The definition of a tyrant is a cruel ruler or authority figure, an adult bully.

Posted by

Tyranny, in the Greco-Roman world, an autocratic form of rule in which one individual exercised power without any legal restraint. In antiquity the word tyrant was not necessarily pejorative and signified the holder of absolute political power. In its modern usage the word tyranny is usually pejorative and connotes the illegitimate possession or use of such power.

Harmodius and Aristogeiton murdering Hipparchus, the brother of Hippias, tyrant of Athens.

Tyrants often introduced measures to improve the economic and social status of the poor; it was the aristocracy (who wrote the histories) who tended to oppose tyranny, because, in bypassing the constitution, tyranny threatened their traditional privileges.

The definition of a tyrant is a cruel ruler or authority figure, an adult bully.
What makes a leader a tyrant? Ultimately, a leader is someone we want to follow, whereas a tyrant is someone we feel coerced to follow—If not by direct physical force, then by the powerfully manipulative force of fear.

How did tyrants sometimes lose power? The people overthrew them. … A king inherits power, but a tyrant seizes it.

What is another word for tyrant?

adult bully, dictator, despot, oppressor, authoritarian, autocrat, caesar, fuehrer, pharaoh, strongman.

Evolution Of The Concept

For the ancient Greeks, a tyrant was not necessarily a bad ruler; in its original form (tyrannos) the word was used to describe a person who held absolute and personal power within a state, as distinct from a monarch, whose rule was bound by constitution and law. Some tyrants were usurpers who came to power by their own efforts; others were elected to rule; and still others were imposed by intervention from outside. Certain rulers, such as Phalaris, tyrant of Akragas in Sicily, who allegedly burned his enemies alive in a brazen bull, were bywords for uncontrolled cruelty and self-indulgence, but others, such as Pittakos at Mytilene, were remembered favourably in later sources as wise and moderate rulers who brought prosperity and peace to their cities. Later on in classical history, however, the word gradually acquired more of its modern flavour, implying a ruler whose sole motivation was power and personal gain, and as a result its use in public life became controversial. The idea of tyranny has thus been at the center of debate about legitimacy in rulership and the balance of power between ruler and people. Since Roman times philosophers have argued for the moral right of the citizen to overthrow a tyrant whatever the law and have debated the point at which monarchic rule becomes tyrannical.

Classic Definitions

The best-known definition of tyranny comes from Aristotle’s Politics: “Any sole ruler, who is not required to give an account of himself, and who rules over subjects all equal or superior to himself to suit his own interest and not theirs, can only be exercising a tyranny.” Aristotle presents tyranny in a very negative light, as a form of monarchy that has deviated from the ideal, and by listing the characteristics of the tyrant—he comes to power by force, has a bodyguard of foreigners to protect him, and rules over unwilling subjects—Aristotle suggests that a tyrant was always a violent usurper. Peisistratus, tyrant of Athens, is a classic example; he made three attempts to seize power, finally succeeding in a military coup in 546 BCE by using forces from outside, and ruled for 30 years.

But tyranny was more complex than Aristotle implies. Peisistratus did not dismantle the structure of government, and assemblies of the people continued to be held and magistrates continued to be appointed under his rule. Most notably, he was succeeded by his two sons, Hippias and Hipparchos, turning the rule into a hereditary one. Some tyrants had power conferred on them by the state, such as Clearchus at Heracleia on the Black Sea, who was appointed in 364 BCE to resolve a civil conflict, whereas others, such as Mausolus and Artemisia of Halicarnassus (creators of the Mausoleum, one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World), ruled with tyrannical power but were in constitutional terms satraps (governors) within the Persian Empire.

But even if there was no simple definition of a tyrant, there were classical rulers who, for a long or short period of time, dominated a state and had the ability to do whatever they wanted—found cities, move populations, wage war, create new citizens, build monuments, or accumulate money. Those rulers had certain fundamental features in common. They were sole rulers with direct and personal power over the state, unconstrained by political institutions. Their power was dependent not on a right to rule but on their own ability to command and retain control. All tyrants aimed to hand power on within their family, and some succeeded in establishing a rule lasting many generations.

Although few surviving classical authors have anything good to say of tyrants, they were generally successful in government, bringing economic prosperity and expansion to their cities. The Aristotelian view suggests that tyrants were inevitably unpopular, ruling a cowed citizenry who feared and hated them and wished only to be free. But some tyrants were chosen by the state to rule with a specific purpose: to put an end to civil war, to impose a new code of law, or to offer leadership in a time of danger. Indeed, it was often proposed that a sole ruler with overall control of military and political affairs was the best option in wartime. Though opposed to monarchy on principle, the Romans during the republic (509–27 BCE) would in times of threat appoint a dictator, one individual who was granted complete control over the army and state for a period of six months, a position described by the historian Dionysius of Halicarnassus as an “elective tyranny.” In the 4th century BCE, some philosophers, most notably Plato, saw tyranny of a certain kind as positive. Plato described the ideal state as based on the rule of an enlightened and self-controlled monarch, the “philosopher king,” who would live a virtuous life himself and could impose the best constitution on his subjects.

