[IntronExon]

I too yearn for the good old days of the Massacre of Verden, and forced religious conversion under penalty of death.

...and a bunch of Roman emperors. I prefer modern politics to that of imperial Rome, thanks.

Oh, and Solon. Arguably a truly great man, but um...

After completing his work of reform, Solon surrendered his extraordinary authority and left the country. According to Herodotus[123] the country was bound by Solon to maintain his reforms for 10 years, whereas according to Plutarch[59] and the author of the Athenian Constitution[124] (reputedly Aristotle) the contracted period was instead 100 years. A modern scholar[125] considers the time-span given by Herodotus to be historically accurate because it fits the 10 years that Solon was said to have been absent from the country.[126] Within 4 years of Solon's departure, the old social rifts re-appeared, but with some new complications. There were irregularities in the new governmental procedures, elected officials sometimes refused to stand down from their posts and occasionally important posts were left vacant. It has even been said that some people blamed Solon for their troubles.[127] Eventually one of Solon's relatives, Peisistratos, ended the factionalism by force, thus instituting an unconstitutionally gained tyranny. In Plutarch's account, Solon accused Athenians of stupidity and cowardice for allowing this to happen.[128]

I’ll argue that off the top of your head is what’s getting you into so much trouble with sweeping generalizations.

[briga]

Even the greatest emperor isn't going to fix all of the ills of society. What matters is what they can achieve during their time in power. If tomorrow some all-knowing wise leader were be elected to power in China, do you really think there would be no problems? That corruption and violence would vanish? You have to look at the historical context of their reigns.

[phyller]

I think the point that is being made is that regardless of whether or not that particular ruler is effective, in the long term they have weakened their society because they have broken the system that ensures that capable people/groups peacefully succeed each other to power.

[briga]

I don't think you can argue that any of those rulers weakened their societies--unless you completely disregard historical fact.

I was just questioning the dogma that having leaders in power for multiple terms is automatically bad. I'm open to the possibility that Xi is a bad leader--I'm no expert on China--but it seems that China today is a better place than when he came in to power. I guess people don't agree with me here.

[IntronExon]

Cough

Within 4 years of Solon's departure, the old social rifts re-appeared, but with some new complications. There were irregularities in the new governmental procedures, elected officials sometimes refused to stand down from their posts and occasionally important posts were left vacant. It has even been said that some people blamed Solon for their troubles.[127] Eventually one of Solon's relatives, Peisistratos, ended the factionalism by force, thus instituting an unconstitutionally gained tyranny.

And

... Charlemagne's grandsons broke the Carolingian Empire in civil war.

Sounds weaker to me. It seems like you’re somewhat lazily working your way backwards from a foregoing conclusion. Is it really any wonder we don’t agree with you?

[briga]

It seems like you're missing the forest for the trees here. I would recommend Durant's history of civilization if you would like a detailed account of what these people accomplished. I also encourage you to compare these leaders with the other rulers of the day.

[briga]

Apparently. I'm just having a conversation. Have a pleasant day.

[IntronExon]

Have you really lost sight of what this this thread is about? It’s not your view of historical figures in their time, it’s about your endorsement of autocracy in general and Xi in particular. If we’re at the point of judging the rulers you picked by only the standards of their day, I’d say you’ve ceded what point you had.

It is kind of pleasant to realize that you were just arguing for the sake of it though, rather than some bizarre conviction in autocratic stability.