Category: Tyranny

Introduction

In 1776, American colonies were deciding whether they should be further dominated by Great Britain or become free from the power of the sovereign. Tomas Paine was one of the advocates of the separation from the monarchy and the establishment of democracy. In his pamphlet, Commons Sense, he outlined his vision of the democratic future of America and opposed the power of the king. In the same year, the United States became an independent country, and over 50 years later, Alexis de Tocqueville stated his reflections about the threats of the current political system in his text Democracy in America. These two works by Paine and Tocqueville reveal the change that happened in the perception of monarchy, democracy, and tyranny over time. What Paine considered to be American freedom turned out to be a new form of despotism from Tocquevilles point of view.

Main body

To prove that the US had to break free from Britains power, Paine started his pamphlet by explaining why humans need a government at all. In his opinion, humans are subject to vices and cannot control themselves effectively (Paine 3). Therefore, the government is a necessary evil that is established to supply the defect of moral virtue (Paine 2-3). Indeed, without any administration, society would be drowned in chaos, mainly because of human greed and envy.

Naturally, people may be ruled in various ways, so Paine suggested a scenario for a successful government reigning over a happy community. From his point of view, a king meant nothing for the well-being of society; rather, the prosperity of the nation depended on common interests and mutual support of each other (Paine 3). To maintain such relationships in society, people should elect their representatives regularly, and the elected should return to the community after serving their terms (Paine 3). Thus, the government should be formed of people who are aware of the electors pains and needs and can address these issues.

However, such a type of government is impossible with a monarchy. Paine found the political system with a king at the head absurd because it first excludes a man from the means of information, yet empowers him to act in cases where the highest judgment is required (4). He argued that monarchs were separated from the public due to their position but were required to be well informed of it, which were two contradictory clauses (Paine 4). The ignorance of the living conditions of the subjects often resulted in a divorce between common people and a ruling clique with a sovereign at the head. Therefore, the kings decisions were designed to satisfy the needs of the elite rather than improve the position of the community.

There was one more reason why Paine was discontented with the future of America under British dominance. He thought monarchs to be useless in countries like Britain, where they were responsible for neither military nor civil business (Paine 10). He wrote, in England a king hath little more to do than to make war and give away places, meaning that a monarch contributed to the poverty of the nation and conflicts within the country. (Paine 10). Therefore, a sovereign was not just needless but even harmful to the state. It may be concluded from Paines point of view that abolishing the monarchy and establishing democracy in its place would eliminate wars and improve the nations well-being.

Another thing that Paine criticized about monarchy was hereditary succession. First, it is an unnatural process since people are born equal, so it is unfair to endow some of them with privileges because of their parents titles or wealth (Paine 8). Secondly, even though a king might be a decent and wise ruler, his heir could be a villain or a fool unworthy of the inherited position and threatening the welfare of society (Paine 8). Paine believed that if people were allowed to elect their governors, they would choose wisely and grant a high position only to the worthiest members of the community.

Though selecting rulers through universal suffrage may sound like a good idea, Tocqueville revealed its drawbacks. He believed that extended observation and thorough analysis were required to assess the character of a person and decide whether he or she was fit for an administrative position (Tocqueville 2). He thought that ordinary people were incapable of this since they had neither the time nor the means for an investigation of this kind (Tocqueville 2). Therefore, the democracy that vested every member of the community with the right to participate in the election was not the most appropriate form of government.

It appears that none of the political systems criticized by Paine and Tocqueville was able to provide the nation with a good ruler. Perhaps, Paine put his trust in democracy because he believed that people would be wise enough to choose a decent person to govern them. However, as time passed, Tocqueville had a chance to evaluate the real consequences of an electoral system. He noticed that the wisest people appeared to be out of power in most cases (Tocqueville 1). Tocquevilles point of view seems more viable because it is supported not only by his judgment but also by the evidence from the present world. Presentable and eloquent government figures have greater chances to win public favor than their smarter but less appealing opponents because people often do not take time to weigh their choices.

There is also a difference between Paines and Tocquevilles views of equality. Paine objected to the monarchy and hereditary succession since he thought that dividing people into subjects and kings was against nature (5). However, Tocqueville saw a threat to equality as an essential attribute of democracy because he thought it could lead to the establishment of despotism (3). He argued that in unequal societies, the power of a tyrant was violent but confined (Tocqueville 4). With equality, despotism would be milder but more extended and would degrade men without tormenting them (Tocqueville 4). Since all people in a democratic state are supposed to have an equal modest income, their wants should be limited, which, in its turn, should moderate the ambitions of a tyrant (Tocqueville 4). Probably, such a society would not even notice if their democratic state turned into a despotic one.

Tocqueville tried to figure out other features of tyranny that could arise from democracy. He found a threat in individualism stemmed from equality, which implied that people were concerned only about themselves and their families and did not care about their fellow citizens (Tocqueville 5). Such a society could beget a tyrant who would take care that people were happy, but the essence of that happiness would be decided by the ruler (Tocqueville 5). Tocqueville described this power as the one that does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people (5). Under such a government, humans freedom is limited to the possibility of choosing their ruler, and the rest is decided for them (Tocqueville 6). Essentially, this democratic tyranny does not differ much from the kingship criticized by Paine. The main distinction is that with a monarchy, people are aware of their dependent position. With the despotism described by Tocqueville, they pretend to be free while being controlled by an absolute ruler.

Paines and Tocquevilles attitudes toward aristocracy also do not match. While Paine opposed the existence of the elite, mainly because its members gained their statuses by descent, Tocqueville considered it a useful force for restraining the power of the ruler (8). Although Tocqueville realized that hereditary succession could not be retrieved in a democratic state, he suggested the establishment of bodies of great wealth, influence, and strength, corresponding to the persons of an aristocracy (8). Probably, this proposal has the right to exist since such a group of citizens could indeed guarantee adherence to democratic principles and prevent the development of tyranny.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it seems that over time, the ideas about monarchy, democracy, and tyranny changed considerably. Although in the 19^th century, despotism was still regarded as evil, the image of it altered. A tyrant was thought to be not violent but supervisory and limiting peoples will. Moreover, democracy was regarded not as the liberation of a monarchy but as a basis for the potential establishment of tyranny.

Works Cited

Paine, Thomas. Common Sense: Addressed to the Inhabitants of America. 1776, Web.

