Tyrrany

I was working on building a Dwarven Cleric for some D&D with friends and decided to be a Lawful Neutral character. For a chosen deity, I was actually thinking of Hextor, god of tyranny, but I don't want to be evil, which lead me into some interesting google searches. This is where my reason for posting on Sup Forums comes in.

I understand that "tyrant" didn't necessarily mean authoritarian bad guy like it's used to mean today. Can anyone here educate me on the context of tyranny during Ancient Greek times? What about the Romans, how did they view tyrants? In what ways could tyranny be used for the ultimate benefit of society? In what ways can tyranny benefit nature and the natural world? Does justice exist in the presence of tyranny? What about equality, or even unailiable rights? For that matter, did any Enlightenment-era thinkers have unique discussions on tyranny?

Enlightened despotism was the first practical political application of enlightenment era thought before republicans came about

Nice Mandela-esque get. Was enlightened despotism the pre-history/early bce form of government that enabled many city states, like Ur and Sumer?

I know more about the Romans, so I'll answer on that end.

>Dictator
Elected in the case of emergency for the state. Had a term of one year.

The Romans believed it was term limits that kept a man honest, irrespective of how much power you grant him.

Cincinnatus & George Washington are both great examples of how being faithful to term limits (self imposed by Washington) can do wonders for a state.

>Greeks
The tyrants, as far as I'm aware, weren't bound by term limits. So, probably the best parallel is Caesar - supported by the lower classes as they perceive he "stuck it to" a corrupt upper class.

Many parallels to Trump.

P.S.
>Playing D&D

lmao

>playing D&d
You get your mates together, have some beer, and set up philosophical crises that open the session up to debating morality and how to proceed in a situation. It's breddy gud time man. Faggots also play though so you're not wrong. I think I'll have to read more about dictators than tyrants for some philosophical background into what I'm wanting to be: someone that excercises tyrannical power to preserve the natural order (the weak should fear the strong) as well as provide a chance for enemies to prove their right to power by defeating me

Iirc, cinncinatus gave up his powers without serving the full term. But both those guys are great. I'll look more into Washington specifically, did Washington publish anything? Any good reads about him devoid of (((angles)))?

absolutely. apart from monarchist societies.

>palindromes are considered gets
Fuck outta here reddit.

Not only that but the people begged Cinncinatus to become dictator again to deal with another problem. He refused at first but the people practically begged him to so he became dictator squashed the rebellion or whatever it was then resigned again to his small farm.

In Rome, a dictator would take control in times of need to save the republic and solve problems. Cincinnatus was the first dictator

Just saw this oops

Yeah, my memories of D&D were rolling charisma checks to see how many Elven BJs you could get in the tavern.

From what you're saying though - it's worth remembering there are multiple heirachies of competence that are essential to life. You almost seem to be falling into the post-modernist trap of assuming everything is about strength.

What happens when Stalin has a toothache? You need the alternative hierarchy of competency in Dentistry, no?

Most of my info comes from reading Polybius and Plutarch quite a while ago. Can't remember where the connection with Washington came from. It's a pretty obvious one, so I'm sure many people have taken note of it.

Readers digest version of Polybius's governments:
>In Book VI Polybius digresses into an explanation of the Roman constitution and he shows it to be mixed. The purpose for this is involved in the Hellenistic nature of the work, particularly his audience, Greeks. Greeks at this time believed that the strength of a state is manifested in the strength of its constitution. The mixed constitution was touted as the strongest constitution as it combined the three integral types of government: monarchy, aristocracy and democracy. Polybius makes further distinction in the forms of government by including the nefarious counterparts to the ones mentioned above; tyranny, oligarchy, and ochlocracy. These governments, according to Polybius cycle in a process called anacyclosis, which begins with monarchy and ends with ochlocracy. The Romans avoided this problem through the structure of their Republic.

>The tyrants, as far as I'm aware, weren't bound by term limits.
you betray your ignorance

Mandela's prisoner number was 46664, so 58885 was neat to me. Sorry for knowing things
>polybius
>Plutarch
I've ever these names before but haven't read their work yet. Any recommendations?

Which is why I limited myself to Rome.

You have no idea the innumerable styles of governments attempted in Greece. It's better to hedge unless you're an expert.

Also, as a colorblind man, I believe red-and-green flags to be cuck nations. Golden-eagle-on-red is god-tier

An example of a good tyrant in Greek history is Pisistratus: he was pretty good, never used his power to overpower the weak, was a man of culture, and always managed to take power via non violent means. All around a pretty good ruler

Honestly want to read some of the expiremented government types, so feel free to recommend any relevant literature.

D&d character wise, when situations arrive I want to impose my religious adherence to respect towards natural laws every given chance. This means I'm open to lawful societies not just based on "Good guy" governments like democracy or monarchy, but also of societies like oligarchy, anarchy, and tribalism. My battle is focused against enemies who usurp and pervert the natural way of things (like communists)

There were literally hundreds of style of government in Greece. Plato even tried to apply his style of government, "The Philosopher's Republic", which was pretty much a meritocracy mixed with a tiny bit of communism and fascism. He failed every time he tried to apply it though.

Really depends on what you want exactly.

Very generally, Polybius tries to explain the success of Rome from a Greek perspective (and try to understand how they BTFO them so easily).

Plutarch's histroy is more about telling very compelling stories and learning from the examples of great men - his "Parallel Lives," where he compares great men from Rome & Greece, is his famous work.

You can waste a lot of time if you're not looking for something specific though, like pages of details of the Roman calender system in Numa's life.

That's a cool character

The "benevolent dictator" is basically an impossible-to-argue-against form of government. It's a fun thought experiment in political science.

Maybe your character is really amped to spread this utopian ideal.

