[starman2003]

I suppose that the most objectively accurate account is that the united Roman Empire , under the Caesars , had ceased to exist by the fifth century, but that various successive empires claiming to be the heirs to Rome continued on unto the early 20th century. Whether or not said regimes were the legitimate continuation of Roman Civilization , is a matter of personal political opinion.

Historians don't tend to consider them a continuation of Roman civilization just new civilizations inspired by it.

Or for that matter, could either half of the Roman Empire be considered to be in continuity with that of Julius Caesar , since the establishment of Christianity as the official civil religion?

As long as the political system was basically intact I'd say yes.

[Godstud]

Marcus Aurelius(Roman emperor from 161 to 180 AD) was a successful dictator. He was a great emperor that led thru a time of relative peace and prosperity.

[MadMonk]

Qaboos bin Said Al Said was the Sultan of Oman from 1970 until his death in 2020. At the time, when he staged a coup against his own father, Said bin Taimur, Oman was one of the poorest countries in the Middle East and had only a handful of schools for the entire Omani population. Having significantly raised education levels and living standards as well as abolishing slavery in his country, he must be seen as something of a benevolent dictator in modern times.

[late]

Successful dictators are a rare breed.

Some, like Tito, looked good until the poop hit the fan. Then, when the corruption was revealed, it wasn't just the government that fell. The country died.

[Tainari88]

Successful dictators are a rare breed.

Some, like Tito, looked good until the poop hit the fan. Then, when the corruption was revealed, it wasn't just the government that fell. The country died.

A definitely successful dictator was Spain's Francisco Franco. He was able to suppress the opposition and avoid being dragged into WWII defending the Axis. He stayed in power until his death in 1975. He was able to keep Spain viable without giving up power to the Left while he was living. Part of his success was knowing how to manage the Roman Catholic Church and its demands and the demands of the military, the Spanish monarchy and maintaining the class system while developing some social welfare programs. Mussolini never survived the struggle in Italy and Hirohito had to concede to the US a lot of terms of surrender.

Franco was very successful as a Fascist dictator from Spain. To this day many Spaniards love and honor Francisco Franco. The man who kept the anarchists, the socialists, the communists and the liberals at bay.

[starman2003]

Marcus Aurelius(Roman emperor from 161 to 180 AD) was a successful dictator. He was a great emperor that led thru a time of relative peace and prosperity.

Unfortunately that's not true. The reign of Marcus Aurelius witnessed war in the East, plague, barbarian incursions and a long period of wars on the northern frontiers. There was also the attempted usurpation of Cassius. Disease and population losses diminished economic activity and tax revenue.
It its true, however, that Aurelius dealt effectively with external and internal enemies.

[Godstud]

@starman2003 I said "relative". Compared to much of the other reigns, his was one of the more peaceful.

[starman2003]

@starman2003 I said "relative". Compared to much of the other reigns, his was one of the more peaceful.

Na, too much war. And economic life left something to be desired too. Commodus actually had a more peaceful reign than Marcus did.
Other more peaceful reigns were those of his predecessors--Pius and Hadrian.

[late]

A definitely successful dictator was Spain's Francisco Franco. He was able to suppress the opposition and avoid being dragged into WWII defending the Axis. He stayed in power until his death in 1975. He was able to keep Spain viable without giving up power to the Left while he was living. Part of his success was knowing how to manage the Roman Catholic Church and its demands and the demands of the military, the Spanish monarchy and maintaining the class system while developing some social welfare programs. Mussolini never survived the struggle in Italy and Hirohito had to concede to the US a lot of terms of surrender.

Franco was very successful as a Fascist dictator from Spain. To this day many Spaniards love and honor Francisco Franco. The man who kept the anarchists, the socialists, the communists and the liberals at bay.

I visited Spain in 1973.

There was an elite police force called the Guardia Civil. They carried big, old school submachine guns. They also had that look, like they were hoping you'd give them an excuse to use it.

As an American, I was treated well. But the Spanish that traveled were subject to long lines and searches.

I don't know how correct you are. But I do know that it would have sucked to be Spanish in Franco's Spain.

[Tainari88]

I visited Spain in 1973.

There was an elite police force called the Guardia Civil. They carried big, old school submachine guns. They also had that look, like they were hoping you'd give them an excuse to use it.

As an American, I was treated well. But the Spanish that traveled were subject to long lines and searches.

I don't know how correct you are. But I do know that it would have sucked to be Spanish in Franco's Spain.

Many Spanish families still mourn their dead that if they were of the Republican side of the political spectrum were not even allowed to bury their dead or speak about their dead relatives. The wounds from fascist Spain are still there. Unhealed.

But? Successful as a dictator Franco was. He was not deposed, assassinated, or sent into exile. He was successful. He also knew if Spain were to enter WWII defending Germany and Hitler and the Axis, he was DONE. Spain had incredibly hard battles before WWII and more death in Spain over defending Hitler would have meant his certain demise.