Tocqueville, Alexis de. Democracy in America: Excerpts from the Original Electronic Text at the Web Site of American Studies, University of Virginia. 1831, Web.

Introduction

Tocqueville tells us of the right of the people to do as they will, but still holds the view that power and influence are held by the majority (Tocqueville 287). Justice is not dependent on the majority of any particular group, but on the views held by a majority of the people, which implies that the rights of an individual are limited to what majority of the people consider as just.

According to Tocqueville, people are observed to ignore the limits of reason on a small scale when the matters in question affect them directly, and total control of a situation belongs to the majority who are represented by the circumstance. An individual who possesses power or influence is likely to misuse his authority by causing harm to those who oppose him. In a similar manner the majority, who are seen to determine the course of action, can decide to wrong their adversaries (Tocqueville 287).

Tocqueville goes on to challenge the mixed governments, stating that it is not possible to get several principles to work together with a view to achieving freedom. The lack of understanding is because there will always be one principle of action that outweighs the others. In view of this, in order to avoid complete dissolution of mixed governments, one social power is supposed to dominate the others, but its power or authority should be bound so as to uphold liberty and contain its influence (Tocqueville 288).

Liberty in the United States

Tocqueville observes that unlimited power is dangerous since human beings are not skilled on handling situations with justice and wisdom. According to Tocqueville, the main evil in many institutions in the US is a result of their excessive power, as opposed to their weaknesses.

He observes that the United States exercises excessive liberty, in that a lot of decisions are left in the hands of the majority. When matters are taken to the public for an intervention, the majority rule. The legislature is also observed to represent the majority, while the executive is appointed by the majority. Everything, including the jury and the public troops are observed to operate based on the say of the majority (Tocqueville 290).

Tocqueville observes a situation whereby the executive, legislature and government can represent the majority while remaining democratic, such that they are free from manipulation based on the passion of the majority. He identifies the lack of barriers in many institutions to control tyranny, and as a result, the governments authority is undermined by the circumstances as opposed to the laws (Tocqueville 291).

Opinion of the majority

While arbitrary power implies the authority exercised with a view to benefit the community, tyranny refers to the influence propagated by the law.

The relationship between police officers and the majority is seen to reflect on the association between a master and a servant, in that the public can demand the attention or assistance of the officers at any time. The power of the majority in the US varies from that in Europe. In Europe, the supreme monarchs are incapable of stopping some ideas that are contrary to the authorities from spreading to their dominions.

On the contrary, the United States is very much influenced by the majority. This implies that discussions remain open until the majority make up their minds on what is to be. Once the majority arrive at a decision, the supporters and opposes unite and agree on the accuracy of the decision reached (Tocqueville 292).

The authority if a king is different from the influence of the majority in that the influence of a king is physical, whereby the subjects private will is not subdued, while the power of the majority is both physical and moral. This is because tyranny focuses on the actions and will of the people, and it also tends to inhibit any challenges as well as debates.

According to Tocqueville, America has the highest limitation of true independence of mind and freedom of discussion. This is contrary to the situation in Europe, whereby religious and political theories stand the chance of propagation overseas. This is possible because European countries are not restrained by any authority (Tocqueville 293).

Effects of Tyranny on Character of the Americans

Tocqueville observed a difference between actions based on what an individual did not regard as right and pretending to approve what one did. The first scenario depicts a person who is weak, and therefore does things with the flow in spite of his own opinions, whereas the latter looks at a person justifying his wrong actions in order to please the crowd or group.

In free countries, everyone is expected to hold an opinion regarding a particular item or situation. In democratic nations, public life is constantly integrated with familial matters and the sovereign authority is available on either side. In addition to this, the attention of the sovereign authority is predictably attracted by loud utterances. In the situations mentioned, more people are observed to speculate on the shortcomings and live at the cost of its passions as opposed to total monarchy (Tocqueville 295).

The situation is a result of the stronger enticement and easier admission that more often than not, leads to degradation of the character of the citizens. The situation in America is such that the authority of the majority is final and overwhelming. This causes people to give up their rights as citizens and those who do not see themselves as inhuman. Tocqueville observed few individuals who showed candour and independence of opinion, which was an attribute possessed by many people, in the American history.

The few distinguished characters are not comparable to most other Americans, who seem to have a single line of thought, leading to the same judgements and results. Most Americans are observed to possess certain traits that reflect ignorance of democracy, and display bad behaviour that damages their national character (Tocqueville 299).

Tocqueville observes patriotism to be a virtue possessed by a few American. He observes total monarchy systems where the king is observed to show great intelligence and virtue, to an extent where his courtiers do not question his decisions, as he is seen as totally virtuous.

This is contrary to the situation in America, where philosophers do not sugar coat their words, and flatter their crowds before unleashing the harsh truth upon them. The trend in America is one that is seen to lead to use of dictatorship as opposed to democracy, and praise leading to thirst for power. According to Tocqueville, this trend can be only avoided by limiting the authority bestowed upon an individual, since power is known to corrupt mankind (Tocqueville 303).

History of Liberty and authority

The battle between liberty and authority was a common feature between subjects and the government, in the old times. The governing tribe or caste was seen to be antagonistic to the people they ruled, and the position was also hereditary. The power that the rulers possesses was necessary though dangerous according to the people, since it could be used to harm people who objected their rule, in a similar manner to how the same power could be used to defeat an enemy.

Liberty was therefore necessary for the patriots, and it was exercised by limiting the power that a ruler was allowed to exercise. A rebellion was justified if the ruler infringed the political liberties or immunities allowed. The governing power was also controlled by the public, whereby constitutional checks were established, requiring the consent of the community before implementation of some acts (Mill 12).

This grew to a point where the public felt that they needed to be of the same opinion as the rulers, and their governors should not be independent powers. This led to their desire to revoke their magistrates at will, so that these rulers could not abuse their powers to the disadvantage of the public. This sprung up the temporary ruling system, where rulers were elected for specific periods of time (Mill 14).

Custom

Throughout history, people have believed that their feelings regarding nature are better than reasons, which are thought to be redundant. Peoples opinions on how to conduct themselves are based on the principal of their individual feelings, and their actions are based on sympathy to a level which they would appreciate it, if they were in a similar position.