Modern Iran is modeled after Plato's rule of the Guardians

Plutarch's Histories might be a good starting point there, but he explains it from the perspective of how the Greeks had "pure" forms of government, which were inferior to the Roman "mixed" system.

Polybius sounds neat. I'll check him out first. I love the Greek ideal of tolerant discussion about anything. It's cool to see them try to understand Roman conquest. How DID the Romans pull it off?

Such a bold claim warrants investigation. Thanks for the tip user; this isn't in the spirit of relevant discussion but isn't modern day Iran significantly based on fighting America though?

Really? It didn't seem to me at all. I guess the influence of Plato is really small

Mixed and pure meaning the Greeks would go all-out in any chosen form, compared to the Romans choosing the best of whatever?

Were the Romans specifically just from Rome, like Athenian? Or did the ALSO encompass a small area too? Comparable to the etruscans?

Pride in Islamic science is sourced partially from Plato since really all they did was take their turn translating and consuming centuries of Greek thought :^)

>Character values order over other considerations
You know what, I got it.


You should read Plutarch's life of Camillus. Rome was going through a "populist" phase, even doing away with consuls and such in favor of "sharing command," and other such pseudo commie nonsense.

As a result, the Romans were nearly wiped out by the Gauls. Camillus was given dictatorship SEVEN times in order to dig the Roman people out of the messes they got themselves into.

I tend to lean libertarian and reading this story really made me question its feasibility.

Thinks of the modern US. We're mixed and partially based on Roman system.

>Monarchy - President
>Aristocracy - Judiciary
>Democracy - Legislature

Your second question - I know one of the assemblies gave a vote to anyone within Roman "domain" - or something to that effect.

I think in the earlier Republic it was more like Athens in that its power was via allies and protectorates.

What? Islamic cunts based themselves in part on Plato?

Islam specifically forbids explaining hard science. So when Arabs began reading and discussinibg Plato-era work and Aristotle and all that then they starting having those earth-shaking ideas everyone gets when first thinking those thoughts. The part Muslims won't tell you is that Islamic leaders had harsh reactions against this early enlightenment and that's why no great thinkers will ever be Muslim ever, but yeah Islam was doing fine on the battlefield but discovery of Greek thought led to an academic golden age

Saved. You have my word that I'll read it within the month.

Dwarf cleric needs a Greek or Roman name like Polybius or Plutarch or Cinncinatus, what should it be?

Yes tyranny was considered "bad" at least by Plato's time and he was fine with monarchs and aristocracy compared to (((democracy)))). He states that tyranny will rise from democracy. It's not being able to control your desires and do what is "just" for the well being of the country. Think of the stories of Saddam's kid. That would be a tyrant.

Yes the more I read the more I consider how well power works with the right people. Democracy breeds corruption and waste.

Sulla was a tad tyrannical, and the fallout of a despotic system: proscription, hysteria, anarchy = last resort.

This thread is evidence I have much to read still but absolutely agree. And in today's specific context democracy is destroying America. I would completely trust the President to assume dictatorial powers to save the Republic.

/lit/ here, this is actually a pretty good thread from you guys, keep it up :)

I formally request you draw upon your readings of Roman and Greek works up to help decide a character name. Also offer insight into how aefornentioned cultures might interpret or play out striving to adhere to political philosophy when one's life is on the line

Yeah, I knew about the fact that Islam cannot produce free thinkers due to its dogmas. What I didn't know was the influence of Plato on Islam

All I know about this guy is something about reforms, he had a beef with a guy and lost but by luck ended up winning? Before and after he also was a general?

I'm not saying just him, it was also works like Plutarch. Literally the same as the renaissance or the enlightenment. With Islam, though, explaining shit is sinful so fuck you for relying on rational thought to create good government.

It was complicated: he served under Marius in Africa and managed to take power from the senate. Marius didn't like this and came back to Rome to kill Sulla. This didn't work out, Marius died (not in battle), his loyalists were defeated and Sulla remained dictator for some years. Then he decided that he had enough with ruling and retired himself to the country side in one of his villas.

Did he oppress people? Or was it more about just being dictator because you can? Sulla is a cool name, would I be lame for directly copying it? Or should I employ some form of imitatio?

Oh so thats why they are the only nation on earth with balls to tell the kikes to go fuck themselves.

Huh now we all learned something today. Thank you plato

He killed literaly anyone tied with populists from the previous government, his reforms however were pretty good once the bloodshed was finished, but only lasted a couple decades since Caesar was starting his campaigns in this era, partly due to the prosperity Sullas reforms provided to rome. Imagine someone wre to round up literaly every kike, sjw, subversive, crony capitalist, gommie, etc and killed them all in 3 weeks , and then start a new government with elections from scratch in the USA. Thats basicaly what he did.

Well that's kind of fucked. On one hand he was right to purge society, on the other immediate assumption of power afterwards is risky. Did Sulla ever meet Caesar?

>he failed every time he tried jt
>every time
>only half-attempted one time

Trying to teach a retarded prince to be a philosopher is hardly an attempt. Poor Plato was damned to be amongst his inferior peers after Socrates' death.

He tried three times

He created proscription lists: people in them would be killed and all of their money would be taken and used for fixing the state

"Beware that boy with the loose clothes."- Sulla

Hobbes Leviathan
I haven't read it but have read extensively about it.

that and
Niccolo Machiavellis the Prince
which I've read a couple of times

combined with playing CK2

made me realise what good tyranny is, and why state monopoly on violence is vital, and how in CK2 when I am killing the rebels I'm basically doing them a favour.

In Ancient Greece a tyrant was a ruler (usually of a single city-state) who had seized power unlawfully. could be good could be bad

>eagle
>not the Faravahar
pleb