>inb4 everyone lazily names their current head of state
This bastard right here.
>suppresses the first constitution in Spain's history and reasserts absolute monarchy >thousands jailed and the Church restored to total control over everything >including restoration of the Inquisition, abolished during the French occupation >liberal political figures and anyone associated with that dangerous French revolutionary shit suppressed >our colonies in South America revolt >he decides to send troops to get them back >what? fuck this, we're poor and in ruins from the Napoleonic Wars >sailors and soldiers mutiny and refuse to go to South America >he dies at only 48 and descends into Hell
What OP said. Franco was a nightmare but this bastard was even worse. We made a big, big mistake by rebelling against the fedora libtard French.
#jesuisjosephbonaparte
Caleb Green
All of them
Jace Thomas
Nicolai I and Alexander III.
Blake Martin
>not the inbred freak Charles II
Jaxson Allen
The Dane that sided with Napoleon
Juan Powell
...
Luke Wilson
Rebelling is not a Fernando VII thing, both the liberals and the absolutists were unanimous in rebelling against the French, and right they were too. They essentially ransacked the country and they've still got some of the shit they stole from us back then.
Ian Allen
It's a tie between Gorbachev, Nicholas II and Yeltsin. However, I'll still pick Gorby. The fact that he literally destroyed a country in 5 years still blows my mind.
Camden Gomez
Take your pick
>Weakling who converted to catholicism, abdicated and fucking killed Descartes
or
>Madman declaring hopeless war after war before being dragged kicking and screaming from his position
or
>The Dane who almost an hero'd the Kalmar Union
or
>The Dane who an hero'd the Kalmar Union
Blake Butler
He gets a pass because he wasn't mentally competent and never exercised any actual power. The same cannot be said of Ferdinand VII or his daughter who both rank among the worst rulers we've ever had.
William Jenkins
>bl*e eyed g*rm >bl*nd haired g*rm >weak cuck >let the (((merchants))) speculate on the price of the wheat and cause a famine >when rebels arise do doleances instead of crushing the^m like a good germcuck idealist that you are >when battle happen flee your own land like a good germcuck that you are >listen to your women to your g*rm woman >when being captured don't resist and die in battle like a good g*rmcuck that you are >when you're being beheaded forgive your enemy instead of cursing them
France decline is due too much g*rm input into our genepool, we need to bring back the Based dark haired long haired kings
Jason Cox
>Madman declaring hopeless war after war before being dragged kicking and screaming from his position
You must either mean Eric XIV or Charles XII.
Matthew Russell
Objectively Hitler because of what followed.
Elijah Stewart
>>when being captured don't resist and die in battle like a good g*rmcuck that you are when being captured don't resist instead of dying in battle like a good g*rmcuck that you are*
His ancestor had more balls, and less g*rm input in him
Andrew Bell
Karl didn't declare any wars and Eric just fucked up one war, but boy did he make that fuck count.
Aiden Hughes
>Karl didn't declare any wars
No but he got thousands of Swedes killed in a Quixotic attempt to invade Russia.
Mason Rivera
It was the right decision, otherwise Russia could've just prepared and declared war again in another two years. Like Poland and Denmark did, twice. Nobody could've predicted the coldest winter in european history would strike.
Zachary Allen
What about Ivan the terrible? Or is it still opposite day in Soviet Russia?
Brody Roberts
> divided into South and North > Millions died in korean war > It broken the economy that had been minus grew for 35 years > Made it the poorest country in the world > Currently, 25 million Koreans are exploited
Ayden Russell
Gorbachev merely delivered the coup de grace, the country was already on its knees long before that.
Thomas Long
>ywn live in an alternative reality where Charles IV wasnt born. >Godoy was never appointed as prime minister >Ferdinand VII and the whore of his daughter never existed either >Spain didnt crash and burn during the 18th century
Why even live?