People are observed to be unaware that their choices are based on their personal liking, since most of their actions are not supported by reasons. Those people who provide reasons for their actions are in most cases are aimed at gaining the favor of the audience. There are some ordinary individuals whose actions are based on genuine reasons that are guided by their notions of morality or taste (Mill 17).

According to Mill, the opinion of an individual is affected by the various factors that affect their wishes in regard to the behaviour of other people. These factors vary from reason, to superstition, to prejudices. Their decisions can be influenced by their social relations, desires or feelings, like envy or contempt. Their self interest also affects their opinions.

The morality of individuals is dependent on their class interests, as well as their opinions on the superiority of their class. Common examples are the differences in morals between princes and subjects, and men and women (Mill 17).

Society and individual

According to Mill, consciousness is a factor of the autonomy of conscience, reflection and emotion. It also demands total freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects, realistic and tentative, technical, ethical or theological. The liberty of thought is different from that of conveying and distributing personal views in that the latter involves other individuals. Liberty of tastes and pursuits looks at the structure of an individuals life in order to conform to ones own character.

It involves one doing whatever they wish without consultation, no matter how perverse it may seem to others, as long as it does not cause harm to other people. Mill also looks at another king of individual liberty that involves the freedom to unite, as long as it does not cause harm to other individuals. The people exercising the liberty to unite should avail themselves of their own will, with no deception.

According to Mill, a society that does not appreciate these liberties cannot claim to be free, or to exercise freedom. In addition to this, Mill says that the only true freedom is that which allows people to pursue their own good in their own way, provided that it does not hinder the freedom of others. According to Mill (19), every person needs to guard himself, and

Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest.

Social tyranny according to Mill and Tocqueville

Tyranny is not bound by the actions of the political functionaries if is propagated by the society itself, and not the individual inciting or proposing it. When the society decides to carry out its own directives in things that it should not involve itself in, that can be termed social tyranny (Mill 38). Both Mill and Tocqueville share the opinion that this kind of social tyranny is more frightening than other kinds of political oppression.

This view is because there is no strategy is place to enforce penalties for wrong choices upon the society, and the wrong choices can therefore result in more devastating effects. Most of the population does not see the command of a government as their command or its views as their views. It is for this reason that the majority view the government as invading on their individual liberty.

The public is always in readiness to demonstrate their disappointment in the government whenever it acts in a manner as to impose control over the people in ways that they are not familiar with. Since there is no way to test the ways in which the government impinges on the liberty of the people, the society decides based on their personal preferences.

In doing this, the public chooses a side in any particular issue, in most cases the side that is contrary to that of the government, whereby they determine whether the actions of the government are right, and whether what it does, or what it fails to do, conforms to their thoughts. Both Mill and Tocqueville agree that the absence of rule or principle results in each side viewing the other as being on the wrong, though the involvement of the government brings about imbalance since it may have been wrongly summoned or condemned.

Conclusion

The tyranny of the majority is observed with fear since the society executes it own mandates. Wrong mandates or interference in certain issues may be cause more harm than political oppression, since the society is not answerable to anyone, as opposed to a governor or ruler, who is elected. Protection of the community against public figures is not enough, but the society should allow be protected from its tendency to impose its own ideas and practises as rules of conduct, instead of imposing civil penalties (Mill 69).

Both Tocqueville and Mill agree that there should be a limit to the justifiable level of intrusion of communal judgment with personal liberty. The line between personal independence and social control is a difficult one to establish. The first step requires that some rules of conduct be set, by both law and public opinion.

Works Cited

Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. Kitchener, Ontario: Batoche Books Limited, 2001. Print.

Tocqueville, Alexis de. Democracy in America. Pennsylvania: Electronic Classics Series, 2002. Print.

Introduction

A tyrant refers to a harsh and oppressive leader with no legal restraint. Determining the cruellest emperor between Caligula and Domitian is crucial because both rulers are renowned for oppressive regimes that led to crises and turmoil in Rome. As a result, both leaders are among the worst emperors in the world. Therefore, it is crucial to examine the extent of their cruelty to establish who between the two best deserves the label of a tyrant. The major problem in discussing this topic is that it is difficult to clearly distinguish who had a harsher regime between Domitian and Caligula. This is because both rulers are renowned for their brutality during their reigns. Hence, it is challenging to pinpoint whose actions were more tyrannical compared to the others. Caligula better deserves the label of a tyrant because his executions, abuse of power, and perception of being supreme were more intense compared to Domitians.

Cruel Leadership Characterised by Brutal Execution

Caligulas dynasty is perceived as one of the harshest regimes in history. Gaius Caesar Germanicus (Caligula) was the third Roman emperor who ruled from 37 to 41 A.D. He is one of the cruellest and unpredictable leaders in history. ¹During his reign, he had absolute power over the region and did not involve the Senate in his decisions. He had little or no regard for the Senate, most of whom became audiences in his public theatrics. ²For example, some studies show that he once threatened to make his horse a consul. Although many historians presume that he wanted to give the horse a position in the Senate, it can be viewed as a mere commentary to show his low opinion of the Senate. ³His cruel leadership was evident because, during his ascension to power, he ordered a mass human ritual that involved the slaughter of slaves and criminals all over the temples and arenas of the city. The massive bloodshed of oppressed citizens such as criminals and slaves depicts Caligula as a tyrant.

Caligula ordered the public executions of his opponents, particularly senators and philosophers. In this case, following the death of Drusilla, his sister, Caligula, ordered that statues and temples be erected in her honour. ⁴Research indicates that Caligula and Drusilla were in an incestuous relationship which may explain why Caligula wanted Drusilla to be perceived as god panthea. However, some senators and philosophers opposed the decree because only impeccable emperors, such as Augustus, deserved to become gods. Nonetheless, Caligula had their tongues pulled out, and they were also crucified upside down and burned alive. The executions also targeted the magicians and other religious sects who condemned his incestuous acts. Additionally, all other senators who conflicted with his policies were publicly executed. Similarly, according to Rohmann (2019), Caligula forced parents to attend the execution of their own children.⁵ As a leader, Caligula was also renowned for his lust. ⁶He opened a brothel in the palace where he slept with whoever pleased him, including the wives of senators and other government officials. Caligula would then report about the wives performances to their husbands.

