillian attention, it's actually the complete opposite, since not having to deal with all the other theatres would have liberated a fuckton of resources to throw against the Turks and in fact the biggest, longest lasting advances in North Africa against the Turks were done before Charles came to power.