ITT authoritarian heads of state that were amazing

>authoritarian heads of state that were amazing

Basil 2: Blinding Bulgaroo

Fucked up too many things to be considered amazing

...

>Failed at everything except battle of Warsaw, which was won through sheer luck, his party destroyed Poland
Yup, we got a candidate here

...

no
he had a huge authority thanks to his contributions to Poland obtaining independence but wasted it all by being so*ialist (not commie but still pretty bad)

...

NOPE>
Fucked to many things.
He almost failed at battle of Warsaw too. It was Sikorski counter attack that win the battle(and fierce defense of main line).
Pilsudski would arrive to late if none would have happen.

...

...

Stalin.

wasn't he part wallachian? And Huniady full blown wallachian?

yes, he was romanian

Lee Kuan Yew

Antonio Salazar

can i get quick rundown on this guy

...

...

Toussaint Louverture

He single handidly turned Singapore from a backwater British colony to one of the greatest Asian markets on the continent.

He founded a government of meritocracy, conservative economic policies, and liberal multiracial social policies with a strong rule of law and managed to still keep a strong traditional local identity.

LKY is legitimately the best authoritarian of the 20th century.

Why? So he can give half your country to filthy, heathen barbarians? We already have modern day politicians doing a good job of that.

Roh Moo Hyun
Was killed by freemason

I had a discussion once with someone that benevolent monarchies/dictatorships are truly the best form of government. Thought?

...

saw this painting irl yesterday

...

...

The amount of P*lish subhumans in this board is disgusting. If only Oskar Dirlewagner could come back to life.

Augustus is the all time greatest

This, too bad he fucked up against Prussia and is mostly remembered because of that.

this

yes that is something Deep Ass high schoolers often conclude when talking to their Deep Ass friends lol

There is no "best form of government"
Every system crumbles eventually.

>fag
>amazing

...

If only your father loved you.

His pro-christian campaigns to wipe out korean shamanism were ISIS tier autism, and his daughter was a corrupt retard
honestly their family should be a candidate for the JUST award
>be authoritarian but introduce major economic growth
>wife gets assassinated by someone trying to kill you
>get killed yourself by your own intelligence director (and once a good friend) a few years later

>daughter has political ambitions
>has to cut off ties with her remaining family to secure office
>gets brought down by a manipulative shaman who almost certainly played on her need of relationships by acting as a surrogate sister
>now reviled and probably off to jail soon

>tried to wipe out Korean shamanism
>daughter was manipulated by a Korean shaman

...

He unironically did nothing wrong.

...

my based albanian.

Do strategos' count?

...

>Basil 'if you're a Bulgar you're not up to par' II
Unironically the greatest Emperor

t. Maria Theresia

And malevolent monarchies/dictatorships are truly the worst form of government.
Democracy, is always above average. It's a safe bet on good enough.
If you think democracy is shit, I urge you to try living somewhere undemocratic for a year. It'll be a learning experience. If you survive.

...

...

...

...

...

These guys as well.

Yup reading his full historical biography right now. The amount of ignorance surrounding him and meme tier disdain or even hatred directed at him is not only unfounded but also plain insulting towards french History

The greatest

Blame the fucking republicans and that twat Hugo, he was loved by no one except the people. I think french elites really don't like having a prosperous country, they have to ruin it somehow

>nd liberal multiracial social policies
Wasn't he racist ? He told some things about blacks

Singapore is a ridiculous mix of all kinds of cultures and races, kept together under one rule: contribute. Don't just assume blacks m8

Just some notes on the demographics of Singapore:
Four official languages (English, Mandarin, Tamil, Malay)
5 major religions and a large population of atheists (Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Atheists, Taoism)
3 major ethnic identities (Chinese, Malay, Indian)
Near 25% of the population are foreign born, naturalised citizens. (this number is going to have to go up as Singapore has incredibly low birth rates)

Please dont forget he was actually a real Romanian! Not a Hungarian king.

t. brainlets

He was shite ruler who had no grasp of modernity or economics.

>malevolent monarchies/dictatorships are truly the worst
This, dictatorships are a gamble, a very high stake gamble, they can't be consistent. Still if Kim's successor in NK was benevolent we'd see that country turn around into an economic powerhouse in less than a century.

Some disgusting and outrageously unjust things have been done by Democracies. They are NOT above average, except by the self-fulfilling idea that Democracy itself is just, and not what it yields.
Furthermore, Plato aptly shows how actual Democracy quickly slides into Tyranny.

"Democratic" states are kept together by their most undemocratic elements.

>"Democratic" states are kept together by their most undemocratic elements.
Care to explain user?

>This, dictatorships are a gamble, a very high stake gamble, they can't be consistent.

They aren't. There are quite predictable patters at where the dictatorship would go depending on things like natural resources, prevailing ideology, level of industrialization etc.

For example, if the wealth in the country comes mostly from mining, then it's practically guaranteed that it will en up being an oppressive, poverty-stricken shithole. Why? Because there's no need for an educated and content workforce, when you can force the proles into unskilled labor at the tip of a bayonet. For the very same reason (i.e. zero need to care for citizens) infrastructure will be shite, with the sole exception of infrastructure connected with mining and exporting extracted minerals and infrastructure used directly by the dictator and his cronies (like roads to resorts popular among the elite). On the other hand, the regime will more than likely leave the people to their own devices, with little control over their lives.

this sexi boyo

It's still the dictator's choice to spent the cash from the mining as he pleases, he could improve healthcare/education/infrastructure to make it better for the people if he is in fact benevolent and does want public appeal.

