In some respects Sulla as a good dictator because he introduced constitutional changes which were needed. He was appointed as dictator with the task of reforming the constitution and in the whole he did a good job. In other respects he was a bad dictator. He persecuted his political opponents who had fought against him in the two recent civil wars and had thousands of them executed. This gave the Dictatorship a bad name. He also introduced measures which curtailed the powers of the plebeian tribunes, the representatives of the plebeians (the commoners). These tribunes had been in conflict with the aristocracy and Sulla belonged to the optimates, a political faction which supported the aristocracy.
To an extent, yes, as he was a gritty, tough military leader. However in his political aspects he falls short. Sulla tried to bring back the ideals of the republic, but his methods were brutal. A good leader perhaps could have instigated reforms without the bloodshed and proscriptions that Sulla initiated. Whether he was good or bad is a question that can be debated forever.To an extent, yes, as he was a gritty, tough military leader. However in his political aspects he falls short. Sulla tried to bring back the ideals of the republic, but his methods were brutal. A good leader perhaps could have instigated reforms without the bloodshed and proscriptions that Sulla initiated. Whether he was good or bad is a question that can be debated forever.To an extent, yes, as he was a gritty, tough military leader. However in his political aspects he falls short. Sulla tried to bring back the ideals of the republic, but his methods were brutal. A good leader perhaps could have instigated reforms without the bloodshed and proscriptions that Sulla initiated. Whether he was good or bad is a question that can be debated forever.To an extent, yes, as he was a gritty, tough military leader. However in his political aspects he falls short. Sulla tried to bring back the ideals of the republic, but his methods were brutal. A good leader perhaps could have instigated reforms without the bloodshed and proscriptions that Sulla initiated. Whether he was good or bad is a question that can be debated forever.To an extent, yes, as he was a gritty, tough military leader. However in his political aspects he falls short. Sulla tried to bring back the ideals of the republic, but his methods were brutal. A good leader perhaps could have instigated reforms without the bloodshed and proscriptions that Sulla initiated. Whether he was good or bad is a question that can be debated forever.To an extent, yes, as he was a gritty, tough military leader. However in his political aspects he falls short. Sulla tried to bring back the ideals of the republic, but his methods were brutal. A good leader perhaps could have instigated reforms without the bloodshed and proscriptions that Sulla initiated. Whether he was good or bad is a question that can be debated forever.To an extent, yes, as he was a gritty, tough military leader. However in his political aspects he falls short. Sulla tried to bring back the ideals of the republic, but his methods were brutal. A good leader perhaps could have instigated reforms without the bloodshed and proscriptions that Sulla initiated. Whether he was good or bad is a question that can be debated forever.To an extent, yes, as he was a gritty, tough military leader. However in his political aspects he falls short. Sulla tried to bring back the ideals of the republic, but his methods were brutal. A good leader perhaps could have instigated reforms without the bloodshed and proscriptions that Sulla initiated. Whether he was good or bad is a question that can be debated forever.To an extent, yes, as he was a gritty, tough military leader. However in his political aspects he falls short. Sulla tried to bring back the ideals of the republic, but his methods were brutal. A good leader perhaps could have instigated reforms without the bloodshed and proscriptions that Sulla initiated. Whether he was good or bad is a question that can be debated forever.
he was really cool and commanded many people. Almost dictator like
Hitler as a dictatorHe was an evil dictator who started the bloodiest war in history and killed 6 million Jewish people (Holocaust).He was successful at being a brutal dictator who took advantage of the downfall of a country and manipulated its people. He used scapegoating tactics to turn his people against the minorities living amongst them. In addition, he managed to take over a good part of Europe. Sure, he was a successful dictator for a few years there. He was brutal, bloodthirsty and in the end, he failed.But to make it long story short, yes, he was a dictator. One of the most evil dictators
Read the story of Francisco Franco, dictator of Spain. See if you think he was beneficial to their nation. The only advantage I have ever seen about a country having a dictator is that the people know whose boss and they know what to expect. But, is not much of an advantage if you ask me. Most dictators historically have been positively awful. See link below.
