Not-So-Bad Dictators?

[Michael]

As noted in the Dictators (http://www.discussionworldforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=355) thread, some dictators might not all be entirely bad. :shrug:

This thread is for discussion of those rare exceptions to the rule that all historical dictators were evil bastards.

Note: This thread is in the history section, so that makes all contemporary dictators outside the bounds of discussion. ;)

* * *

To start things off, I've asserted that Julius Caesar and Oliver Cromwell are both good candidates for this exclusive club.

Anyone disagree? Or have any suggestions of who they think ought to join the list?

[Non Sequitur]

I wonder what you mean by "not so bad"? If you mean good people, then no Caesar doesn't qualify, but as for good ruler, then yes.

[Michael]

I wonder what you mean by "not so bad"? If you mean good people, then no Caesar doesn't qualify, but as for good ruler, then yes.
I'm definitely referring to them as 'not so bad' as rulers. Good ones are very rare indeed, but I think more than a few did a decent job as rulers, doing what needed to be done when the existing instutional system became disfunctional (both Caesar and Cromwell fit this type).

I'll certainly agree that just about any dictator is going to have a real hard time getting past Saint Peter, even if they were relatively benign dictators. ;)

[Non Sequitur]

under that definition then, and keeping with the Roman theme, Augustus would qualify.

[Michael]

under that definition then, and keeping with the Roman theme, Augustus would qualify.

Well, I suppose so. I think he has less a claim upon the title than Julius.

I agree that Augustus was in fact a damn competent ruler - probably one of the most competent rulers of all time. But that's the only praise I have for Augustus.

Julius at least had some progressive ideals he was working towards (which is precisely why the arch-conservatives murdered him). There was nothing progressive about Augustus in any way - if anything, he was as conservative as any of the 'optimates' that murdered Caesar.

[Donkey]

I have a hard time getting past the aggressive empire building.

[Michael]

I have a hard time getting past the aggressive empire building.
The Roman Empire never added a single square inch of territory after Julius Caesar. Ergo, Augustus never built the Empire - he just managed to rule it successfully.

(Slight exception for the temporary holding of Eastern Dacia under Trajan, abandoned by Hadrian).

[Donkey]

My post was in reference to Julius Caesar.

[Non Sequitur]

Well, I suppose so. I think he has less a claim upon the title than Julius.

I agree that Augustus was in fact a damn competent ruler - probably one of the most competent rulers of all time. But that's the only praise I have for Augustus.

Julius at least had some progressive ideals he was working towards (which is precisely why the arch-conservatives murdered him). There was nothing progressive about Augustus in any way - if anything, he was as conservative as any of the 'optimates' that murdered Caesar.

Is "progressive" the mark for "not so bad"? hmmm... my list gets shorter.

[Michael]

Is "progressive" the mark for "not so bad"? hmmm... my list gets shorter.
:lol:
No, I was just arguing that Julius was a "better" dictator than Augustus.

I did agree that Augustus was definitely in the "not-so-bad" dictator club. After Augustus, Roman emperors tend to go down hill fast.

[Donkey]

It's nearly impossible, I think, to be a "good" dictator. One, because power is too corrupting, two, because if you are ultimately powerful, you are also ultimately responsible for things that go wrong, and nobody is so omnipotent as to be able to preempt or solve every problem a large state faces.

[Michael]

It's nearly impossible, I think, to be a "good" dictator. One, because power is too corrupting, two, because if you are ultimately powerful, you are also ultimately responsible for things that go wrong, and nobody is so omnipotent as to be able to preempt or solve every problem a large state faces.
Hence the thread title of "not-so-bad" dictators! :lol:

Even the very best ones can usually be accused of cold-blooded murder. Heck, Cromwell committed 'regicide' even!

[partofme]

under that definition then, and keeping with the Roman theme, Augustus would qualify.

He was a real peach.

[Michael]

It's nearly impossible, I think, to be a "good" dictator. One, because power is too corrupting, two, because if you are ultimately powerful, you are also ultimately responsible for things that go wrong, and nobody is so omnipotent as to be able to preempt or solve every problem a large state faces.
Notwithstanding my comment above, I'd also like to add that dictators tend to arise in direct response to a major social-political problem that cannot be resolved (or contained) otherwise.

That explains the triokia of Marius, Sulla and Caesar under the late Republic in Rome, it explains Oliver Cromwell's position after the defeat of King Charles in the English Civil War (Parliament versus King). It also explains the rise of the northern Italian 'signoria' (Sforza in Milan for example).

Btw, I might add one partial failure of the French Revolution was that they killed off Danton and Marot and ended up with Robbespierre and then Napoleon. Those latter two were just typical tyrannts. I think Danton or Marot were more likely to be the kind of 'not-so-bad dictator' that France needed at that time and might have made this list. :)