How does a republican combine his belief in the ideals of the

>>1681562
I admire their actions not them

>>1681566
Saint Louis' actions were a mixed bag, but what is truly admirable even in the present day is his moral character. His actions did not happen in isolation, they were an extent of his personality, morals and beliefs. It's not like with Napoleon for example, whose actions were great but morals were questionable (for one he was a serial fornicator).

>>1681562
>How does a republican combine his belief in the ideals of the res publica with his admiration of great historical kings
By admiring kings for their wisdom and competence rather than the position they occupied? Kind of a stupid fucking question.
>How does a republican combine his belief in the ideals of the res publica with his distaste of the weakness and self-destructive nature of modern democracy?
By reminding himself that by virtue of being a republican he ought to despise pure democracy as a concept anyway.

Human beings are sycophants and hypocrites deep down, they say they love each other but really they worship power and would obey any tyrant who seizes it.

Even thousands of years later they pine for the days when They Wuz Kings.

>>1681566
>modern democracy
>implying the people has any kind of power in a representative government

They were able to do great things, but were too weak to see the value in returning power to the publica.

whats so impossible about it?

>>1681854

This is true. I read a book about Ivan the Terrible recently and I still admired his power, even though he nearly murdered Russia and is a textbook example of why power shouldn't be concentrated in one pair of hands.

>>1682730
The exact same for me with Napoleon. Objectively he acted pretty awfully, but his charisma, scope and daring make me admire him.