Most of those atrocities were no different to the atrocities that the Roman Republic did prior to being an Empire. The atrocities occurred because it was Rome, not because it had a dictator. The moment emperors started doing stuff the public disagreed with, they found themselves assassinated by their own guards.

The public agreed with the atrocities, and they would have happened even if the country remained a Republic.

As to restraints, you can put constitutional restrictions on a dictator. The English did it long before they formed a parliament.

Most of those atrocities were no different to the atrocities that the Roman Republic did prior to being an Empire. The atrocities occurred because it was Rome, not because it had a dictator. The moment emperors started doing stuff the public disagreed with, they found themselves assassinated by their own guards.

The public tended to agree with the atrocities, and they would have happened even if the country remained a Republic.

Most of those atrocities were no different to the atrocities that the Roman Republic did prior to being an Empire. The atrocities occurred because it was Rome, not because it had a dictator. The moment emperors started doing stuff the public disagreed with, they found themselves assassinated by their own guards.

The public tended agree with the atrocities, and they would have happened even if the country remained a Republic.

Most of those atrocities were no different to the atrocities that the Roman Republic did prior to being an Empire. The atrocities occurred because it was Rome, not because it had a dictator. The moment emperors started doing stuff the public disagreed with, they found themselves assassinated by their own guards.

The public agreed with the atrocities, and they would have happened even if the country remained a Republic.