[ronimacarroni]

I was reading about ancient Rome jus recently and I stumbled accross an interesting reading regarding their system

The founders of the Roman Republic, like the American founding fathers, placed checks and balances on the power of their leaders. The Romans, however, came up with a way to sidestep these checks and balances when strong leadership was needed, such as a time of crisis. The Senate could vote to grant absolute power to one man, called a dictator, for a temporary period.

During the first 300 years of the Republic, dictators were often called on when Rome faced an invasion or some internal danger. Unlike the dictators of the 20th century—such as Adolf Hitler in Germany or Augusto Pinochet in Chile—the dictatorship was limited to six months or even less if the crisis passed. If a dictator refused to step down, he could be forcibly removed.

The Roman dictator's power was absolute. He could rule by decree. He could even order executions without a trial. For centuries, Roman dictators served when duty called and gave up power when their terms ended.

Now I'm not saying I'm pro fascism, but the idea of fascism during times of crisis for a certain period of time does sound reasonable to me.
Particularly to protect the government from neo liberals who want to dismantle it.

[fuser]

Roman dictators can't be considered fascists in any meaningful way. Neither ROman republic was democracy in modern sense, this is a faulty comparison.

[pugsville]

Sulla also imposed his dictatorship by force and ruled for what 10 years? The last 100 odd years the Republic was in crisis about the working of it's Governmental system. The Advent of the larger Roman Empire created a class of immensely rich powerful men who could not be contained, the Military system of CItizen Levies was no longer workable, and in the abuse of a full time military the troops effectively become direct clients of the powerful leadership who eventually used their military backing to seize control of the republic. The republican system broke down.

[starman2003]

Roman dictators can't be considered fascists in any meaningful way.

A key difference was lack of modern science and technology notably darwinism, part of the basis for the fascist worldview.

Neither ROman republic was democracy in modern sense, this is a faulty comparison.

Well, they did have a strong anti-despotic tradition; the success of julius and Augustus Caesar in overcoming it is an inspiration to this day.

[fuser]

The key difference was economical basis of society, if roman dictators were fascist then so was Louis XVI. and as I said, it makes no sense.

Well, they did have a strong anti-despotic tradition; the success of julius and Augustus Caesar in overcoming it is an inspiration to this day.

Senate itself was full of despotic thugs. All they were against was one single family (dynasty) having the final say. This juxtopisation of modern political ideas on Rome is totally faulty.

[pugsville]

The Roman society Organisation was much more a Oligarchy than a democracy, all the leaders were from a fairly closed circle of rich families. The office of dictator was only used in the early republic, the late republic the office was only appears with Sulla and as a self appointed dictator backed by an army he bears no resemblance to the earlier office. We dont know as much about the earlier republican period and really only have semi mythical accounts without much background depth.

[Potemkin]

the late republic the office was only appears with Sulla and as a self appointed dictator backed by an army he bears no resemblance to the earlier office.

Absolutely right. In fact, Sulla resurrected the defunct office of 'dictator' precisely in order to give a constitutional fig leaf to his power grab; he was no Cincinnatus. Of course, by doing this he set a precedent which was to be used to devastating effect by Julius Caesar and his successors.