Caligula resumed the treason trials that Tiberius had earlier initiated. The public arenas were turned into execution stages for his allies and rivals. ⁷He turned murder into a sport for entertaining the public. Caligula began targeting people at random who would be executed publicly, whether senators, criminals, high-ranking officials, or army commanders. He enjoyed witnessing the suffering of the people being executed. ⁸In this case, Suetonius, Caligulas biographer, indicated that Caligula showed the keenest interest in observing the torment and anguish of the people being tortured to death. Worse still, he confiscated the property of the people who were executed, particularly those from the leading Roman families. His greed for wealth led to the slaughter of many wealthy families while he got to inherit all their wealth. These executions caused fear and panic among all citizens, but Caligula was not bothered; he wanted people to fear him. Therefore, Caligulas cruelty was illustrated by his unquenchable need to witness the torture and murder of other people.

Domitians rule over Rome was associated with intense ruthlessness and atrocities. He governed Rome from 81 A.D to 96 A.D following the demise of his brother Titus Domitianus. Jones (1993) reveals that power was concentrated at the imperial court, not in the Senate-house.⁹ Domitians court not only passed judgement but was also responsible for executing the law, thus curtailing the powers of the Senate. He also ousted the Senate members whom he felt were unworthy. ¹⁰His reign was characterised by immense paranoia and fear of assassination, making him a harsh leader. He hired informants to report any incidences of rebel or plots to oust him. This portrays Domitian as a tyrant who had absolute and unrestrained power over Rome and ruled based on his terms instead of following the existing law.

Domitians cruelty was also demonstrated by the execution of imperial officials and senators who opposed his regulations. ¹¹After the executions, he would seize the wealth of the affluent Roman families and senators to fund his extravagant lifestyle. He also ordered the murders of vestal virgins and incorporated more torturous punishments for his opponents. Domitians dynasty greatly limited the freedom of speech, and he exiled all philosophers from Rome and Italy in 93 A.D. ¹²Several people were executed due to violating the speech regulations. This proves that Domitian was a tyrant who restricted his citizens freedom of speech, making them unable to express themselves for fear of being executed.

By comparing the tyrannical acts exhibited by Caligula and Domitian, it is apparent that Caligula was harsher compared to Domitian. ¹³In this case, Domitians paranoia may have driven him to execute members of the Senate and limit the freedom of speech for fear of assassination. Additionally, Domitians ordered the killing of vestal virgins to preserve the morality of the society. In contrast, Caligulas executions did not only involve his opponents but also other citizens like criminals and slaves. Caligula executed people for entertainment and enjoyed witnessing the torture and suffering of people. He also organised executions publicly so that the people in Rome could fear him. Caligula also targeted wealthy families for execution to inherit their property. Thus, by examining the cruel acts of both emperors, Caligulas deeds are harsher and severe than those of Domitian.

Abuse of Power for Personal Gain

Caligula used the Roman treasury to fund his extravagant lifestyle. After becoming an emperor, he realised that Tiberius had accumulated a lot of money before his death. ¹⁴Consequently, he spent a lot of resources on vanity projects such as renovating the arena for gladiator shows and organising lavish events like boxing matches, plays, and chariot races. He also constructed an amphitheatre in the palace, where he hired professional studs for entertaining the public. As a result, he plundered the regions economy in funding his extravagant lifestyle. Due to his lavish lifestyle, the treasury funds were soon depleted, necessitating increasing taxes to maintain his lifestyle. This proves that Caligula did not care about the prosperity of the Romans but was only interested in accumulating money to cater to his profligate life.

Caligula waged meaningless wars to achieve a sense of military glory. He wanted to be viewed as a militant leader like his predecessors especially, Augustus. Though he annexed Mauritania, he engaged in numerous unsuccessful quests to conquer Germany and Britain. The expeditions were aimed at helping him become the most powerful emperor by conquering these northern regions. ¹⁵When he led an invasion against Britain, he changed his mind and ordered the soldiers to gather seashells to be exhibited back in Rome. Hence, waging war using public resources to achieve individual gains depicts Caligula as a tyrant. Unlike other leaders, he was not interested in expanding his territory but, most importantly, in recognition.

Domitian lived an extravagant life characterised by games, such as chariot races. ¹⁶He also engaged in several military expeditions, most of which were unsuccessful. His reign was linked with the misappropriation of funds resulting in financial stress to the city. However, he appointed government officials to analyse the finance usage by all provinces and prosecute those found guilty of looting the funds. ¹⁷Despite the financial crises, his reign was associated with multiple social improvements such as access to water, land entitlement, and a public building program, among others. Although Domitian was a harsh ruler who lived extravagantly, he still cared for the Roman people.

It is evident that both Caligula and Domitian abused their powers as leaders. They funded their lavish lifestyles using public resources, leaving their economies in crisis. Nevertheless, Caligulas tyranny is more exaggerated than Domitians because after depleting the money in the treasury, he imposed higher taxes on the citizens to continue accumulating money to pursue his interests. This portrays him as a cruel ruler who did not show regard to the plight of his people. Although Domitian looted the governments funds, he ensured to invest in several projects to benefit his people. Thus, Caligula was harsher than Domitian because he only pursued his ambitions.

Perception of Being Supreme

Caligula viewed himself as an immortal god and expected to receive similar treatment as other gods. Following his ascension to power, Caligula initiated his pursuit to become a god. The executions of both people and animals in the altars were perceived as a sacrifice to begin his self-deification. ¹⁸He later authorised the construction of temples in his name all over Rome, even in the smallest villages. A magnificent temple in the name of Caligula was also erected on Palatine Hill at the central point of Rome. During the executions at the altars, he would wear clothing associated with various gods, such as Jupiter, Hercules, Venus, and Mars, among others.

Caligula also expected the Roman citizens to respect him as a deity; he would be driven around the city in a luxurious carriage to identify the likely contenders for sacrifice at the altar. Like the gods, he felt that he had the power to decide the fate of his people. ¹⁹In this case, if he disliked an individuals hairstyle or dressing code, then such a person would be put to death. On one occasion, Caligula challenged the god Jupiter to a duel, and following the non-appearance of the god, he declared himself the winner. Henceforth, everyone who appeared before him had to prostrate themselves on the ground and kiss his boots. In addition, Caligula also conflicted with the Jews in Jerusalem after they refused to erect a statue in his honour. He felt that the Jews did not respect him as a deity because they believed in only one true God.

