pothos.org

Hi all,
It would seem to me, having given about 5 minuts thought on the matter, the most significant difference between the two, is one attempts to justify its position by introducing religious/mythical origins whilst the other does not. Would I be wrong in saying so?

Having given it *less* than 5 minutes thought... I don't know if it is/was the most significant difference, but it would certainly bear scrutiny as being a major difference.But would it not be correct also to say that, in general (!) a tyranny was supported by force (or the threat of force), while a monarchy - as a political theory, at least - was not? Also, a monarchy tended to be founded on the basis of dynasty (for which your mythical origins gave support) whereas a tyranny, although it could become a dynastic 'thing', was not?All the bestMarcus

Hi Marcus, nice to hear from you
You make a very good point,re. use of force! having given several more minutes of thought to the matter LoL, The 'use of force' distinction raised would appear to be a significant difference, however, feeling a little philosophical at the moment, would you not consider religion/myth also a form of 'use of force'?

I like this question even though all monarchies are based upon birthrights whereas tyrannies are based upon power plays.But I was mulling to myself that as King one can more effectively get things done than waiting for democracies to cuss and discuss whether to operate or not to operate upon the patient. The King can save the patient while the democracies will most likely let it die.In other words, the problem in America about droughts, floods, and famine could have been solved years ago had the wisdom of a good king prevailed, but because of democratic action, the country is dire need of quick emergency aid.

Hi Jan,
Indeed, this was what aggravated Demosthenes most about Democracy and decision making, whilst Philip managed to act swiftly and in turn decisively. However, getting back to the point, would birthright,in origin, not have been Tyrannical?

Hi Companions -It might be me being a Dutch native, but in our langauge "tyranny" has become a word with so many negative connotations that I wonder whether we still perceive the word in the original Greek meaning and context. I mean: the Tyrannosaurus Rex kind of feeling.Though my knowledge of ancient Greek is severely limited, it wouldn't surprise me if the original Greek "tyranny" denoted a system with one sole non-dynastic or at least non-monarchic ruler, without implying any form of "bad governance" by definition.I can not free myself of the association that a "tyrant" is someone who abuses power.If I'm correct, is a good thing to start with a definition of what a "tyranny" actually WAS in the ancient days and how "tyranny" now IS perceived in our modern eyes? I mean: I could imagine people referring to Alexander as a "ruthless tyrant" or other expressions in that direction.I don't know if this is any help. Just crossed my mind.Best regards -Nick

Tyrant was one who seized sovereignity illegally or was a usurper, whereas monarch was literally lone ruler, the hereditary head of state.

Tre's definition is good as far as it goes ; of course ,this is not far enough.Tyranny arose as areaction against kingship, and since the king decided what was legal it was by definition illegal. The threat of force came, in the early days from the demos or people, so it was an expression of democratic will versus the aristocratic. Indeed Pheidon of Argos is described as a king who became a tyrant ie one who eschewed the nobility for the support of the bourgeois.The rise of the tyrants can be linked to the rise of hoplite warfare, with the lesser gentry's greater role in the military power of a state being reflected in a demand for increased political power.Later tyrant , such as Iason of Pherai or Dionysius of Syracuse used mercenary troops to maintain their power but they still attracted a broadly popular support. Most of their historian suffer from the bias of the upper middle class aspirants or class traitors as Marxists might call them.Even tyrants might deploy religion, so great are the evils to which it might bend, and the House of Dionysius had three representatives in succesion mimicking monarchy. The main factor in the persistance of Sicilian tyranny is the Karthaginian threat. It required a continual, consistant and structured response.

Hi Nick,Good point you raised - and I think I've raised it before, too. "Tyranny" was not necessarily a bad thing - in the same way you can have good kings and bad kings, you could have 'good' tyrants and 'bad' tyrants.On the other hand, if a tyrant is a ruler whose power has not derived constitutionally, one could argue that, technically, it's always a 'bad' thing... but there were times when a tyrant was just what a place needed. I see it as being quite similar to the dictatorship in Rome - nobody liked it because of what it implied; but there were times when it was just what Rome needed.All the bestMarcus

Hi all,
so then where do the Successors fit in this picture, they inturn became monarchs, some managed dynasties and their kin inherited their hereditary right to rule. Were they then Monarchs, or Tyrants? or something else all together?

Hi SmittyI think that monarchy and tyranny are the two extremes of a continuum: the continnum of governments where the political power is exerted by only one person.I think the usual distinction between the two is that the monarch is a sort of GÇ£benevolent dictatorGÇ¥ that uses his/her power to increase the wellbeing of the nation, which GÇ£s/he cares for as if they were his/her own childrenGÇ¥. The tyrant, on the other hand, is the opposite: s/he uses the power to his/her own personal benefit, completely overlooking the populationGÇÖs need. Aristotle says a monarchy is a good form of government when the virtue/wisdom of the monarch is so superior to the rest of the peopleGÇÖs that everyone will be better-off by letting this most virtuous/wise individual to make decisions on everyoneGÇÖs behalf.The interesting consideration here is that thereGÇÖs no need of GÇ£dynastic behaviourGÇ¥ to become a king, but only serving the nation. Accordingly, even hereditary kings could be considered tyrants because of their actions. So the definition is contingent on behaviour/function, not on the usual characteristics we assume nowadays (sole rule, hereditary position, etc)The distinction between types of governments according to virtue/vice extends to the cases of several rulers (aristocracy is the good case GÇôgovernment of the best-, oligarchy the bad one) and of many rulers (polity and democracy, respectively, according to Aristotle). But of course, all these definitions are just that: theoretical concepts that define extreme characteristics. In real life, every government is in between the two extremes.Kind regardsAlejandro

None the Diadocoi were tyrants, since tyranny was an expression of popular support against monarchy. They began as servants of a monarchy but on its demise became the founders of independant monarchies,splinter kingdoms from the former empire.