Why, throughout history, do people glorify the unworthy dictator?

Cause he was fucking based? Why else.

>>1456719
Because he manages to get shit done. In contrast with what you hear from political scientists, people can still like and support a government that gives them little benefit. This is the case with most dictators. He encourages them and makes them feel involved. His pictorials and struggles become their own.

His life makes for an incredible story and he single-handedly changed the course of history by his sheer talent and force of will.

>>1456719
>forced his soldiers to march on their own city.

He didnt force them. Roman soldiers would never march on rome if they believed it was wrong, so they were not forced.

Shut up brutus get off the internet.

>>1456719
> Make Rome Great Again

>>1457373
>by his sheer talent and force of will
And good fortune to have been born into the aristocrasy

>>1457651
This. The fortunes of roman soldiers in that period were tied to that of their general. The willingly followed him since they were promised good lands as pensions.

>>1457707
>check your privilege
how many aristocrats did what he did

He's basically the Adolf Hitler of ancient Rome, so I guess Neo Nazis.

>>1457725
Napoleon maybe, get out of here with that fruitcake Hitler.

>>1457724
>Scipio Africanus
>Sulla
>Marius
>Pompey
All far more accomplished men

>>1457737
>implying

>>1456719
He is idolized by fascists and authoritarians, who celebrate in the death of the libertarian principles of the Republic.

>>1457764
>practices slavery
>"""""libertarian"""""

>>1456719
>Thank God.
Judaic christcuck spotted

Julius Caeser was dictator that is true but he was a benevolent dictator. The senate had become inefficient and complicated with corruption that was injuring the common people of Rome. Caeser was seen as a hero to the common people who would undo the wrongs of corrupt officials. Also his war in Gaul was completely and a hundred percent justified. The Gauls and their kin had been a nuisance to Rome for centuries now and they deserved punishment.

>>1456719
*He lay on that floor

>>1457764
Because the late corrupt Roman Republic was so noble.

>>1457764
Are you retarded?

The Roman Republic is so far removed from us in time that the morals and values are basically alien to most people today, but if you hate 'fascists' and authoritarians then I'm not sure why you'd support aristocratic traditionalists who wanted to maintain the ancient Roman power structure over a populist who at least paid lip service to the people and their will.

he defended rome,he made rome great again
he ended the corrupt good for nothing rich fags reign and not only brought glory to his "nation" but made the life of citizens better

fuck off butthurt knight

>but Caesar looked out for the little man

He did do a lot of serious debt-reforms, almost to excess. If you want to win everyone (except for lenders') good will, you waive their debts.

>>1457707
He was a poorfag, politically aligned with the populares, and thoroughly hated by the conservatoive aristocrats, who even preferred to support the provincial pleb Pompey over him.
Any and all rich plebs had it far easier.

>>1457737
>Listing the guy who's famous for losing to Caesar as greater than Caeser

>>1459765

Great men can still lose to lesser men.

Think of the various Senators famous for Caesar's murder, only to get BTFO by Antony and Octavian. Do they excel Caesar for sheer virtue of defeating him?

>>1459816
>>1459765

Also Pompey was assassinated by Egyptian agents. Maybe he would've won. All of the triumvirate died brutal, violent deaths.

>>1456719
Because Shakespeare wrote about him. He wasn't even the first to march on rome, sulla did it before him.
Also, amazing military victories in gaul.

>>1456719
Cato plz go to bed.

>>1457737
>how many aristocrats actually did anything with their lives
>only name 4
>listing Pompey the Cuck among them

Yeah the first 3 were great men, but you don't have an argument against Caesar being a great man too

>Glorify
>Objectify
Note how modern man uses these words to imply that society projected these properties (glory, object status) onto the persons in question. Note how modern man implies that the glory came from society, as a form of "social construct", and not from above as a result of adherence to transcendental principles.