No, you've missed the point again. Brunswick was government in a similar way that Saddam was government in Iraq. There weren't any meaningful elections, folk didn't step down from office: and for example the tyranny of the Ancien Regime in France needed bloody revolution to address some of the more manifest injustices of the system. Thus far, all of your American comparisons have been pretty wide of the mark, but you were getting closer with your Middle-Eastern references. I shall quote from Wikipedia, which you will no doubt find amusing:
"Charles William Ferdinand (German: Karl Wilhelm Ferdinand, Fürst und Herzog von Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel) (October 9, 1735 – November 10, 1806), Duke of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, was a sovereign prince of the Holy Roman Empire, and a professional soldier who served as a Generalfeldmarschall of the Kingdom of Prussia. Born in Wolfenbüttel, Germany, he was duke of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel from 1780 until his death. He is a recognized master of the modern warfare of the mid-18th century, a cultured and benevolent despot in the model of Frederick the Great, and was married to Princess Augusta, a sister of George III of Great Britain." [My emphasis.]
Now...look up "despot" and "despotism":
"Despotism is a form of government in which a single entity rules with absolute power. That entity may be an individual, as in an autocracy, or it may be a group, as in an oligarchy. The word despotism means to "rule in the fashion of a despot" and does not necessarily require a singular "despot", an individual.
Despot comes from the Greek despotes, which roughly means "master" or "one with power", and it has been used to translate a wide variety of titles and positions. It was used to describe the unlimited power and authority of the Pharaohs of Egypt, employed in the Byzantine court as a title of nobility, used by the rulers of Byzantine vassal states, and adopted as a title of the Byzantine Emperors. Thus, despot is found to have different meanings and interpretations at various times in history and cannot be described by a single definition. This is similar to the other Greek titles basileus and autokrator, which, along with despot, have been used at various times to describe everything from a local chieftain to a simple ruler, king or emperor."
I hope that gives better meaning and therefore understanding. In Brunswick's case he was a singular though benevolent despot, both in the wielding of power, and in the historical context of despotism.
Now given this information, which you could have found easily yourself, I'd say you were making cheap, untruthful, and provocative replies, based on tolerable wit, but having little to do with the actuality of the system you chose to use as your point-of-leverage for this exchange. By all means be as partisan as you like, but please do not misrepresent or revise history in order to bolster your thesis: you will be called out on it.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2015-05-08 09:54 am (UTC)"Charles William Ferdinand (German: Karl Wilhelm Ferdinand, Fürst und Herzog von Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel) (October 9, 1735 – November 10, 1806), Duke of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, was a sovereign prince of the Holy Roman Empire, and a professional soldier who served as a Generalfeldmarschall of the Kingdom of Prussia. Born in Wolfenbüttel, Germany, he was duke of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel from 1780 until his death. He is a recognized master of the modern warfare of the mid-18th century, a cultured and benevolent despot in the model of Frederick the Great, and was married to Princess Augusta, a sister of George III of Great Britain." [My emphasis.]
Now...look up "despot" and "despotism":
"Despotism is a form of government in which a single entity rules with absolute power. That entity may be an individual, as in an autocracy, or it may be a group, as in an oligarchy. The word despotism means to "rule in the fashion of a despot" and does not necessarily require a singular "despot", an individual.
Despot comes from the Greek despotes, which roughly means "master" or "one with power", and it has been used to translate a wide variety of titles and positions. It was used to describe the unlimited power and authority of the Pharaohs of Egypt, employed in the Byzantine court as a title of nobility, used by the rulers of Byzantine vassal states, and adopted as a title of the Byzantine Emperors. Thus, despot is found to have different meanings and interpretations at various times in history and cannot be described by a single definition. This is similar to the other Greek titles basileus and autokrator, which, along with despot, have been used at various times to describe everything from a local chieftain to a simple ruler, king or emperor."
I hope that gives better meaning and therefore understanding. In Brunswick's case he was a singular though benevolent despot, both in the wielding of power, and in the historical context of despotism.
Now given this information, which you could have found easily yourself, I'd say you were making cheap, untruthful, and provocative replies, based on tolerable wit, but having little to do with the actuality of the system you chose to use as your point-of-leverage for this exchange. By all means be as partisan as you like, but please do not misrepresent or revise history in order to bolster your thesis: you will be called out on it.