(untitled)

Was there any roman emperor (including the west) that was fascist. Like that had corporate statist ideals or comparible but its from the days of central rome, not including honorius. Will also accept the HRE and the ostrogoths.

>>31264 Caligula, ofc. He'd fit right in.

You could you know.... pick up a history book sometime.

>>31265 I did and the most comparible was either alexamder severus, aurelian, or philip the arab

>>31265 Unlike youd know dumbass

>>31268 What a touching display of eloquence. Such mastery of the language!

>>31269 fuarrrk off libtard

>>31270 Have you not noticed what liberals are doing to the English language? Not to mention they'd never point out a poster's mental deficiency or learning disability like that because it would be "oppressive". Guess again.

>>31272 Alright the Republicucc

>>31274 Wrong again. What's it like living in a country with only two political parties?

>>31277 We have the ARF and the APU as well as Turning Point. So dont pipe up eurocucķ

>>31278 I'm not European either. That's an ironic attempt on your part anyway seeing as how this thread is about the Roman Empire. You are really not very good at this reading thing, are you?

>>31279 You are very niggardly

Other questions: Was Jesus a Republican? Did the Buddha do LSD? Was Robin Hood pro-Brexit?

>>31289 Stfu im playing trombone

>>31280 >>31292 >>31278 GET OUT OF MY HEAD

>>31293 No ..............

>>31264 I guess the technical (economic) definitions here are: >facism is when corporations take control of government >socialism is when government takes control corporations So the next question is did the ancient roman world have an economy sufficiently independent from the state to make modern definitions of fascism/socialism relevant?

Ask antifa lainons

>>31324 Actually understanding what is and isn't fascism would be a big impediment for anyone who wants to identify as antifa.

>>31325 For instance national socialism is NOT fascism

>>31325 there is a clear answer repressed homosexuality

t. stemlet trying to analyse premodern rulers with modern ideologies and political leanings

>>31293 Fachisim is a 20th+ century phenomenon. It's a result of accumulation of political ideas and social changes over the centuries. If you must define it in modern terms... The Roman empire was an authoritarian military dictatorship with remaining elements of oligarchy from the republican days. Individual emperors that tried to make it something else got killed by a Praetorian guard or another claimant for the throne. Being an emperor did not guarantee absolute power even after Diocletian did away with the notion of acting as princeps.

No, not even close. Fascism is a reaction to liberal capitalism that attempts to regain the "glory" of the Roman empire (or whichever glorious empire is local). If anything, the Romans liked to hearken back to the days when they were still a republic. The best adjective for the Roman empire, under the reign of literally any of the emperors, is "imperial". Almost all of the emperors were short-lived figureheads anyway; only a few really bear mentioning. Which of the emperors would a fascist most readily identify as the person they want to put in power? Probably Domitian. >career soldier from a poor family >ended one of the worst succession crises in Roman history >feverish cult of personality >abolished most of the old Republican formalities and broke the senate's power >persecuted Christians heartily

>>35752 fuarrrk I mean Diocletian not Domitian.