On the other hand, Domitian also regarded himself as an absolute ruler and loved the idea of being addressed as a master or god. He also renamed two months on the calendar after him; September was named Germanicus while October was dubbed Domitianus. ²⁰However, some studies indicate that Domitian never coerced his citizens to refer to him as a god; instead, it was some government officials who sought favours from him who addressed him as master. In addition, he did not impose his preferences on his citizens lifestyles or cultural matters.

Therefore, by analysing both leaders perceptions and expectations of being treated like a god, Caligula is depicted as a worse tyrant than Domitian. Caligula perceived himself as a god and coerced people to respect him as a deity and prostrate before him. He also ordered the construction of temples throughout Rome in his name, forcing people to worship him contrary to Roman values. ²¹Those who opposed his status as a deity were executed, including the magicians and other culturists. His view of being a deity also encouraged more executions as he felt that he had the power to decide who died and who lived. Domitian may have loved the idea of being referred to as a god. However, unlike Caligula, he did not coerce his citizens to regard him as a deity, neither did he order the construction of temples in his honour. Thus, Caligula deserves the tyrant label due to his vicious actions compared to Domitian.

Analysis of Caligulas Tyrannical Acts

It is important to note that, although Caligula had an oppressive and harsh regime, there is a possibility that a mental disorder contributed to his erratic behaviour. ²²He experienced a traumatizing childhood following the deaths of his father, mother, and elder brothers. This may have had a negative impact on his psychological health. Likewise, Tiberius later adopted him and treated him like a prisoner. In addition, while living with Tiberius, Caligula witnessed a lot of torture and brutality and was also coerced to participate in obscene acts. All these may have had adverse effects on young Caligulas mental state, leading to a mental disorder during his reign that affected his behaviour. During his initial months as an emperor, he was perceived as a good leader who freed the citizens who Tiberius had unfairly jailed. ²³He also eliminated the unpopular tax system and treason trials initiated by Tiberius. These actions portray a leader who cared for the lives of his people.

Caligulas cruel acts became evident after recovering from a prolonged illness. ²⁴Some historians presume that he may have been suffering from temporal lobe epilepsy, while others infer that he may have had a mental disorder. Thus, the illness may have accounted for his erratic tendencies, such as ordering arbitrary executions and proclaiming himself a god. ²⁵However, some historians object to the idea of a mental illness by stating that if Caligula had an ailment, the Senate would have removed him from power. There is also another possibility that Caligula was harsh because he lacked the appropriate leadership skills. He might have never been a leader if his father and two older brothers were never murdered. Therefore, Caligulas tyranny may have resulted from bad leadership skills or an acute illness that affected his mental state.

Conclusion

Caligula and Domitian are among the most authoritarian leaders in world history. Both had absolute power, making other leaders and the Senate-house insignificant. They are also renowned for the brutal executions of their opponents and critics. Domitian and Caligula also misused government funds, resulting in financial crises, and perceived themselves as gods (deity). Even though these leaders shared similar tyrannical characteristics, Caligulas cruel acts were more extreme than Domitians; thus, he better deserves the label of a tyrant. This is because his executions were not only limited to his critics and rivals but also included slaves, criminals, and royal families. He randomly selected who would die, and he enjoyed watching people get tortured. His resumption of the treason trials indicates that he wanted to inflict fear upon people, a prominent characteristic of a tyrant. Similarly, after squandering the treasury funds to maintain his lavish lifestyle, he imposed heavy taxes on the citizens so that he could continue living a luxurious life. This portrays him as a selfish leader who is only concerned about himself. Therefore, between Caligula and Domitian, Caligula best fits the title of a tyrant.

Reference List

Barrett, A.A. (1989). Caligula: The Corruption of Power. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Bontty, M.M. (2020). Ancient Rome: Facts and Fictions. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO.

Boyle, A. and Dominik, W.J. (2002). Flavian Rome: Culture, Image, Text. Leiden: Brill.

Flower, H.I. (2011). The art of forgetting: Disgrace & Oblivion in Roman Political Culture. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Jones, B. (1993). The Emperor Domitian. Milton Park: Routledge.

Rohmann, D. (2019). Christianity and the History of Violence in the Roman Empire: A Sourcebook. Stuttgart: UTB GmbH.

Strauss, B. (2019). Ten Caesars: Roman Emperors from Augustus to Constantine. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Winterling, A. (2015). Caligula: A Biography. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Footnotes

1. Aloys Winterling, Caligula: A Biography (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2015), 24.
2. Anthony A. Barrett, Caligula: The Corruption of Power (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 120.
3. Dirk Rohmann, Christianity and the History of Violence in the Roman Empire: A Sourcebook (Stuttgart: UTB GmbH, 2019), 35.
4. Monica M. Bontty, Ancient Rome: Facts and Fictions (Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2020), 130.
5. Rohmann, Christianity and the History of Violence in the Roman Empire, 21.
6. Winterling, Caligula, 1.
7. Barrett, Caligula, 124-125.
8. Winterling, 1.
9. Brian Jones, The Emperor Domitian (Milton Park: Routledge, 1993), 23.
10. Harriet I. Flower, The Art of Forgetting: Disgrace & Oblivion in Roman Political Culture (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2011), 36-65.
11. Anthony A. Boyle and William J. Dominik, Flavian Rome: Culture, Image, Text (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 255-270.
12. Barry Strauss, Ten Caesars: Roman Emperors from Augustus to Constantine (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2019), 98.
13. Strauss, Ten Caesars, 259.
14. Bontty, Ancient Rome, 206.
15. Winterling, 130-131.
16. Jones, The Emperor, 159-161.
17. Boyle and Dominik, Flavian Rome, 14.
18. Winterling, 75.
19. Barrett, 140.
20. Jones, 108.
21. Winterling, 132.
22. Barrett, 9.
23. Winterling, 68.
24. Bontty, 106.
25. Winterling, 212.

The author of the article, Dirk Vandewalle, is a professor at Dartmouth College. The article, ‘After Gaddafi: How does a country recover from 40 years of destruction by an unchallenged tyrant?’ analyzes the events going on in Libya after Colonel Gaddafi. The article first appeared in The Daily Beast on February 27.

Vandewalle borrows much of his reasoning from his previous works on ‘A History of Modern Libya’. The book discussed the life of Libyans and state of affairs in Libya under Gaddafi. The article evaluates available political solutions that can be applied in restructuring Libyan institutions in the modern world.