Nathaniel Sanchez
19th*
Jackson Butler
Oh boy. We´ve had some bad presidents, but this one takes the cake >Lasted only 6 months >Corrupt as hell >Acted as a celebrity, often going to tv shows or singing with bands on stage >Every social plan he executed, he did it horribly >Impeached because of heavy corruption and being "mentally incapable" >Literally took our money in sacks before being exiled >Is now on Panama and is returning in June Correa was bad but far from him.
Christopher Watson
Your forgot to say that in the last moment he appointed his daughter as heir thus provoking his brother to revolt causing a bunch of civil wars 19th century*
Connor Young
Everyone in the last 80 years
Owen Thomas
Russia must have a secret weapon or someone is using cheat codes. Look at Napoleon and Hitler aswell. What a joke. Always the coldest winter.
Cooper Gutierrez
>yfn go back in time to 1935 and assassinate Franco before it's too late
Justin Sanders
In modern history. If you look back into premodern Korean kings (believe it or not, Korea existed before the 20th century), there were some pretty bad ones.
En Sudamérica, sería más inusual si su presidente no es completamente corrupto e incompetente.
Parker Carter
Richard Cromwell really set England back 100 years
Benjamin Long
...
Ryan Powell
Cucks
Jayden Rivera
>We made a big, big mistake by rebelling against the fedora libtard French.
Hmm, that was a different thing. Besides, Joseph was just a puppet '''king''' of Napo. The war was both a national uprising and a national revolution, the liberal Constitution of 1812 was a cucking to the absolute power of the monarch, something that wouldn't have happened with Fernando el cabron in power.
Elijah Anderson
We're pretty spoilt for choice, really, both with elected leaders and monarchs.
King Stephen is an oldie and goldie.
He seized the Treasury, crowned himself, gave Cumbria to the Scots to buy them off, paid Danegeld to appease the Danes and then plunged Britain into a series of four civil wars between 1138 and 1154. The country probably was as bad at that point than it ever had been or would be.
As for Prime Ministers, well, where the fuck do I start.
Lord North lost America, Arthur Balfour was the first PM to lose his seat in a general election, Neville 'Fucboi' Chamberlain handed over the Czechs to the tender mercies of Nazi Germany, and James Callaghan let radical unions cripple the nation almost to the point of invoking martial law. Let's not also forget when Margaret Thatcher was forced to resign for trying to introduce a flat-rate tax that almost 80% of the public were opposed to. Police fighting 200'000 people Trafalgar Square. Wild shit.
Barrow is Border Reivers country, at best, that doesn't make it Scottish, as any Reiver would tell you.
Hudson White
I've heard more than one informed Spaniards who told me that the biggest reason why he was so hated was because the Liberals sorta carried the bulk of the anti-Napoleonic resistance with the Constitution of Cadiz and shit, he did nothing in the process, then tried to constantly remove the Liberals from the government, and ended up summoning the French again himself in order to get his autocratic power back. So basically he 'cucked' the nation to the French after having been enthroned as the king who came back after the liberation from the French. Is that narrative widely accepted?
I think at that point frankly the fault lies far more with the genealogy than anything he had done, or was capable of, for that matter.
Probably this guy comes the closest in terms of pre-modern leaders. Yeonsan was doubtlessly a tyrant alright, but most of his evil reputation tend to stick within the things that happened inside the court.
Santa Anna Porfirio Díaz Plutarco Elias Calles Gustavo Díaz Ordaz José Lopez Portillo Miguel de la Madrid Carlos Salinas de Gortari Felipe Calderón Peña Nieto
All of them were absolute dog shit. I will piss on every single one of their graves one day.
Austin Reyes
The second to last Korean king, Gojong was pretty bad as well; he kept trying to keep the country isolated and trapped in the Middle Ages and ended his days with Korea becoming Japan's bitchboy.
Aaron Williams
I almost forgot
Agustín de Iturbide
Henry Diaz
Primo de Rivera was the Good guy m8
Jayden Stewart
If you're willing to dig deeper than the superficial popular perceptions, Gojong wasn't certainly the Sejong reincarnate, but there's not much to say that he was spectacularly stupid and incompetent, neither.