Greek Tyrants

Greek attitudes toward tyranny, as already noted, changed over time, shaped by external events. In the beginning the tyrant figures in the poetic sources as an enviable status, something to which an aristocrat might aspire. In the early stages of the Greek polis (city-state), the hereditary aristocracy held all political power and ruled as a group, with the mass of citizens excluded from political life. Tyrants first appear in that milieu in the mid-7th century BCE, but there is controversy about precisely how. One view sees rivalry between aristocratic families who vied to take all power into their own hands; the other suggests that tyrants were representative of a newly politically conscious dēmos (people) who supported their rise in the hope of improving their position within the state. Although the idea of any political consciousness on the part of the dēmos in the 7th century is optimistic, it is true that early tyrants tended to have popular support. Figures such as Cypselus at Corinth and Cleisthenes at Sicyon offered an alternative to exploitation by the aristocrats, and certainly tyrants introduced reforms intended to please the dēmos, codifying the laws and establishing justice—Peisistratus in Athens set up traveling courts—and gathering resources for public projects, such as fountains to supply water and grand temples.

Thus, the tyrants of the Archaic age of ancient Greece (c. 900–500 BCE)—Cypselus, Cleisthenes, Peisistratus, and Polycrates—were popular, presiding as they did over an era of prosperity and expansion. But those attitudes shifted in the course of the 5th century under the influence of the Persian invasions of Greece in 480–479 BCE. Most sources for Greek history are Athenian, and for them the defining moments of the Athenian state were the establishment of the democracy in 510 BCE and the Greeks’ astonishing defeat of Persia in the next generation. The outcome of the Greco-Persian Wars was interpreted as the success of the free and democratic Greeks against the autocratic and tyrannical Persian king; consequently, in Athenian writing after 480 BCE tyranny became the hated opposite of democracy. That coloured attitudes toward tyranny in the past as well; rulership that had previously seemed positive and acceptable was condemned as oppressive and self-serving.

By the end of the 4th century, Philip of Macedon had conquered the Greek states and put an end to their political freedom, and under Alexander the Great a huge Macedonian empire was created. That in turn spawned new tyrannies and monarchies. At first, dependent governments were set up under Macedonian rule. After Alexander’s death independent kingdoms were established by his successors and imitators. The 3rd century saw the creation of new tyrannies that were less and less distinguishable from hereditary monarchies, such as the rule of Hieron II in Syracuse. Under those circumstances the idea of tyranny changed from a constitutional issue to an ethical one, and tyrannos, rather than indicating a ruler who was not a king, came to be used to describe a particular type of king: one who put his or her own interests before those of the citizens and acted without restraint by the law.

Tyranny In Rome

Roman attitudes toward tyranny were clear. Early in their history Romans had been governed by kings, but the true beginning of the Roman state was the foundation of the republic in 509 BCE. Kingship, according to Roman historians, could all too easily turn into tyranny, and the later kings are depicted as tyrants of the negative type—cruel, exploitative, and self-indulgent—so under the republic, the Romans set their faces against monarchy of any kind. Clear limits were set to the amount of power any one individual could command. The dictatorship existed as an emergency measure whereby one man could be appointed to overall power in the state, but it could be held for six months at most. Much Roman history, however, was written several hundred years later, in the 1st century BCE, and betrays a very contemporary concern with the problem of tyranny. By 133 BCE the growth of the empire had changed Rome from a small city-state to a global power, and the conquest of Italy and the Mediterranean had created the conditions for individual generals to gain both enormous wealth through conquest and a huge following among their soldiers, paving the way for them to seek personal power through military force. Generals began to use the dictatorship unconstitutionally to achieve domination. Sulla was the first to take his army to Rome in 82 BCE after fighting a civil war and was elected to an indefinite dictatorship by a cowed Senate. He chose to lay down the role and returned to private life, but his example was noted by Julius Caesar. In 46 BCE Caesar also took an army into Italy and was made dictator—first for 10 years and then, in 44, for life. That made him effectively a king, superior to all other magistrates and not subject to their veto or appeal, and in that context the idea of tyranny began to be discussed by historians and philosophers. Thinkers such as Cicero adopted the language of Greek tyranny to describe Caesar’s position and debated the moral justification for tyrannicide. The assassins of Caesar presented themselves as overthrowing a tyranny, but the removal of one man could not prevent the drift to monarchic power in Rome, and Caesar’s heir Augustus took control as the first emperor.

At several points under the early emperors, conspiracies were formed to remove the ruler and restore the republic on the grounds that the imperial power was unconstitutional and therefore illegal, but they failed owing to lack of support by the people (who strongly favoured monarchic rule) and the individual ambitions of the conspirators. Soon imperial rule was established as constitutional, and the language of tyranny again became ethical in application rather than political. Accusations of tyranny came to refer to the quality of rule rather than its legitimacy: an emperor who abused his power or used it for personal ends was seen as despotic, although it took a brave man to say so in public.

Tyranny And The People

The most-significant change in the conception of tyranny from the ancient world to the modern lies in the role of the people under a tyrant. In ancient times tyrants tended to be popular, because the people saw them as upholding their interests. Tyrants often introduced measures to improve the economic and social status of the poor; it was the aristocracy (who wrote the histories) who tended to oppose tyranny, because, in bypassing the constitution, tyranny threatened their traditional privileges. But as absolute rule became established in the Roman Empire, the terms of debate shifted, focusing on the question of when monarchic power became tyrannical in nature. From that springs the idea of tyranny in its modern sense: a situation in which the power of the ruler outweighs that of the ruled. That definition allows even a representative government to be labeled a tyranny.

we&P by: EZorrilla

Leave a Reply