The article offers insight to Libyan elites as regards to leadership. The paper links Gaddafi’s dictatorship with the worst revolution experienced in the world.

The article talks about the rise and fall of Gaddafi, who was a self-styled dictator. The essay observes that Gaddafi took over power through bloodless coup and went ahead to eliminate all forms of opposition to his regime.

The fallen leader became aggressive after being inspired by Libya’s hero referred to as Omar al-Mukhtar, who was a Cyrenaican tribal chief. Italians assassinated the hero in 1931, something that did not auger well with Gaddafi. Gaddafi developed a negative attitude towards the West leading to a deadly attack in 1986, when Americans bombed parts of his kingdom.

The West disliked Gaddafi because of his proposal of uniting the African continent and the Arab world. After taking over power in 1969, Gaddafi was faced with one big problem of uniting a state divided on tribal lines. He adopted a policy that would see off his opponents.

He embarked on torture as one way of scaring political activists in the state. Indeed, many people lost their lives, forcing others to fly out of the country. Political dissidents were further hunted in foreign lands, and were being referred to as dogs. Some normalcy and constancy was witnessed after 1992, when Gaddafi agreed to engage the West in oil trade.

The collapsing oil market was quickly reinstated and some political freedoms were granted to Libyans. However, Gaddafi never allowed active political. The article posits that Gaddafi’s son, Saif al-Islam, tried to urge his father to open up and allow some criticism, which he succeeded.

Saif became the darling of the West because he was against his father’s style of rule and life style. The article ends by asserting that Libyans never wanted to be told anything related to Gaddafi’s regime after the uprising. This means that they were fed up with dictatorship and autocratic rule.

Unfortunately, even Saif could not do anything to salvage his besieged father, because people could not listen to him anymore. In fact, he was likened to his father implying that he was in danger too.

The paper discusses some of the important issues as regards to Gaddafi’s leadership and the position of Libya in the international system. The main point discussed is Gaddafi’s leadership style, which was disregarded by many people in the state.

The leader was intolerant to criticism implying that no opposition was to be launched against his regime (Vandewalle, 2011). It is not surprising that when the uprising kicked off, he perceived demonstrators as mad individuals trying to fulfill their selfish interests.

He went ahead to order the military to intervene. He wanted to silence the opposition completely but Western powers thwarted his plans. Another important point discussed in the article is Libya’s foreign policy during Gaddafi’s regime.

Libya had been left in the cold for many years, leading to economic hardships and social sufferings. Oil was no longer sold to the Western countries because of economic sanctions imposed on Gaddafi’s regime.

The paper is resourceful because it offers some chronological account to the rise and fall of Gaddafi. The paper explains to the reader clearly why Gaddafi failed and how he gained governmental power and authority.

However, the writer’s findings are misplaced because he argues that Libya needs to choose the model it wishes to employ in restructuring government. Presently, Libya does not have any political and economic freedom because the West dictates everything.

The writer does not consider external influence that is too powerful. Conversely, the article does not consider the interests of various Western powers such as France, USA, Britain and Russia that are all staged in Libya for selfish interests.

The writer is misled by the notion that each state is independent and sovereign. This is usually not the case since the more powerful states impose ideas on the less influential states in the international system.

It can be concluded that the material provides readers with enough historical data as regards to the rise and fall of Gaddafi. It also gives readers important information on the way forward for Libyans.

However, the article cannot be relied on for critical analysis of events taking place in Libya. The uprisings are being caused by one major factor, which is oil. The Western powers want oil from the Middle East states and the only way of accessing it is through overthrowing uncooperative leaders like Gaddafi.

Reference

Vandewalle, D. (2011). After Gaddafi: How does a country recover from 40 years of destruction by an unchallenged tyrant? The Daily Beast. Retrieved from https://www.thedailybeast.com/

Introduction

In 1776, American colonies were deciding whether they should be further dominated by Great Britain or become free from the power of the sovereign. Tomas Paine was one of the advocates of the separation from the monarchy and the establishment of democracy. In his pamphlet, Commons Sense, he outlined his vision of the democratic future of America and opposed the power of the king. In the same year, the United States became an independent country, and over 50 years later, Alexis de Tocqueville stated his reflections about the threats of the current political system in his text Democracy in America. These two works by Paine and Tocqueville reveal the change that happened in the perception of monarchy, democracy, and tyranny over time. What Paine considered to be American freedom turned out to be a new form of despotism from Tocqueville’s point of view.

Main body

To prove that the US had to break free from Britain’s power, Paine started his pamphlet by explaining why humans need a government at all. In his opinion, humans are subject to vices and cannot control themselves effectively (Paine 3). Therefore, the government is “a necessary evil” that is established “to supply the defect of moral virtue” (Paine 2-3). Indeed, without any administration, society would be drowned in chaos, mainly because of human greed and envy.

Naturally, people may be ruled in various ways, so Paine suggested a scenario for a successful government reigning over a happy community. From his point of view, a king meant nothing for the well-being of society; rather, the prosperity of the nation depended on common interests and mutual support of each other (Paine 3). To maintain such relationships in society, people should elect their representatives regularly, and the elected should return to the community after serving their terms (Paine 3). Thus, the government should be formed of people who are aware of the electors’ pains and needs and can address these issues.

However, such a type of government is impossible with a monarchy. Paine found the political system with a king at the head absurd because “it first excludes a man from the means of information, yet empowers him to act in cases where the highest judgment is required” (4). He argued that monarchs were separated from the public due to their position but were required to be well informed of it, which were two contradictory clauses (Paine 4). The ignorance of the living conditions of the subjects often resulted in a divorce between common people and a ruling clique with a sovereign at the head. Therefore, the king’s decisions were designed to satisfy the needs of the elite rather than improve the position of the community.

There was one more reason why Paine was discontented with the future of America under British dominance. He thought monarchs to be useless in countries like Britain, where they were responsible for neither military nor civil business (Paine 10). He wrote, “in England a king hath little more to do than to make war and give away places,” meaning that a monarch contributed to the poverty of the nation and conflicts within the country. (Paine 10). Therefore, a sovereign was not just needless but even harmful to the state. It may be concluded from Paine’s point of view that abolishing the monarchy and establishing democracy in its place would eliminate wars and improve the nation’s well-being.

