The problem is the rulers of imperial Rome did not want a nation of citizens they wanted a nation of sheep and worked toward that end only to learn that when you make your people apathetic and easy to sheer you invite other wolves in to replace you. On the question of whether a state need have fascistic tendencies to be cohesive, my opinion is, it depends what you mean by fascist . This word has been used as a political swear-word for so long that it s useful meaning has been utterly lost. Fascism is an outgrowth of 19th century socialism and to the extent that it means anything it stands for mutual socialistic support and the supremacy of the state over individual interest. The odd thing is many of the people who use this word as an invective are agitating for just such a society.
Political jargon is weird stuff.
Perhaps did the Ibers used it in Spain in 2th BC, but it was barely used and known through most of the Empire. We now have at least 15 centuries more of military and guerrilla experience, so it's probably easier to think of such tactics. Arminius spoke in exactly the terms I am using. He told he people the Romans could not defeat them unless they let them. He succeeded against much greater odds than felled the Empire.