Dictators?

[jelay14]

Because the Romans were used to a republic, what if the Joint Chief of Staff declared a National Emergency and assumed power

You know that republics and dictators aren't mutually exclusive, right?

Anyway your comparison doesn't work - dictators in the Roman Republic were appointed by the Senate for a set period, after which they were liable for close scrutiny of their actions and possibly liable for a trial with harsh punishment; your JCS scenario is a classic case of a military coup, which was definitely not the case with men such as Cincinnatus, Fabius Maximus, and other dictators, though Sulla did seize dictatorial power for himself.

 

[Zuckergußgebäck]

it gives you some advantages for waging wars, maybe faster reinforcement speed, but also causes some other problems, like increasing stability cost maybe.

Nah, stability cost should actually decrease, since that is what having a dictator is all about.

The cost of everything else apart from military things should rise though. If inflation is implemented, prehaps you should get a penalty there aswell?

 

[Raczynski]

You know that republics and dictators aren't mutually exclusive, right?

Anyway your comparison doesn't work - dictators in the Roman Republic were appointed by the Senate for a set period, after which they were liable for close scrutiny of their actions and possibly liable for a trial with harsh punishment; your JCS scenario is a classic case of a military coup, which was definitely not the case with men such as Cincinnatus, Fabius Maximus, and other dictators, though Sulla did seize dictatorial power for himself.

Umm, I'm sure they coudn't be prosectued for the things they had done while in the office

 

[unmerged(19438)]

Urbem Romam a principio reges habuere; libertatem et consulatum L. Brutus instituit. dictaturae ad tempus sumebantur; neque decemviralis potestas ultra biennium, neque tribunorum militum consulare ius diu valuit. non Cinnae, non Sullae longa dominatio

-Tacitus beginning of the annals. He is making a point that supreme power had limits during the Republic - not so under Augustus

 

[unmerged(35772)]

Gentlemen, you are using a 20th century definition for a word that under the Republican era Romans it had a totally different connotation from what it does today. A Dictator was appointed to STABILIZE the situation, not make it worse. And that did not change till Caesar had himself proclaimed Dictator for life.

One name to highlight what a republican Dictator was, Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus, he was a Dictator, twice. Read up on him gents to see what a Dictator meant to the Republican Romans.




Cheers, Thorgrimm

 

[JFeatherston]

I apologize of Dictator was meant in a negative connotation. I mean this, if x number of provinces are lost the Romans should be able to appoint a dictator in the sense that he had absolute power, not that he was evil. Maybe colonization and trade should be blocked off altogether due to the focus on the army to win the war? And he should decrease stability cost at the expense of making everything else much much more expensive. Who wants to build a temple when the world is going to hell in a hand basket around you? If months are up then they can choose to keep him, if things are doing worse or de-appoint him if they are doing better. If they choose to keep and things are doing good, massive stability drop, historically the Romans never liked absolute rulers until Caesar.