Another thing that Paine criticized about monarchy was hereditary succession. First, it is an unnatural process since people are born equal, so it is unfair to endow some of them with privileges because of their parents’ titles or wealth (Paine 8). Secondly, even though a king might be a decent and wise ruler, his heir could be a villain or a fool unworthy of the inherited position and threatening the welfare of society (Paine 8). Paine believed that if people were allowed to elect their governors, they would choose wisely and grant a high position only to the worthiest members of the community.

Though selecting rulers through universal suffrage may sound like a good idea, Tocqueville revealed its drawbacks. He believed that extended observation and thorough analysis were required to assess the character of a person and decide whether he or she was fit for an administrative position (Tocqueville 2). He thought that ordinary people were incapable of this since they had “neither the time nor the means for an investigation of this kind” (Tocqueville 2). Therefore, the democracy that vested every member of the community with the right to participate in the election was not the most appropriate form of government.

It appears that none of the political systems criticized by Paine and Tocqueville was able to provide the nation with a good ruler. Perhaps, Paine put his trust in democracy because he believed that people would be wise enough to choose a decent person to govern them. However, as time passed, Tocqueville had a chance to evaluate the real consequences of an electoral system. He noticed that the wisest people appeared to be out of power in most cases (Tocqueville 1). Tocqueville’s point of view seems more viable because it is supported not only by his judgment but also by the evidence from the present world. Presentable and eloquent government figures have greater chances to win public favor than their smarter but less appealing opponents because people often do not take time to weigh their choices.

There is also a difference between Paine’s and Tocqueville’s views of equality. Paine objected to the monarchy and hereditary succession since he thought that dividing people into subjects and kings was against nature (5). However, Tocqueville saw a threat to equality as an essential attribute of democracy because he thought it could lead to the establishment of despotism (3). He argued that in unequal societies, the power of a tyrant was violent but confined (Tocqueville 4). With equality, despotism would be milder but more extended and “would degrade men without tormenting them” (Tocqueville 4). Since all people in a democratic state are supposed to have an equal modest income, their wants should be limited, which, in its turn, should moderate the ambitions of a tyrant (Tocqueville 4). Probably, such a society would not even notice if their democratic state turned into a despotic one.

Tocqueville tried to figure out other features of tyranny that could arise from democracy. He found a threat in individualism stemmed from equality, which implied that people were concerned only about themselves and their families and did not care about their fellow citizens (Tocqueville 5). Such a society could beget a tyrant who would take care that people were happy, but the essence of that happiness would be decided by the ruler (Tocqueville 5). Tocqueville described this power as the one that “does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people” (5). Under such a government, humans’ freedom is limited to the possibility of choosing their ruler, and the rest is decided for them (Tocqueville 6). Essentially, this democratic tyranny does not differ much from the kingship criticized by Paine. The main distinction is that with a monarchy, people are aware of their dependent position. With the despotism described by Tocqueville, they pretend to be free while being controlled by an absolute ruler.

Paine’s and Tocqueville’s attitudes toward aristocracy also do not match. While Paine opposed the existence of the elite, mainly because its members gained their statuses by descent, Tocqueville considered it a useful force for restraining the power of the ruler (8). Although Tocqueville realized that hereditary succession could not be retrieved in a democratic state, he suggested the establishment of “bodies of great wealth, influence, and strength, corresponding to the persons of an aristocracy” (8). Probably, this proposal has the right to exist since such a group of citizens could indeed guarantee adherence to democratic principles and prevent the development of tyranny.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it seems that over time, the ideas about monarchy, democracy, and tyranny changed considerably. Although in the 19^th century, despotism was still regarded as evil, the image of it altered. A tyrant was thought to be not violent but supervisory and limiting people’s will. Moreover, democracy was regarded not as the liberation of a monarchy but as a basis for the potential establishment of tyranny.

Works Cited

Paine, Thomas. Common Sense: Addressed to the Inhabitants of America. 1776, Web.

Tocqueville, Alexis de. Democracy in America: Excerpts from the Original Electronic Text at the Web Site of American Studies, University of Virginia. 1831, Web.

Lucius Anneus Seneca (4 b. c. – 65 a. d.) is one of the brightest representatives of the philosophical school of stoics. He interpreted problems of culture in quite different way that any of the philosophers of his time (Griffin, 1992).

Seneca was born in the family of a noble knight of Rome Empire. His father was a very dominating person, whose interests were dominance of the empire and of men. His father was a very ambitious, greedy and imperious person. He tried to be in charge of each sphere of life. Of course, education and upbringing in such conditions couldn’t but set a stamp on mind of young Seneca (besides, he was named after his father). Seneca Senior was fond of rhetoric and he tried to foster interest in it to his son (Griffin, 2000).

But young Seneca was fascinated by philosophy. At first, he wanted to become one of them. But father’s upbringing set a big stamp on his decisions. His father cultivated greediness, ambitiousness and lust for power. Those were the main reasons for Seneca to continue his learning of rhetoric and politics. But he did not give up philosophy too. His in-born bents were so great that were noticed at once and many people predicted him brilliant future. But his success was stopped for a while by a severe disease. The star of Seneca ascended some time afterwards, when he appeared at the court of the emperor Caligula. At first, the emperor was kind to him, but when Seneca’s rhetoric skills exceeded those of the emperor, the least ordered to kill him. But a lucky instance saved him from death. Court of the Senators protected him and death penalty was changed onto exile (Kamm, 1995).

Years of the exile became a period of development for Seneca. He critically thought over the main principles of philosophy of Zeno, Epicurus, Cicero, and many others. And in further he posed problems of the world and a person, a person and a society, an individual and the state in quite a different way.

