[Skynet]

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.

[Skynet]

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.

[Puffer Fish]

Yugoslavian dictator Tito was generally seen as successful, although his country fell apart after his death and fractured along ethnic lines into separate nations.

Tito was influenced by the Communism of the Soviet Union but combined socialist policies with a free market in a sort of middle-of-the-road system and tried to be more pragmatic. He frequently ran into conflict with the Soviet Union but managed to maintain Yugoslavia's independence from the Soviets.

Tito was so popular in Yugoslavia that he did not really need to use very heavy-handed tactics to remain in power.

[starman2003]

He frequently ran into conflict with the Soviet Union but managed to maintain Yugoslavia's independence from the Soviets.

No doubt it helped that Yugoslavia was not on the border with the USSR nor on the border with NATO, where Warsaw Pact troops tended to be concentrated and where Soviet domination was most strictly enforced.

[Rich]

Yugoslavian dictator Tito was generally seen as successful, although his country fell apart after his death and fractured along ethnic lines into separate nations.

Tito was influenced by the Communism of the Soviet Union but combined socialist policies with a free market in a sort of middle-of-the-road system and tried to be more pragmatic. He frequently ran into conflict with the Soviet Union but managed to maintain Yugoslavia's independence from the Soviets.

Tito was so popular in Yugoslavia that he did not really need to use very heavy-handed tactics to remain in power.

Tito was a hard line aggressive expansionist Communist, who wanted to rule Albania, Greece, Bulgaria and expand further into Italy. The funny thing was his aggressive policies were misinterpreted as the hand of Stalin when Stalin was trying his best to avoid conflict with the West.

Anyway by the end of 1948 Stalin and Tito had completely fallen out. Tito only survived because the United States intervened to prop up the Yugoslav economy. Yugoslavia and Albania were split 50 50 under Stalin and Churchill's influence agreement. But it was also because the Communist parties were much stronger in those countries than the other Eastern European countries that they ended up independent.

[AFAIK]

Russia was transformed from the most backwards and impoverished country in Europe into a military and technological superpower that launched the first human being into space and defeated the Nazis. This was achieved in the space of a single generation.

[late]

Russia was transformed from the most backwards and impoverished country in Europe into a military and technological superpower that launched the first human being into space and defeated the Nazis. This was achieved in the space of a single generation.

They had a lot of help.

[Rich]

Russia was transformed from the most backwards and impoverished country in Europe

This is a filthy Marxist lie. Russia produced more steel than Austrohungry and Italy combined. They were not far behind France. Russia was at certain points of the war fighting virtually the whole of Ottoman power, the bulk of Austria's military and the bulk of Germany's offensive power. Russia was growing at 9% from 1894-1900 and 5% from 1900-1914. Russia's folly was getting into a war with Germany, Austrohungry and the Ottomans. The fact that they were brought down by this total war with multiple enemies, does not prove their society was some sort of catastrophic failure.

Russia did not need a Communist dictatorship in order to develop.

[MadMonk]

Russia did not need a Communist dictatorship in order to develop.

The Russian Empire was finally developing, having fallen behind other European Empires in the early-mid 19th century. It is easy to have rapid growth when you start at a lower level. Russia may not have needed Communism to develop, but one thing is certain, the autocratic rule of the Czars and the nobility hampered the Empire's development for many years.

GDP per capita in Russia and other European economies, 1690s–1880s (1990 international dollars)


Russian GDP per capita, 1690s–2000s (1990 international dollars)

By the 1800s, Russia had fallen further behind northwest Europe than in the 1690s. As Russia stagnated during the 19th century, growth continued in Britain and the Netherlands, so that by the 1880s GDP per capita in Russia was just over 20% of the British level and less than 30% of the Dutch level.

Catching-up and falling behind: Russian economic growth, 1690s–1880s

[AFAIK]

The OP asked for successful dictators not situations where success was dependent on a dictatorship.

I'll add Lee Kwan Lew's name to the list since he achieved a similarly impressive transformation in Singapore albeit on a smaller scale.

[starman2003]

Russia produced more steel than Austrohungry and Italy combined.

Big deal, neither was renowned for industrial prowess.

They were not far behind France.

What about Germany which really mattered?