There were a lot of waste of meager national resources, poorly-handled attempts to play the imperialist powers against each other, inability to exercise authority at the right time towards the right direction, alright, but he tried something. And the whole period tends to get excessively denigrated because the frame of comparison is always Japan which is really the only Asian country that managed to modernize on their own terms and obtain great power status.
And Japan was able to do this precisely because by the end of the Edo Shogunate, the political power by Korean or Chinese standards were grossly decentralized. I don't think most historians would evaluate Gojong as negatively as the popular idea goes which is inevitably formed by what came after him.
Leo Rivera
>And Japan was able to do this precisely because by the end of the Edo Shogunate, the political power by Korean or Chinese standards were grossly decentralized
Yes. Japan never really implemented an absolutist Confucian monarchy as China, Korea, and Vietnam did so this made them more flexible and adaptable to Westernization and modern civilization in general. In the mainland Asian cunts, we saw the establishment of communist totalitarianism, because in reality it was simply a continuation of the all-powerful centralized monarchies they had before the 20th century.
Soviet communism was also simply a continuation of existing Russian political culture.
Isaiah Cruz
>loses war >becomes mentally and physically useless for a year
just the kind of cool headedness england neaded
Jordan Wood
No, it went like this: > F7 conspires with Napoleon in order to usurp power from his dad > Napoleon kidnaps his dad > instead of installing cowardly traitor F7 on the throne, Napoleon gives the Spanish throne to his own brother > illiterate Spaniards sperg out ISIS style > literate Spaniards use the chaotic situation to reinvent the country as a constitutional monarchy with a revolutionary constitution that will serve as a model for many other countries, and that gives Latin Americans the liberties and privileges that they were demanding for decades > F7 promises to accept as long as Spaniards help repel the French invasion > when Napoleon is defeated, F7 comes back and finally gets his throne > first thing ultra-cunt F7 does is abolish the constitution, reinstate absolutism and murder everyone who was responsible for the French defeat and F7's return > obviously pissed Latin Americans engage in long, horribly bloody civil wars that lead to the independence of different nations > F7 wrecks the country in the meantime, betraying every single Spanish hero from the Napoleonic wars > and he dies with a daughter and no sons, but with a very alive, very ambitious brother > so he fucks up Spain EVEN AFTER HIS DEATH as the obvious succession problem leads to four civil wars that set us behind industrial Europe till the present day
All in all a nice guy :)
Adrian Gutierrez
>Soviet communism was also simply a continuation of existing Russian political culture
To certain extent, I agree. At least very much so in terms of the instruments of the governments and how they were utilized by the authorities.
>Japan never really implemented an absolutist Confucian monarchy as China, Korea, and Vietnam
Yes, because the notion of sovereignty and legitimacy in Japan was always highly contested between the Mikado (the emperor) and the Bakufu (the shogun). Ideological distance to the Neo-Confucian centralism was one thing, but their own weird structure of historical governance also made such rigidly centralized early modern statehood impossible.
I can't remember the name off the bat right now, but some historian I've been reading essentially interpreted the Meiji Reformation as the war between the localities between the eastern and western Japan in which the pro-shogun or pro-emperor stances were only formal pretexts. I found it deeply interesting, especially with his comparison of Choshu and Satsuma with the role that Prussia played in German unification.
Jackson Rivera
Oh yea las guerras carlistas. I forgot about that grand turd that he left behind even in his death. Really, in the worst direction ever conceivable, I think he really might be the one monarch in Spanish history who most profoundly changed the course of the country as just one king.
>revolutionary constitution... that gives Latin Americans the liberties and privileges that they were demanding for decades >obviously pissed Latin Americans engage in long, horribly bloody civil wars
What were those pre-existing complaints and sources of frustration for the American colonials before the full eruption into independence? Did they concern mostly about taxation, or how much free hands they were allowed to have in terms of whipping the indigenous folks?
