In classical
politics, a
tyrant is one who has taken power by their own means as opposed to hereditary or constitutional power. This mode of rule is referred to as
tyranny.
The word derives from
Latin tyrannus, meaning "illegitimate ruler", and this in turn from the
Greek τύραννος,
týrannos, meaning "sovereign, master", although the latter was not
pejorative and applicable to both good and bad leaders alike.
In modern usage, the word "tyrant" carries connotations of a harsh and cruel ruler who places his or her own interests or the interests of a small
oligarchy over the best interests of the general population, which the tyrant governs or controls. Many individual rulers or government officials are accused of tyranny, with the label almost always a matter of controversy.
Historical forms
In
ancient Greece, tyrants were influential opportunists that came to power by securing the support of different factions of a
deme. The word "tyrannos" then carried no ethical censure; it simply referred to anyone, good or bad, who obtained executive power in a
polis by unconventional means. Support for the tyrants came from the growing middle class and from the peasants who had no land or were in debt to the wealthy land owners. It is true that they had no legal right to rule, but the people preferred them over kings or the
aristocracy. The Greek tyrants stayed in power by using mercenary soldiers from outside of their respective city-state.
Cypselus, the first tyrant of
Corinth in the 7th century BC, managed to bequeath his position to his son,
Periander. Tyrants seldom succeeded in establishing an untroubled line of succession. In
Athens, the inhabitants first gave the title to
Peisistratus in 560 BC, followed by his sons, and with the subsequent growth of Athenian
democracy, the title "tyrant" took on its familiar negative connotations. The murder of the tyrant
Hipparchus by
Aristogeiton and Harmodios in Athens in 514 BC marked the beginning of the so-called "cult of the
tyrannicides" (i.e., of killers of tyrants). Contempt for tyranny characterised this
cult movement. The attitude became especially prevalent in Athens after 508 BC, when
Cleisthenes reformed the political system so that it resembled
demokratia (ancient participant democracy as opposed to the modern representative democracy).
The
Thirty Tyrants whom the Spartans imposed on a defeated Attica in 404 BC wouldn't be classified as tyrants in the usual sense.
Aesymnetes
An
aesymnetes (pl. aesymnetai) had similar scope of power to the tyrant, such as
Pittacus of Mytilene (c. 640-568 BC), and was elected for life or for a specified period by a city-state in a time of crisis—the only difference being that the aesymnetes was a constitutional office and was comparable to the
Roman dictator. Magistrates in some city-states were also called aesymnetai.
Archaic tyrants
The heyday of the
Archaic period tyrants came in the early 6th century BC, when
Cleisthenes ruled
Sicyon in the
Peloponnesus and
Polycrates ruled
Samos. During this time, revolts overthrew many governments in the
Aegean world. Simultaneously
Persia first started making inroads into Greece, and many tyrants sought Persian help against forces seeking to remove them.
Populism
Greek tyranny in the main grew out of the struggle of the popular classes against the
aristocracy or against priest-kings where archaic traditions and mythology sanctioned hereditary and/or traditional rights to rule. Popular
coups generally installed tyrants, who often became or remained popular rulers, at least in the early part of their reigns. For instance, the popular imagination remembered
Peisistratus for an episode - related by (pseudonymous)
Aristotle, but possibly fictional - in which he exempted a farmer from taxation because of the particular barrenness of his plot. Peisistratus' sons
Hippias and
Hipparchus, on the other hand, were not such able rulers, and when the disaffected aristocrats Harmodios and Aristogeiton slew Hipparchus, Hippias' rule quickly became oppressive, resulting in the expulsion of the Peisistratids in 510 BC.
Sicilian tyrants
The tyrannies of Sicily came about due to similar causes, but here the threat of
Carthaginian attack prolonged tyranny, facilitating the rise of military leaders with the people united behind them. Such Sicilian tyrants as
Gelo,
Hiero I,
Hiero II,
Dionysius the Elder,
Dionysius the Younger, and
Agathocles maintained lavish courts and became patrons of culture.
Roman tyrants
Roman historians like
Suetonius,
Tacitus,
Plutarch, and
Josephus often spoke of "tyranny" in opposition to "liberty". Tyranny was associated with imperial rule and those rulers who usurped too much authority from the Roman Senate. Those who were advocates of "liberty" tended to be pro-Republic and pro-Senate. For instance, regarding
Julius Caesar and his assassins, Suetonius wrote:
Therefore the plots which had previously been formed separately, often by groups of two or three, were united in a general conspiracy, since even the populace no longer were pleased with present conditions, but both secretly and openly rebelled at his tyranny and cried out for defenders of their liberty.
Niccolò Machiavelli, building on this opposition, conflates all rule by a single person (whom he generally refers to as a "prince") with "tyranny," regardless of the legitimacy of that rule, in his
Discourses on Livy. He also identifies liberty with
republican regimes; whether he would include so-called "
crowned republics" (such as modern
constitutional monarchies) is somewhat unclear from the text.
Philistine "Seren"
The term "
Seren", frequently appearing in the
Bible as the title of the rulers of the five
Philistine city-states, is considered by some historians to be derived from or related to the Greek "tyrannos". In contemporary
Israel, this is used as a military rank.
In the arts
Ancient Greeks, as well as the
Roman Republicans, became generally quite wary of anyone seeking to implement a popular coup.
Shakespeare portrays the struggle of one such anti-tyrannical Roman,
Marcus Junius Brutus, in his play
Julius Caesar.
Modern forms
There are a number of rulers who loosely fit the definition of tyrant described above, a harsh and cruel ruler who places his or her own interests or the interests of a small
oligarchy over the best interests of the general population.
Robert Mugabe’s harsh reaction to the rising tide of opposition in
Zimbabwe or
Alexander Lukashenko’s treatment of
Poles living in
Belarus and his generalized lack of tolerance toward opposition make both leaders tyrants at particular points of time during their tenure, according to definition given here.
See also