the think that its good because theres no more dictator but a lot of people are dying because of it
Lucius: Honey?Honey: What?Lucius: Where's my super suit?Honey: What?Lucius: Where - is - my - super - suit?Honey: I, uh, put it away.[helicopter explodes outside]Lucius: *Where*?Honey: *Why* do you *need* to know?Lucius: I need it![Lucius rummages through another room in his condo]Honey: Uh-uh! Don't you think about running off doing no derrin'-do. We've been planning this dinner for two months!Lucius: The public is in danger!Honey: My evening's in danger!Lucius: You tell me where my suit is, woman! We are talking about the greater good!Honey: 'Greater good?' I am your wife! I'm the greatest *good* you are ever gonna get!clearly, that was totally wicked
Castro was a dictator who used his people for power. He was not good by the very nature that he was a dictator.
The dictator ruled his country with benevolance and an empathetic attitude.
Hitler Stalin
The dictator took control of the country using a military coup.
To an extent, yes, as he was a gritty, tough military leader. However in his political aspects he falls short. Sulla tried to bring back the ideals of the republic, but his methods were brutal. A good leader perhaps could have instigated reforms without the bloodshed and proscriptions that Sulla initiated. Whether he was good or bad is a question that can be debated forever.To an extent, yes, as he was a gritty, tough military leader. However in his political aspects he falls short. Sulla tried to bring back the ideals of the republic, but his methods were brutal. A good leader perhaps could have instigated reforms without the bloodshed and proscriptions that Sulla initiated. Whether he was good or bad is a question that can be debated forever.To an extent, yes, as he was a gritty, tough military leader. However in his political aspects he falls short. Sulla tried to bring back the ideals of the republic, but his methods were brutal. A good leader perhaps could have instigated reforms without the bloodshed and proscriptions that Sulla initiated. Whether he was good or bad is a question that can be debated forever.To an extent, yes, as he was a gritty, tough military leader. However in his political aspects he falls short. Sulla tried to bring back the ideals of the republic, but his methods were brutal. A good leader perhaps could have instigated reforms without the bloodshed and proscriptions that Sulla initiated. Whether he was good or bad is a question that can be debated forever.To an extent, yes, as he was a gritty, tough military leader. However in his political aspects he falls short. Sulla tried to bring back the ideals of the republic, but his methods were brutal. A good leader perhaps could have instigated reforms without the bloodshed and proscriptions that Sulla initiated. Whether he was good or bad is a question that can be debated forever.To an extent, yes, as he was a gritty, tough military leader. However in his political aspects he falls short. Sulla tried to bring back the ideals of the republic, but his methods were brutal. A good leader perhaps could have instigated reforms without the bloodshed and proscriptions that Sulla initiated. Whether he was good or bad is a question that can be debated forever.To an extent, yes, as he was a gritty, tough military leader. However in his political aspects he falls short. Sulla tried to bring back the ideals of the republic, but his methods were brutal. A good leader perhaps could have instigated reforms without the bloodshed and proscriptions that Sulla initiated. Whether he was good or bad is a question that can be debated forever.To an extent, yes, as he was a gritty, tough military leader. However in his political aspects he falls short. Sulla tried to bring back the ideals of the republic, but his methods were brutal. A good leader perhaps could have instigated reforms without the bloodshed and proscriptions that Sulla initiated. Whether he was good or bad is a question that can be debated forever.To an extent, yes, as he was a gritty, tough military leader. However in his political aspects he falls short. Sulla tried to bring back the ideals of the republic, but his methods were brutal. A good leader perhaps could have instigated reforms without the bloodshed and proscriptions that Sulla initiated. Whether he was good or bad is a question that can be debated forever.
Yes
No.
He was the inventer of steam boats which helped the import export business
Yes, he was able to dig the roman empire away from their trust issues.
How about "Mr. Chick", "Eggy", "Henry", "Chuck", or maybe even "Cornelius"...
a dictator Dictator is good. You could also call him or her an absolute monarch, an autocrat, an authoritarian figure, a totalitarian ruler.