[Rancid]

Castro. The CIA never got him, he died on his own terms.

[starman2003]

Castro. The CIA never got him, he died on his own terms.

True, he held out a long time right under the nose of the US, a notable achievement. But he didn't export his revolution much in Latin America. Gueverra…And the communism he espoused ultimately crumbled in Eastern Europe and the USSR.

[Deutschmania]

True, he held out a long time right under the nose of the US, a notable achievement. But he didn't export his revolution much in Latin America. Gueverra…And the communism he espoused ultimately crumbled in Eastern Europe and the USSR.

From the moment Fidel Castro took over power in Cuba in 1959, he became an inspiration for those who were against the presence of capitalism in Latin America. Following the lead of Cuba’s revolution, several left-wing armed guerilla groups in the 1970s and 80s began fighting capitalism and what they called “imperialistic ideals.”

More recently, Fidel Castro’s influence inspired a generation of leftist political leaders who eventually became presidents of their countries. https://america.cgtn.com/2016/12/04/timeline-fidel-castros-influence-on-latin-america

Plus, in addition to the number of countries that are still governed by a Communist party, such as Vietnam, among others, Communism still has retained considerable support in Eastern Europe . https://medium.com/@bobbyarlan/communist-nostalgia-as-the-reality-of-bourgeois-democracy-hits-home-in-eastern-europe-3960aa341560

[starman2003]

Despite nostalgia for communism, I don't think it'll actually revive. For quite some time, I've heard of such nostalgia in former east Germany for example, yet AFAIK there's no serious, mass movement to bring it back. Communism may have had some appealing aspects but if it really was the answer it wouldn't have crumbled in so many countries.

[Deutschmania]

Despite nostalgia for communism, I don't think it'll actually revive. For quite some time, I've heard of such nostalgia in former east Germany for example, yet AFAIK there's no serious, mass movement to bring it back. Communism may have had some appealing aspects but if it really was the answer it wouldn't have crumbled in so many countries.

If long-term sustainability is the criteria for success then I could say the same about fascism. What countries today are expressly fascist ? Yet there still continues to be movements and parties around the world that take their inspiration from both Communism and fascism respectively. It's just that in countries that are currently multiparty democracies , the neo-Communists have since become integrated into the broader social populism , while in turn post-fascism has been absorbed into national populism . So the legacy of such historic ideologies still continues to shape the political opinions of today.

[starman2003]

So the legacy of such historic ideologies still continues to shape the political opinions of today.

Yeah but there's little of either in actual practice. That may change, dramatically, if or when a combination of factors--the impotence of democracy in the face of environmental degradation and ballooning debt, AI and automation etc--break the status quo and compel less popular but more effective (i.e. authoritarian) alternatives.

[Skynet]

Under Emperor Trayan Rome had the biggest expansion up to Babylon and Basra.


One big achievement of him was to give all free man the roman citizenship, before it was seldom outside Italy.


The best phase was during the rule of "adoptive Emperors". The power was overgiven to by the ruler to the next by choice of the best, not relatives like sons.

[starman2003]

Under Emperor Trayan Rome had the biggest expansion up to Babylon and Basra.

Only briefly. Hadrian abandoned Trajan's eastern conquests

One big achievement of him was to give all free man the roman citizenship, before it was seldom outside Italy.

I think you're confusing Trajan with Caracalla who reigned a century later.

The best phase was during the rule of "adoptive Emperors". The power was overgiven to by the ruler to the next by choice of the best, not relatives like sons.

To some historians and contemporary observers it seemed like a more meritocratic system had been established. But it owed much to accident--no second century emperor had a son until Marcus Aurelius, who made his son Commodus the emperor.

[Skynet]

Only briefly. Hadrian abandoned Trajan's eastern conquests

But this disproves @JohnRawls statement that the Empire did not grow... it grew in economic important areas not in the forests of Germania.

I think you're confusing Trajan with Caracalla who reigned a century later.

My mistake.

To some historians and contemporary observers it seemed like a more meritocratic system had been established. But it owed much to accident--no second century emperor had a son until Marcus Aurelius, who made his son Commodus the emperor.

What do you think how should the succession in autoritarian state be solved???

[starman2003]

But this disproves @JohnRawls statement that the Empire did not grow... it grew in economic important areas not in the forests of Germania.

Yes it grew in Trajan's time as Rome annexed Dacia.

What do you think how should the succession in autoritarian state be solved???

I'm in full agreement that succession should be meritocratic. But you can't just award a leadership position on the basis of an IQ or general knowledge test. The leader must have the right orientation, such as full identification with the State and willingness to prioritize a greater Whole (the State, its Worldview and its cause) over anyone's personal interest. Modern totalitarian systems had the right basic approach of a party apparatus. They failed as their ideologies were flawed but I view them as precursors of an ultimate system of this kind.