I’m thinking in term of the last 200 thousand years. When, during that time, did the leader of a tribe–the chiaftan, the boss, the “president”–stop being a leader and start being a tyrant. When do you think it became the common experience of the people that living under this leader, this “government” (if it was that complex at the time), is more like being occasionally beaten up by a bully, than being lead by a respected and worthy commander?
And why?
The best answer is the amount of people. Once population became cumbersome, being personal became impossible. Cooperative unity is impossible in a large group.
The leader had to keep control by becoming aggressive and heavy handed. Think of a class of 40 5th graders, the teacher tells them to pick one game to play. We know all hell breaks loose. It is easier, safer and saner for the authority to dictate tag. Less than six kids stand a chance of agreeing happily on tag without authority dictating. Adults are not really any different.
I think you’re right, Kris. The leader would also need a small (volunteer?) army to enforce his rule. When do you think this first shows up in prehistory? Is this documented by evidence?
Lord only knows, so many ancient collections of text has been destroyed. True accuracy would be impossible. A comparison of civilizations that exist today may give an idea of time. The Amazon tribes that have little to no contact with the outside world are at about the beginning of civilization, tribal territorial aloof from others. A leader or two but more for knowledge of food and defense. Then we would probably jump to Africa or the heart of Asia for the next existing levels, tribal but, social with neighboring tribes and intermarriage. These are the ones that are war like. With warlords/ leaders dictating war. This would be, at my best guess, the time that dictatorship is at its first budding. Then when you get heirs becoming the next leader instead of the most qualified, Tyranny would bloom from the dictator bud. So when Prince/ess are first placed as leaders over many humans, would most likely be the time you look for.
gib,
Do you have a definition of tyranny? Or maybe, some frame of reference to work from? One could claim tyranny at the mythological garden of eden and only three personages were present (four if you include the snake). Even the nuclear family could involve “tyranny” since either the eldest or strongest in the family group would be likely to dictate and control activities. At what level do you want to see the word tyranny appear?
Originally tyrant was not pejorative, and ruled by consent, given power through oath of his followers.
The Homeric Basileus was such a type of leader.
200,000 years is a long time a pre-dates modern humans by a long chalk.
It might be better to get right to the point - What’s on your mind?
I’m imagining a leader who tends to be “mean” to his people, as opposed to just authoritative; a dictator whom the people fear as opposed to just obey.
If Kris is right that originally, in tribal clans, leaders were selected (or took power) because of their knowledge of things like food and defense, etc., and then, as a next phase, leaders became warlords, tyranny may have emerged as soon as separate tribal clans grew into a civilization.
I’m starting to realize I may be making an ungrounded assumption: that there was an intermediate phase between the stage of small and separate tribes and the stage of large scale civilization with tyrants at their head–a phase characterized by strong impersonal leaders ruling over more people than they could know (thus the “impersonal”) but without having to terrorize the people into complacency, a phase in which the rulers ruled primarily out of the consent and respect of the people (as Hobbes described). I imagine the Pharaohs this way. I don’t have an image of the Pharaohs as terrorized the people, order occasional raids of people’s homes, repressing or exterminating certain groups or classes and not others, assassinating people merely suspected of being a threat or merely being in a position where they could be a threat, and so on, but I could be wrong. That’s not to say there wasn’t any brutal treatment of certain people, but I imagine this being done more to criminals and such, people whom most of the society would agree should be punished, much like we do to our criminals.
This is the “intermediate” phase I was assuming existed as described above.
Not much more than this, though I’ll tell you what lead to this thought: I’ve been thinking about politics lately and I’ve been wondering why we have so many instances around the world and throughout history of tyrannical forms of government. It raises questions such as: Was it always this way, even in small tribal clans? If there was a first “tyranny,” what changed in the global political climate or the environment of the time to making it emerge? If we knew the answers to these questions, could it give us some insight into how to solve the problem of tyranny in the modern world?
Population and inheireted title. If a spoiled kid is given power what happens? If that spoiled kid has a large protective powerful, influencial family, a tyrant is birthed. Hmm, political parties are a family of sorts.
And what do you think of the idea of having the faith of the people. If the people lose faith in their leaders, they’re more likely to disconform, disobey, dissent, and revolt. That’s where the government going to war with its own people comes in. Do you think there was a point in human prehistory (or history) when people started losing faith in their governments?
About the time the populations became diverse in beliefs and needs. The larger the population the more diverse the above will become. Laws suited for a city are not necessarily suited for those in the country yet governing bodie rarely if ever take different beliefs and needs into consideration. Thus you get disenchantment with the government and rebellion when only one set of beliefs and needs are considered. The oldest kingdoms ran into this. Throw in conquered or assimilated neighbors, you got problems. So when the population became thousands and special needs and beliefs developed under one rule is when unrest began.
A Tyrant is simply one who rules for his own gain with disregard for the people he is supposed to be leading, in essence and “anti-leader” and enemy within.
They are weak in support because of this and try to weaken their people as a result to rule over them.
Sometimes this term is missaplied to leaders some people just consider “bad” but regardless of what you think of ones actions if they are truly working towards what they beleive is the best interest of their state then these men are not by definition tyrants.
So simply being harsh or taking reppressive actions agaisnt dissidents does not make one a tyrant as long as he is doing it for the greater good.
Well, that depends upon what side you are looking at it from. Like battle or massacre. While what you say is true, perspective is important. A leader may have the best intention for majority or just keeping peace. But, those that disagree with what that leader thinks will see it differently. A town massacred because it refused to give up its weapons. Or a battle ensued when rebels fired upon soldiers who were trying to confiscate the weapons from homes peacefully. Town dies.
Massacre or battle? Tyrant or fair leader?
So a convenient way to not view oneself as a tyrannt is to lie to oneself about one’s motives. IOW I Think a lot of leaders find ways to view their own desires as linked with the greater good. Since what a tyrant is really thinking is not so easy to know, I Think it is better to define it by what they do, even if they happen to manage to convince themselves they are working for the greater good. It’s very rare for an oppressive despot to say they are doing things for their own gains and to satisfy their own desires. I can’t Think of anyone who has done this. Generally the race, the country, the people, certain values are Always used as justifications for whatever, even if the primary results are helping the tyrannt or his family or him and others in the elite, etc.
If a tyrannt needs a lot of subjects, I am not sure of the answer. But if the basic pattern of a selfish,controlling abusive leader is what makes a tyrant, then it goes back Before homo sapians. All it would take is for one Group of pre-homosapians to have a leader who is like that. A bully who sustains Control over the Group.
I think that tyranny got going around 1913 in North America, and the 1700s in Europe.
But then I think it’s important to draw a distinction between the Fabian Socialist style of Tyranny, and Overt Rule-you-with-a-hammer Tyranny.
Oh lordy it was way before then for both.
The American Indian tribes were despotic, had slaves, and pretty much kicked ass over weaker tribes and nations.
Europe had tribal tyrants way before they became countries with boundries.
Fabian Socialism isn’t Tyranical.
It’s Utilitarianism that has no tolerance for slackers.
Also many of you are using “Tyrant” interchangably with “Despot”.
Incorrectly.
There really is not that much difference. Especially since either can become the other rather damn quickly.
A Despot is a Ruler who is not bound by law or a Constitution.
So yes they can be the same thing but not neccesarily.