Was the Age of Tyrants... Tyrannical?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 апр 2022
- The Ancient Greek "Age of Tyrants" is usually thought of as a period of usurpers, revolution and dictators, when ambitious men broke the mold of monarchal and aristocratic power to establish tyrannical regimes. But how true to reality is this perception? Just how "tyrannical" were these Tyrants?
Check out the rest of the playlist here:
• Project Dictator
Music done by the talented Leandros: / leoofthessaloniki
Discord: / discord
Patreon: / archaiaistoria
Special thanks to the following for lending their voice talent:
/ historyandheadlines
/ @varro464
Sources:
Herodotus 1.59 - 1.64, 3.48 - 3.53, 5.92
Thucydides 6.54
Archilochus fr. 19
Semonides fr. 67 - 70
Anderson, G. (2005). Before Turannoi Were Tyrants: Rethinking a Chapter of Early Greek History. Classical Antiquity, 24(2), 173-222. doi.org/10.1525/ca.2005.24.2.173
Parker, V. (2007). Tyrants and Lawgivers. In H. Shapiro (Ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Archaic Greece (Cambridge Companions to the Ancient World, pp. 13-39). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CCOL9780521822008.002
Andrewes, A. (1956). The Greek tyrants. Hutchinson University Library.
#projectdictator
Check out the rest of the playlist here:
ruclips.net/p/PLTZaOylOgJT_SJK0TDVk9rc1tDuJ4Pj8N&jct=EcnFldDEvsTmHs3r3jC3nfOqVjERfg
Special thanks to History and Headlines and Vulpus Manius for their voicework:
ruclips.net/channel/UCQ38_Et4NgYVS7MpwbXy-3Q
ruclips.net/channel/UCU89QRpyBgsNOFRbYZ_7uhg
Hey man have you read the book “The Greeks” by Roderick Beaton, because you’re Philip of Macedon videos contain a lot of information that I also found in that book. Great job on those.
@@eutropius2699 No I have not, but I might give that one a look. The central text I used for the Philip II series is Ian Worthington’s biography “Philip II of Macedon”. However going forward I try to use a wider range of sources
This video would make a great start to the playlist!
You're on good pace to pass the 20,000 subscriber milestone!
Fingers crossed!
Watching this channel grow and produce top notch content has been awesome.
Thanks for the support
It all depends on who was the Tyrant.
Love the subtle Bread in the Cold Oven reference
I’m glad someone got it!
Great video as always - and that quote from Archilochus is the first reference we have to Tyranny recorded so great choice! One thing I would have also covered a bit more though is that in Archaic Greece a Tyrant was a more neutral term - it still meant extra-powerful autocrat, but not necessarily negative. Basically, due to a population boom in the Archaic period, there was a lot more wealth and therefore a lot more inter-elite competition, like you describe in the video. And unlike further east, this wealth was normally not concentrated in the hands of one family, thus making competition almost inevitable. So Tyrants rise up around Greece to take control of cities.
In classical and post-classical Greece, however, political thinkers like Aristotle defined Tyranny by contrasting it to what they considered was a legitimate autocrat; a "Basileus". A "tyrant" was therefore an illegitimate monarch. The tyrants of the archaic era were framed as usurpers and immoral rulers who undermined legitimate kingship and the rule of law. And the meaning of the word Basileus, likewise, came to mean good Kingship. You see, for example, in Polybius the young Phillip V described as a Basileus but later as a Tyrant when Polybius describes more immoral behaviour. Where historians went wrong is that assuming that in Archaic Greece this difference was also used. Historians also used to assume that all Greek cities had Homeric Kings (a Basileus) before losing way to Oligarchy and Tyranny during the Archaic period. But recently people think, instead, that the word Basileus was misunderstood/misused by Classical Greeks and instead meant something more akin to chiefs or strongmen before they were redefined by the likes of Aristotle. Cities could have multiple Chiefs or even a council of these Chiefs, not just one. So when these "Tyrants" start appearing in the Archaic period its less revolutionary and more like becoming new big-men, just more radical and powerful since they deal with larger and more complex societies - and internal opposition!- than the Homeric-era chiefs.
The chosen one has returned !!!
>puts down everything else to watch video
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Archaia Istoria! Let's go!
It should be noted that a Tyrants political enemies were typically other oligarchs/aristocrats who were all struggling against each other for dominance. In this vein the Tyrant typically allied with the people against the rich, known as the high-low against the middle.
Of course the people who were literate enough to write this history were the aristocrats themselves. We also saw this with the Roman Kings and Caesar where they were beloved by the plebeians but hated by the aristocracy.
Sometimes, a "Tyrant" is the best form of govt.
Democracies and Republic only work for a while: before corruption takes over.
Well seeing as how the tyrant was literally the corruption of the state around a singular political family, I would have to disagree
@@ArchaiaHistoria Thats fine. But history is on my side overall. Also the Tyrant is the Tribal Chief: Predates all Republics and Democracies.
"Breakdown" of republic and democracy into a Tyranny is simply a return to Order. To a system that works.
Who said those are two different things? Someone monopolizing power in a system doesnt change the system. It just means that they managed to exploit it.
I agree however the key word is “sometimes” since it wholly depends on the effectiveness and integrity of the leader. With democracy and republics have far greater stability even if it sacrifices greater human progress.
Alas, only Augustus seems to have proven himself to be the best.
I love this types of videos about different topics of Ancient Greece but I would also love if we ever get conclusion about Phillip II
Hooray you are back :-)
I never leave, my channel just stays so still it appears invisible
Amazing how ancient biases still color our perception of subjects like this. Another great one 👍
Welcome back!
