[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.