Do you think the Latin American wars of independence were caused more by long-term, deep-rooted developments, or more by the short-term, immediate crisis of the leadership in the metropolitan Spain and the loss of confidence?
Was Rafael de Riego a based guy?
Jordan Sanders
Pierre Trudeau
Ethan Anderson
> Latin American complaints First and foremost, criollos (whites born in the Americas) wanted equal rights with peninsulares (whites born in Europe). To get the best public servant positions in colonial Latin America, you needed to be born in European Spain which was correctly identified as a retarded law by everyone who had a brain. Second, Latin American colonies wanted to trade with other countries like France or the Netherlands, and since Spain didn't allow that, city dwellers in Buenos Aires and Lima started to get nervous. The 1812 constitution solved these problems, but F7 was a cunt who abolished it so Simón Bolívar did what had to be done. The Libertadores wars are seen as a national struggle against Spanish tyranny in Latin America, but here, they are seen as civil wars between overseas Spaniards, in particular between rich people (Spanish aristocrats vs Latin American criollos). After all, most of the fighting was LatAms vs LatAms.
> causes of LatAm wars Mostly the crisis caused by the French invasion, which was exacerbated by F7's abolition of the Constitution. If we had had a normal king, we could have set up a kind of Commonwealth, who knows. Sucre and Espartero are some of the best generals ever and they're very underrated btw.
> Riego Absolutely based. F7 needed a massive French taskforce to put him down. His rebellion started because soldiers refused to sail to Latin America and kill the rebels there, that's how little homeland Spaniards cared about Latin American independence. And incidentally, Riego's army's liberal ways are what moved Mexico to revolt against Spain, as Mexican reactionaries were afraid of liberal power.
Nathaniel Watson
>incidentally, Riego's army's liberal ways are what moved Mexico to revolt against Spain, as Mexican reactionaries were afraid of liberal power
Interesting. So I suppose your take on the Mexican war of independence is that ideologically, it was a reactionary in nature? What were the aspects of the Trenio Liberal that provoked the Mexicans to formally severe their ties with Spain?
Andrew Allen
>His rebellion started because soldiers refused to sail to Latin America and kill the rebels there, that's how little homeland Spaniards cared about Latin American independence
We were starving and had to repair all the destruction from the Peninsular Wars. As if anyone cared about holding onto fucking Peru at that point. The monarchy were still stubborn bastards who wouldn't recognize the independence of most Latin American cunts until well into mid-century.
They also negotiated a border treaty with the US in 1819 when Mexico had been in revolt for a decade and became independent just two years later. Productive use of time right there. The Americans also had just gotten done stealing Florida from us, but it was just a swamp nobody lived in anyway.
Eli Parker
Sounds just like Trump.
Bentley Barnes
Poortugal also had a billion civil wars in the 19th century but I don't remember the reason for theirs.
But we already know who their worst ruler was so no need to say it.
Aaron Sanchez
> tfw we betrayed the Seminoles to the eternal Yank who genocided Amerindians as a sport
Evan Long
Back when Bourbon dynasty arrived in 18th century, they instituted the French practice of forbidding female monarchs. This was somewhat unusual as most European countries were ruled by a queen at some point. Anyway, as Ferdinand VII lay dying, he convinced his ministers to drop the Salic Law and allow his infant daughter to succeed him just to fuck over his brother.
Isabella II was a massive reactionary absolutist cunt just like her father and ruled entirely with the support of the army and the Church. Liberal political factions tried to curb some of her reactionary tendencies, and after a couple of civil wars she was finally deposed.
John Jenkins
You could have saved us from the eternal freemason, brothers, you could have, we could have been one forever. But you decided to suck french cock, and now we're a banana republic and you a bunch of spineless cucks.
There's no going back to the Empire.
Colton Moore
This motherfucker right here. Only lost impeachment by one vote too. Without him the south and blacks would both be fully educated hard working citizens.
