[Sandzak]

In ancient Rome Dictator was positive title.


Taiwan (Chiang Kai-shek) and South-Korean Dictators.


Both countries where 3rd world shitholes, the Dictators made them damn rich (High-Tech Industrialisation).

[JohnRawls]

In ancient Rome Dictator was positive title.


Taiwan (Chiang Kai-shek) and South-Korean Dictators.


Both countries where 3rd world shitholes, the Dictators made them damn rich (High-Tech Industrialisation).

Depends how you define succesful? Most of the Roman expansion was done under the Republic and Rome collapsed with the empire. Long term the dictatorial system wasn't able to manage the empire properly which impacted its long term stability with civil wars and then finally was split in two because of those management issues. At start it did provide some stability though.

Taiwan dictator is hard to categorise but most Taiwan was democratic while South Korean dictator was assasinated in the end and south korea is a democracy.

The only authoritarian state that does good or did good economically without relying on x resource (oil) is Singapore.

[Sandzak]

Depends how you define succesful? Most of the Roman expansion was done under the Republic and Rome collapsed with the empire. Long term the dictatorial system wasn't able to manage the empire properly which impacted its long term stability with civil wars and then finally was split in two because of those management issues. At start it did provide some stability though.

Rome controlled the Mediterranean Sea, further expansion was not necessary, in South was the expansion limited by the Sahara Dessert in the North the forests of Germania were economically worthless and in the East were the Persians who also had dessert and mountains. The biggest chunk added Julius Caesar with France/Gaul

Unlike written in Western history books, Rome lasted not until 4th-5th Century but 14th Century (Byzantine Empire )... not just management issues the Eastern part spoke Greek whereas the Western part Latin.

The Empire got nearly reunited in 6th century by the East-Roman Emperor but the Justinian Plague prevented the reunification.

[starman2003]

Most of the Roman expansion was done under the Republic and Rome collapsed with the empire.

In fact the establishment of the Empire ended the chaotic, corrupt period of the late republic and ushered in the Pax Romana, the height of Roman indeed classical civilization, eloquently praised in panygerics of the second century.

Long term the dictatorial system wasn't able to manage the empire properly which impacted its long term stability with civil wars

The Empire arose largely because the republic couldn't properly manage the empire. The irresponsible voters and special interests refused to treat provincials properly, leading to the social war and revolt of Sertorius etc. Julius Caesar realized that times had changed; the small city state in which the republic arose had become a vast empire of diverse peoples whose interests had to be brought into harmony with those of the Romans. Yet the shortsighted voters didn't realize this. Ergo the republic was obsolete and had to go. It did go and for two centuries the result was generally quite good.

and then finally was split in two because of those management issues.

The split was due to threats on multiple fronts at once. It's noteworthy that one result of the third century crises was the replacement of the principate with the Dominate. In other words to survive, the Empire had to become more authoritarian not less. Ultimate failure in the west btw was due to loss of citizen support; it didn't stem from authoritarianism. Plenty of authoritarian regimes survived longer including the eastern empire.

The only authoritarian state that does good or did good economically without relying on x resource (oil) is Singapore.

Well, China hasn't been doing so badly…Authoritarianism btw often strives for increased state power not material enrichment of the masses.