paxx .... the difference between the psychotic 'tyrants' and benevolent 'dictators' is enormous.
There is no comparison between Julius Cesar and Nero, both men of their time but one with vision and the other a complete fruit loop!
One really needs to distinguish the 'despots' from the 'tyrants' and place them in some sort of perspective.
One might consider Phillip of Macedon a tyrant, given the constant state of anarchy through the 'Greek' nations at the time his methods were not out of order.
His son, Alexander, certainly employed ruthless tactics in his conquest of Central Asia and Mediterranean Europe but he encouraged integration among the populations he 'conquered' and brought many of what we regard as civilised practices to these nations .... and died in his early 30s.
How do you rate Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden, a country that doesn't exactly spring to mind when conversation turns to ruthless warfare and genocide, but under Gustavus the Swedes belted the Poles and several of their neighbours bigtime!
And then we have the Swiss ..... probably the most feared troops in the early renaissance era who were available for hire to anyone with enough money ...
The Borgia family of Renaissance Italy, I think it was Cesare Borgia who was one of the Condottori but I can't recall the name of his father (Mr Borgia?) who was Pope and presided over murder, genocide and all manner of nasty happenings at the time.
I guess Henry Tudor and Elizabeth 1 fit the broad definition, but in the long run, I doubt these were truly 'Evil' people, certainly far from the stereotype of Hitler, Stalin, Hirohito and Tojo, Peron, Franco, Pol Pot, Hussein et al.
It all depends on which side of the line you stand on .... one man's 'dictator or tyrant' is another man's 'liberator or great leader' .... Ho Ch Min and Fidel Castro come to mind, even the much maligned 'Vlad the Impaler' (aka Dracula!) did manage to stop the expansion of the Ottoman Turks into Europe!!.
