I don't know, maybe a better word would be megalomaniacs or people who suffer from god delusions. I know it's rationally wrong, but I just can't help but feel, for lack of a better word, inspired. I know a lot of the portrayals of these people are purpotrated by themselves, but to me, this is the closest we humans can get. In a godless world, a world filled with disease, poverty, starvation, and failure, where we all either struggle amongst each other in the fray, or cower in fear together in the mud, one man emerges to take control. Realizing the ineptitude of the many, of the politicians, of the masses, of the rich, of the poor, of the opressors, of the opressed, he dictates. One man, who seizes the day. One man, who casts the die. One man, who shapes destinty with his own hands, to create a beautiful illusion.

(First clip starts way near the end, don't be afraid. It makes the second clip so much more powerful)

Yeah, I should get back to studying for my Roman Civilization class O.o

I think it's sort of cool though, how it's always a cycle of things going bad, and people losing confidence in themselves, getting a dictator, losing confidence in the dictator, and back again.

We still have a similar attitude today with the commander in chief philosophy. In a time of crisis, we believe it is best to put it all in the hands of one or few.

And I just love the art and fluff that comes with dictatorship XD To me, those are so beautiful, that it completely masks the ugly reality of their rule (dunno if I should throw Alexander in there... it's more like he's just a king who conquers a lot of land and people, which immeditely collapses. But hey, he inspired a shit load of people after him, so he's the first true mortal god figure in my mind)

I dont love them per se, but I do love reading about them, history is kinda my thing,

as to should we be ruled by a dictator? No, democracy works, albeit a system that gives more power to a democratically elected leader would be grand. Sorta like an elected dictatorship

Dictators are usually horrible in 99% of the time they are allowed to seize power.

The only one I can think of that didn't make a total mess of things (and I'd love to see Pastro chime in on this) would be Augusto Pinochet.

Despite the fact he was a total dictator in the vein of many other Latin Americans, he did embrace ravenous free trade ideas, and grew the country into being very economically prosperous during a time in which most other countries were stagnant. When he left power, better men took over, and have taken Chile from being a rather minor nation in Latin America to the forefront of being a poster child for economic development in the region.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabius_Maximus

I think he was a pretty good one (although the people at his time rediculed him).

Anyone know the precise definition of dictatorship? It's basically an monarchy, or should I say a monarchy is a dictatorship, but dictated by heridatary transfer of power right, and a system that is permanently in place right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vespasian

Anyone know if Vespasian fits under the definition of Emperor, dictator, or both? Since he's not part of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, and only gets the title of emperor because the senate confirm him as such.

Also, reading Suetonious' account of him makes me really like him (along with his statues). Although Suetonious was writing under his sons... XD

Also, anyone like corny and melodrama? I say fuck the people who despise grandiose shit. They're like Grendel from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grendel_%28novel%29 and I feel like I'm Hrothgar. I'm content with the illusion in my mind. Or another analogy is that I'm Emiya, and the nay sayers are Archer...

I need to take a nap from studying maybe...

Isn't elected dictatorship a contradiction? Dictatorship, not in the Roman sense, is a person who takes control without consent right? Totalitarian is just having control over everything, whether you did or did not get consent.

Maybe that's the difference between monarchy and dictatorship. At least monarchy is established and continued via a everlasting and objective standard/system. Dictatorship is more like just convincing people/fear mongering them into giving up power involunatrily.

Control implies consent, at least at the state level. People who really don't want to be controlled won't be. That doesn't mean that they're happy, or that they're in an optimal situation at all, but control always comes with a degree of consent

And i agree that there is a certain romance to the great dictatorships. Some of history's most fascinating personalities end up there, and there is a certain majesty to it.

I would also look at Getulio Vargas of Brazil as another dictator who probably did good things (the Federal Republic they had proceeding him was quite the sham anyways, and he fixed things up rather well). There is often a certain threshold of human development in societies. After that threshold, democracy works, before that threshold, it usually doesn't. That's why you saw the Kerensky government in Russia completely collapse on itself, but why stable democratic systems in certain societies never seem to go away.

Wasn't he on trial for crimes of war around the year 2000?

My ex-girlfriend does! You wouldn't believe how many times I heard about......oh. You said "tators", didn't you. Never mind.

There'll always be kings mum, even if we don't call them that.

Then do whatever you have to...

That is correct. I wasn't trying to justify his inhumane treatment of others...Just that his economic policy led Chile to prosperity during his rule, and especially moreso when he left office and more democratic men and women came into office.