To that end he'l be more efficient at succeeding than a democratic president/prime minister/what have you, because the democratic ruler has to deal with the (never unified) voice of the people, parliament, government, businesses and so on.

>It's still the dictator's choice to spent the cash from the mining as he pleases, he could improve healthcare/education/infrastructure to make it better for the people if he is in fact benevolent and does want public appeal.

Actually, he usually doesn't have that much of a choice. Dictator's main goal is to maintain power. Losing power usually means also losing one's head.

A dictator who rules over a shithole won't achieve his goal by trying to make the people happy. People made somewhat happy and somewhat well-off sooner of later will demand more. On the other hand, poverty-stricken proles who barely manage to avoid starvation won't make good revolutionaries, they will be too busy trying to survive instead to thinking how to unsaddle their ruler.

On the other hand, the dictator needs to keep his cronies happy. Unhappy cronies are more than likely to stage a coup and replace the dictator with someone who will make them happy. How dictator keeps his cronies happy? By allowing them to squander country's resources for themselves. The very same resources that could have been used to make the people's lives better.

c o p s

The dictator chooses who his cronies are and can have them executed whenever he wants and replaced with other, more benevolent cronies. There are warlords who did just this, I don't know why you're finding it impossible.

As long as the dictator has control of the army he is invincible, doesn't matter if the entire country goes on to fight a revolution, you can't win against tanks and trained soldiers.

If his high ranking cronies are loyal and obedient, and fearful of the death he can provide at any time for whatever reason, he gets to do whatever he wants.

Kek how are cops undemocratic?

the idea that an authoritarian system, whether absolute or oligarchical, is less corrupt or easier to reform than a modern democracy is simply laughable. an authoritarian system REQUIRES corruption in order to function. Let me put it like this, any authoritarian leader maintains his power through the loyalty of privileged groups. In the case of a feudal monarchy it's the landed aristocracy, in the case of a modern junta it's the military. In all cases the authoritarian must serve those groups needs instead of the nations. If he does not those groups withdraw their support and he is overthrown. This means that the state is specifically designed to cripple itself for the betterment of the autocrats supporters over the interests of the nation. In a word, corruption. Thus because the law is not actually meant to address their needs, the population must turn to either illegality or revolution in order to survive, both of which are harmful to the well being of the nation. As for the belief that democracies cannot produce great leaders America alone provides several counters to that claim. Teddy Roosevelt, Lincoln, FDR, Washington, Adams, and more were all able to be strong and powerful leaders capable of both pushing thorough rapid reforms and guide the nation through crises’ while remaining subject to the rule of law and the democratic process. But what about the bad ones? A bad monarch or other dictator can destroy his nation utterly, meanwhile it is popularly thought that Nixon was the Worst president in the past Century, yet the nation was able to chug along without falling into ruin and get rid of him without a civil war or a coup.

1: A dictator doesn't get much choice in cronies, as without their support he loses power. Thats also why killing them willy-nilly gets him killed because it's now advantageous for everyone to get rid of him before he gets rid of them. Even Stalin who killed so many had a large amount of cronies who never got executed because their support was so important.

2: And how does he control the military? Through cronyism. If he doesn't put the militaries needs over those of the nation he loses control of the military. Even Stalin couldn't get rid of Zhukov.

3:And why are they loyal and obedient? because the system allows them to enrich themselves over the well being of the nation.

When law supercedes democratic agreement, when the government becomes more overbearing in times of strife, when direct democracy faceplants in the dirt, so we have a oligarchy that has *some* of its members voted into office, who then prop one another up with funds and powerful friends.

Anything democratic is done for this: to make the populace complacent, or to have the masses be used as a weapon.

It is no promise of justice, only popular support.

Does he count?

Pretty sure that title goes to Trajan.

I miss him

What did he do that apparently made him so great, he always seems to come up in threads like this

Conservative, nationalist, technocrat that pretty much modernized Portugal's economy and education.

Who hasn’t things to say about Blacks? And what self-respecting Asian isn’t racist to some degree? Had a lot of things to say about Islam, too. But Lee Kuan Yew didn’t treat Malaysians and Indians like the brown islamic monkeys they are, so by Asian standards he might as well be MLK.

> triggered krautjewcommies

ah alcibiades, the funniest greek to ever live

>Thats also why killing them willy-nilly gets him killed because it's now advantageous for everyone to get rid of him before he gets rid of them.

Stalin is a perfect example of a dictatorship at work. Purges weren't some randomised violence but instead an opening of posts for the young functionaries born in 1900s and 1910s, who were Stalin's main base of support. Even among the Old Bolsheviks there were people whom Stalin couldn't touch, at least for a time. In the army those were the likes of Budyonny and Voroshilov.

There's a theory, to which I subscribe, that Stalin was in fact murdered by Beria and some other close cronies of Stalin who got wind that another purge approaches. If true, it would be another proof that a dictator cannot go against his main support base or that base will got him killed.

Stephan the Great

Managed to centralize Moldova during his reign by giving more rights and land to freemen in exchange for their military service, thus creating Oastea cea Mare (The Great Army), who would answer only to the king's summoning a couple of times a year

Nobles were butthurt that a king wasn't dependent on them financially and militarily anymore.