Russia was at certain points of the war fighting virtually the whole of Ottoman power, the bulk of Austria's military and the bulk of Germany's offensive power.

Neither the "sick man of Europe" nor Austria were very impressive powers. And Germany squandered too much at Verdun.

Russia's folly was getting into a war with Germany, Austrohungry and the Ottomans.

No, it was failing to get adequately prepared.

The fact that they were brought down by this total war with multiple enemies,

They also had multiple allies, and better ones than Germany had, notably Britain and France.

does not prove their society was some sort of catastrophic failure.

The tsarist system was a catastrophic failure. It lost; the communist or stalinist system won--even though it fought a deadlier opponent virtually by itself for two years.

Russia did not need a Communist dictatorship in order to develop.

It needed someone like Stalin to crash industrialize and survive. Compare Stalin with the czar. The latter was humiliated by Japan and Germany. The Germans beat czarist Russia even though they had powerful enemies in the west i.e. two fronts simultaneously. In sharp contrast, Stalin crushed Japan at Khalkin Gol in '39 and withstood and beat the reich--even though the nazis had no other major front in 1941-42. Not only did Stalin do a much better job preparing Russia for war in terms of weapon output, his regime was far better able to withstand war. The czar crumbled under the impact of relatively modest setbacks whereas Stalin's regime persisted even as the nazis neared Moscow. Had it not been for Stalin--probably the most successful dictator thus far in modern times--Russia would've been eaten alive.

[Puffer Fish]

Russia was transformed from the most backwards and impoverished country in Europe into a military and technological superpower that launched the first human being into space and defeated the Nazis. This was achieved in the space of a single generation.

It's true that the Russians did the majority of the fighting and by far took the brunt of the human losses, but everyone knows the Russians would have never been able to defeat the Nazis if it had not been for the Allies (mainly Britain and U.S.) on the Western side.

If you want to debate this further, then best to refer to some other thread.

[starman2003]

They had a lot of help.

Like lend lease. But the USSR helped the west by tying down the bulk of German strength and inflicting the most casualties. As for the early space age, both Russia and the US had German scientists.

[Skynet]

Most of todays rulers of Middle-East and Africa are not dictators, they are tyrants with no ideology, just cleptocracies.


@Puffer Fish 80% of German Soldiers died at the eastern front.

The Germans were well trained even in lost battles they killed 3-7 times more allies (Russians, Americans and Britains)

[Godstud]

The really big question is how do you measure "success"?

Is it economic success? Is it political success? Is it popular success?

[Skynet]

The really big question is how do you measure "success"? :?:

Is it economic success? Is it political success? Is it popular success?

There is a German saying:" The humans most sensitive organ is the purse."

[starman2003]

The really big question is how do you measure "success"? :?:

Is it economic success? Is it political success? Is it popular success?

Primarily the second. "Political success" means acquiring a lot of power internally, so as to be able to carry out a radical agenda if necessary, and enhancing the power of the State vis a vis others. To an extent, "popular" success is needed but is still secondary, assuming the power of the ruler/regime can be secured with minority support such as the military and party. "Economic success," in the sense of raising the living standards of the masses, is of little or no importance, although industrial and technological advances are needed to enhance state power.

[Deutschmania]

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.

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. Like, for an example, could the Ottoman Caliphate actually be considered to be a successor to the Eastern Roman Empire, given its Islamic civil religion? 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? What makes Rome by definition essentially Roman in the first place ? Or would a change in governing ideology replace the Roman identity with a brand new character? If not, then might the Soviet Union, which came to displace the Romanov Dynasty with its own ruling Communist Party , like wise be considered to be a kind of Nova Roma ? And might even Putin now be considered to be a new Caesar /Czar ? These are the questions asked most especially by evangelical Christian eschatologists , who regard Rome / Babylon the Great to be the evil empire that shall eventually be swept away upon the second coming of Jesus Christ , in the end of days. Obviously, if Rome is now no more, then their whole religious basis, that the Roman Empire, and Church is the Antichrist , whom only the Messiah can vanquish , falls flat on its face. So they need for there to be a regime that they can identify as being synonymous with Rome, whom is the Beast mentioned in the Book of Revelation , in order to remain relevant. In closing I will leave you with this video.