You all ways hear about how the Nazi government was terrible and a blight to Germany (and in many ways they were), but Hitler managed to pull the country out of a severe depression much like Caesar.
I've all ways been interested in how Modern politics compares to their ancient counterparts, and the Nazi government seems like a good place to start. It shares many attributes with ancient forms of government (dictatorial style, much like Caesar and Pericles)
This is just to sate a midnight stroke of thought :)
I'm afraid I won't answer your question directly, but I hope this will be helpful nonetheless.
You all ways hear about how the Nazi government was terrible and a blight to Germany (and in many ways they were), but Hitler managed to pull the country out of a severe depression much like Caesar.
That Hitler and his economic policies somehow ended Germany's economic crisis is a myth, often conflated with the expectation that the Nazis economic policies would have been sustainable in the long term. They absolutely would not have been, they essentially maneuvered the German economy into a deeply indebted and unsustainable position that it could only hope to escape through aggressive wars of conquest, with which to conquer foreign capital and resources. Futhermore, while the economic situation in Germany did improve during the 1930s, this is a) inextricably linked to the aforementioned course gearing Germany for war and b) to a large part thanks to the economic policy of earlier goverments of Weimar Germany. Just as a small example, the much praised Reichsautobahnen were no idea of Hitler's or the Nazis. Hitlers economic policy is directly responsible for the war that resulted in the total destruction and occupation of Germany.
See these excellent posts for further information:
I also don't know how Caesar is supposed to have pulled his 'country' out of a depression. After his death, Rome was thrown into civil war and unrest for further decades, until Octavianus, the later emperor Augustus, managed to stabilize it under his new form of rule (I'm generalizing quite a bit here).
It shares many attributes with ancient forms of government (dictatorial style, much like Caesar and Pericles)
Comparing different forms of government is a subject for political theory, from a historians perspective, making such comparisons is highly complicated. Each of these forms of government was based on very different cultural backgrounds. Just because his office was that of a dictator doesn't mean that Julius Caesar's office was similar to that of the Führer und Reichskanzler Adolf Hitler, who is often called a dictator. Unless you want to come to the very basic conclusion that both were offices that allowed for certain forms of autocratic government, but I don't see what such a conclusion would gain us, from a historical perspective, since the underlying systems of government, bureaucracy and military are so utterly different. It doesn't help that Rome has a history spanning quite a few centuries that saw widely differing forms of government. /r/AskSocialScience might be a better place to ask for a comparison of purely the political systems from a systemic point of view, since that is precisely what some fields of political science do.
The question is, as you ask it, a bit too broad. It would be easier to answer if you could narrow it down to certain aspects. Historical comparisons of societies or persons that are relatively close are difficult enough, but over such a vast difference of time and background and with such a broad goal is basically impossible, or if possible, devoid of significance since it would basically amount to recounting all the differences. So what exactly is it that interests you?