Everyone says welcome back. I never left
@@ArchaiaHistoria It's been ~4 months since your last upload! That warrants a welcome back imo. I'm currently too poor for patreon and I'll never make a d*scord account so it really has been a while. Regardless, I hope to see more of you on here - wishing big successes to you! :)
@@thewhowhatwherewhyho Thanks for the support, I appreciate it. Hopefully I can bring the next video sooner than 4 months. There are currently a few videos already in the pipeline
Great video.
Reminds me of the Roman republic to some degree. Both were oligarchic, both violently political, both had their tyrants. In the case of the Romans the called dictators.
Interesting comparison. There was a paper I came across during my research about the Greek perspective of the Roman Dictator, which was a legal tyrant of sorts and how tyranny got its modern meaning. Here’s a link:
www.jstor.org/stable/20452569
@@ArchaiaHistoria Ooo, thank you! I’ll have a look at that paper. Also great video! It was nice to watch.
Dead wrong dictatorship in rome was successful institution. It wasn't until sulla revived it after more than 100 years of it being dead to use it in a weird and twisted zombie way did it start to have a bad meaning
but in the case of Rome the dictator would have indeed subverted the system that preceded him, wouldn’t he? anderson precisely explains that tyrants couldn’t have subverted any system that didn’t exist by the time they lived
Here I found a new note (89) in Anderson's 2005 paper regarding this matter: "Cf.White’s(1955) interesting comparison with the use of the term princeps in the Augustan era, which is cited with approval by O’Neil (1986: 38). Both words were used to recognize the undisputed political preeminence of an individual leader, though neither denoted an official title or position"
Great Vid chap.
Thanks for the voice chap
solid stuff
We need Philip!
When the "R" in amorgos is sus
Lots of Brutal Tyrants were popular with their people and did make positive economic reforms, so much of this video is predicated on thinking that's an inherent contradiction.
We always like to focus on how brutal certain rulers are without looking into their actual policy and popularity. And in the end people are surprised how and why these kinds of individuals come to power in the first place.
Best example of this is what germans are thought about nazi rule. From class alone you would get the impression that its all just racism and militarism. But we all (should) know that the nazis werent 2 dimensional cartoon villains.
When someone clearly states that they want to get rid of parliament and turn the country into an ethnostate and a superpower then you cant use the excuse that the people didnt know who they were voting for.
@@miniaturejayhawk8702 In the case of the Nazis they indeed never had majority support, the last election to happen prior to Hitler's appointment actually saw them lose seats, the centrists empowered Hitler out of fear of the Left.
👍
👍
Can the Greek Archaic period be considered as legendary as the Roman Kingdom period?
Interestingly while our literary sources are weak for the period (mostly since written history as we know it didn’t exist until Herodotus) the material culture is quite strong for the Archaic era. So it is not quite legendary but heavily shaded by the later classical period
@@ArchaiaHistoria Actually, we even found Romulus tomb! Aren't they even?
The problem is that material culture from those periods cannot confirm all the details of those legends concerning politics and society.
Am I wrong?
Political parties are in essence the spiritual successor of political families. They have the same functions and the same goal.
❤
To ,
Spiritual science is the future of human and world.
We expect videos on the literature of
Kashmiri Pandit Gopi Krishna
Unbelievable mysterious powerful Spiritual experiences
Towards the Truth
❤
Beautifully made like a delicious meatball parmigiana
Only the best!
kind of weird to think that there was "an age of tyrants"
The facts are correct. Yes, they were the natural product of their system and they did play the game "better" then their competitors. I also agree that the term "tyrant" should be understood in its historical context.
However the "moral" conclusions to "not attribute them as unjust dictators" gives me the chills. Is this what you really believe of was the phrasing a bit unlucky? The act of not committing atrocities is the moral benchmark and not how the competitors acted. Such relativism is a slippery slope to justify any atrocities with the goal of retaining or gaining political power within an existing system. You could (and some questionable social groups do) use this reasoning to some very very problematic historical characters from more contemporary times.
I think there may be a misunderstanding here. The thesis of the video is only arguing that these “Tyrants” were not tyrannical in the sense of usurping the political system. As I argued in the video, these turannoi were quite brutal political characters as well, murdering and exiling their political opponents (or worse). By “unjust” dictators I meant that they weren’t necessarily the usurping dictators (ie unlawful dictators) as one might imagine. I wasn’t commenting on their morality.
@@ArchaiaHistoria Thanks for the reply & clarification. Yes, it seems to be a misunderstanding from my side in that case. I understood the content the way you describe it your reply until the very last part of the video.
To explain my reasoning: Referencing a specific set of laws makes it objectively definable. So in the context of their specific historical political system/law of the state, you are right that they are not "unlawfully" instated dictators. I was struggling with the word "unjust dictator" because justice is a more subjective term based on individual moral and while the individual supporter of the tyrants might have find their acts "just" and within the "law" I have a feeling that their victims probably didn't.
Thanks for the response.
@@fluffybunny5518 it really doesnt mather what their victims think when the supporters are in a clear majority.
@@miniaturejayhawk8702 That is called a tyranny by majority. And if the majority decided it is lawful to rob, enslave, murder and rape another minority or weaker group, because they have a different culture, skin colour, orientation,… that would be ok with your moral compass? I really hope not.
Distinguishing between lawful and moral views is important. There needs to be a higher framework that a majority is not allowed to overstep e.g. something like the human rights.
Most edifying, thanks! 🏛️