There are countless rulers in history. Some are what you call virtuous and kindhearted rulers. They fight for the "good" of the people and for the "peace" of the lands. You would rather sacrifice your only opportunity reach your goals just to help other people in need. Others you might call thirsty savages that strives for nothing but power and fame. These people would do anything to achieve their goals even if it meant harm to other people. Although some rulers like these were brutal, many had been able to create powerful and mighty empires.

I prefer to be more of a war-like and what you call "brutal" leader. To inspire fear into the hearts of your enemies and crush all others who oppose you. Isn't this how Genghis Khan proceeded with his conquests? Although he did allow those who surrendered to live, he slaughtered countless people and still in the end, the Mongolian empire became one of the greatest of all time. I know ruling with virtue would would helps you gain the support and loyalty of your people, but some "ruthless" rulers created an empire just as mighty as what you call the "kindhearted" leaders. So which type of ruler would you rather become and why?

A ruler that governed the Empire well..and makes the empire strong and powerful. Some form of military achievement is required. But equally, there should also be achievements in economy, culture etc.

Yes, every ruler would mostly have the same goal, bringing their empire to supreme heights, but what I'm trying to ask is that would you rule with benevolence? Or would you rule in a more forceful, harsh matter? Because it seems to me that the way leaders rule are divided between these two categories but in the end, some leaders were able to reach the same heights despite ruling with virtue or cruelty.

Usually, a good ruler has to balance himself with both 'force' and 'benevolence'. Those who excelled in both are usually considered good emperors. However, in chinese history, you can usually find different types of Emperors who either favoured 'brutal force' or 'benevolence'. Those who used excessive brutal force would be criticised for being too 'tyrannical and ruthless'. Those who was too 'benevolent' would be criticised for being rather weak.

Li Shimin (Tang Taizong) was probably the best praised Emperor known for his capability in both 'military force' and 'benevolence'. Though he killed his brothers during the power struggle, he left a legacy of history whereby he allowed his bureucrats to criticise him directly. Emperor Kangxi was probably the next Emperor who was capable of both force and benevolence.

Other Emperors such as Qinshihuang, Han Wudi, Zhu Yuanzhang probably used force more than anyone else.

I've always been one to analyze fully the character and intentions of officers and look at what they have done in given situations. My time in the military made me extremely critical of traits of leadership and able to realize fully what a real leader is and what a actor playing the role of a leader is. As such I have truly enjoyed looking at a number of leaders and categorizing their leadership types and/or coming to the realization that while some of these men were probably awesome warriors or politicians, they would do a horrible job when given responsibility in a field that wasn't their specialty.


I also realize military necessity and prefer to look at the concepts of military law as a means by which to uphold morally upright, or at least morally acceptable behavior on the battlefield. I don't see it as morally upright in and of itself. Making the distinction has some pretty obvious results when watching people debate the actions of given generals who buckled under pressure or switched sides.

I'm speaking more of the Three Kingdoms period, but it is also good to be able to differentiate between leaders who were good in outright combat and held the morale of the troops, leaders who were good tacticians, leaders who were good at strategy (Strategy is different from tactics), and leaders who are better at politics and governance than actual leadership of a military force in war.

I would like to be the ruler with many concubines and to be surrounded by beautiful artwork. Leave the actual ruling to my officials and eunuchs.

Octavian Caesar.

Pax Romana.

or maybe Aixin-Jueluo Xuanye.

in my mind, octavian hold more wieght, beacuse he did so much more things for his empire and the world.

Kangxi began the trend of shutting China from the rest of the world.

I thought it was Qianlong instead of Kangxi ?

Here's George Stuart's sculpture of Kang Hsi Emperor.
See more Historical Figures® of the Manchu Dynasty at http://www.galleryhistoricalfigures.com/chinafigures.php

i read somewhere that after kangxi pwned russsians, he was full of himself.

and began the trend of neglecting firearms. another reason was that he didnt want firmarms replacing the traditional manchu way of war.

and when his grandson came along, it got worse.