R: March With Sulla

Does absolute power corrupt absolutely?  In the first century B.C. Lucius Cornelius "Sulla" Felix, after rising through the ranks of the Roman Army, saw that Rome seemed to be headed down a dangerous path.  To remedy what he saw as the errors of his age, Sulla disobeyed his orders and marched his army on The Eternal City.  Although he left upon the restoration of the Senate's power, he would return a short while later when the situation once again turned bleak.  Installed as Dictator after his 2nd March on Rome, Sulla issued in a series of reforms intended to strengthen the Senate and the courts.  Resigning the dictatorship and restoring the Consul, Sulla enjoyed a peaceful retirement.   

    It would seem that although he had complete power over Rome, Sulla was able to maintain his integrity, humility, and respect for tradition in the face of his own absolute power.  We can contrast this account with that of George Washington, who famously turned down the crown of the young nation in order to preserve the republic.  The fundamental question becomes whether or not it is possible to have a "good" absolute monarch.  If the only factor mandating a good government is that it's led by virtuous people, it would make sense that a monarch with absolute power could, in fact, be the best leader for a nation, just as Sulla was the man Rome needed at the time.  On the other hand, power, at the very least, makes it very challenging to maintain a virtuous state of being, meaning that for the sake of nations as well as the souls of those in power, leaders should be limited in their reach.  Perhaps there are some men out there who can handle the opportunity with grace but as many have pointed out, men like Sulla and Washington are few and far between.