In 48 a. d. Seneca returned from the exile because of wish of Agrippina, wife of the emperor Claudius. Then he became the tutor of their son – future emperor Nero (Shotter, 2005). And here the story begins. When upbringing Nero, Seneca from the point of view of the time solves a problem which was in the centre of attention of the Roman thinkers since Cicero in the new way — a problem of a civic duty of the individual and his parity with a duty to his family, relatives, at last, to himself. Seneca, feeling the deepest disappointment from the unsuccessful pedagogical experiment (the young man who was brought up by him became not an ideal governor as he hoped, but one of the most bloodthirsty one in the history of the ancient world of tyrants), came to the conclusion that the main duty of the person is not a duty to the state which degenerated in the monstrous organization where customs and laws had no significant value, and a life of any person – beginning from the handicraftsman and finishing with a senator – depended on desires of only one person who tasted blood and enjoyed tortures of his victims (Reinhardt, 2008). From Seneca’s point of view, performance of the duty to the state which is personified by a tyrant brings nothing, except alarms and riots (Cooper, 1995). The person, who regards such kind of state as the most important value in his life, loses possibility to look at his personality unbiased, to understand sense of the individual existence. Besides, performance of the duty by an individual who is the citizen of empire, instead of the citizen of republic, is pretty often accompanied by infringement of establishments of morals, and it means that in actions and acts of overwhelming majority of the people boasting of the civil virtues, morality and moral legitimization are absent (Cooper, 1995).

After his failure with Nero, Seneca though over the idea that the main task which each person faces consists not in living, but in living adequately, i.e. according to morals imperatives (Scullard, 1988).

Seneca based his ideas on the reason that only morals transform culture into supreme value. The way of achievement of these morals is in self-improvement of a person, in upbringing of indestructible fidelity to the developed principles of life, tolerance to losses, insensibility to external benefits and to the death which comes inevitably to each person, whether it is an emperor who rules destinies of millions or a representative of common people, hourly caring of daily bread (Braund, 2009).

It is not difficult to notice that the ideas of Seneca found their reflections in ideas of Kant, who many centuries later proclaimed that the final aim of the nature concerning mankind is culture, and the final aim of culture is morality.

Founding of Seneca’s principles presented above, it is obvious that he couldn’t be called a tyrant-trainer. Nero can be considered only as his disappointing experiment. As a tutor, he wanted to create an ideal person whose life aims and values were represented in the state (just as his father’s ideas were). The student perverted ideas of his teacher. This fact found its reflection in the book of Suetonius about life of Nero:

During his reign many abuses were severely punished and put down, and no fewer new laws were made: a limit was set to expenditures; the public banquets were confined to a distribution of food; the sale of any kind of cooked viands in the taverns was forbidden, with the exception of pulse and vegetables, whereas before every sort of dainty was exposed for sale. Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition. He put an end to the diversions of the chariot drivers, who from immunity of long standing claimed the right of ranging at large and amusing themselves by cheating and robbing the people. The pantomimic actors and their partisans were banished from the city (2010, pp. 111-113).

Of course, Seneca cannot be blamed in being a tyrant trainer. His ideas and desires were to create a perfect and devoted man of his nation and state. From his point of view, both a slave and a free citizen are members of “the community of humans and gods” (Seneca, 2008). Each person, that was born by a woman, to his point of view, is granted from the birth with mind, intelligence, emotions and the ability of setting aims and reaching them.

Moreover, to his point of view, wealth and noble origin cannot be regarded as reasons to dominate over other people, because one can eat from golden plates, one can rule millions of people, but one can be also a slave of his own desires and passions and obey his base desires. Nero was the embodiment of all these suppositions. He was cruel and severe tyrant; he killed his mother and brother in order to take the throne. But that was not Seneca’s fault. He considered that each person must educate and bring up personality individually. The teacher only gives the direction. The main idea of self-upbringing by Seneca is upbringing the soul, morality. Seneca offered a new strategy of making a cultural individual, where the main subject and object of upbringing is every person individually (Seneca, 2010).

According to these ideas presented by Seneca we can see him as a person with good intentions. But the fate played a bad joke with him. His best beginning and worse ending, Nero, whom he raised and educated carefully, trying to foster interests of the young emperor in more peaceful ways, ordered to kill him. It is really terrible when a creature kills its creator. If Seneca had been a tyrant trainer, he wouldn’t have been ordered to be killed by the emperor.

Seneca’s philosophy was kind and peaceful, but Nero – just as Seneca written in his works – was the only person to bring himself up ad to take care of his beliefs and Seneca’s fault was only in his agreement given to Agrippina.

Seneca’s upbringing was similar to Nero’s. His father fostered his interests in state, duties, and politics, but he didn’t grow up into a bloodthirsty knight or murderer. According to his philosophy, a lot of depends on personality. And it can be easily seen in the example with Nero.

References

1. Braund, S. M., 2009. Introduction. In Seneca. De Clementia. Translated and with an introduction by S. M. Braund. pp. 1–91. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2. Cooper, J. M. & Procopé, J. F., 1995. General Introduction. In Seneca. Moral and Political Essays. pp. xi–xxxvi. Edited and Translated by J. M. Cooper and J. F. Procopé. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3. Cooper, J. M. & Procopé, J. F., 1995. Introduction to “De Clementia”. In Seneca. Moral and Political Essays. pp. 119–127. Edited and Translated by J. M. Cooper and J. F. Procopé. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4. Griffin, M., 1992. Seneca: A Philosopher in Politics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
5. Griffin, M., 2000. Seneca and Pliny. In C. Rowe and M. Schofield (Eds.). The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Political Thought. pp. 532–558. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6. Kamm, A., 1995. The Romans: An Introduction. London: Routledge.
7. Reinhardt, T., 2008. Introduction. In Seneca. Dialogues and Essays. pp. vii–xxvii. Translated by J. Davie with an introduction by T. Reinhardt. Oxford: Oxford World’s Classics.
8. Scullard, H. H., 1988. From the Gracchi to Nero: A History of Rome from 133 BC to AD 68. 5^th Edition. pp. 304–312, 351–353. London: Routledge.
9. Seneca, 2010. De Clementia Extract. Melbourne: Trinity College Foundation Studies.
10. Seneca, 2008. Dialogues and Essays. Translated by J. Davie with an introduction by T. Reinhardt. Oxford World’s Classics.
11. Shotter, D., 2005. Nero. 2^nd Edition. London: Routledge
12. Suetonius, 2010. Life of Nero Extract. Melbourne: Trinity College Foundation Studies.

Introduction

A tyrant refers to a harsh and oppressive leader with no legal restraint. Determining the cruellest emperor between Caligula and Domitian is crucial because both rulers are renowned for oppressive regimes that led to crises and turmoil in Rome. As a result, both leaders are among the worst emperors in the world. Therefore, it is crucial to examine the extent of their cruelty to establish who between the two best deserves the label of a tyrant. The major problem in discussing this topic is that it is difficult to clearly distinguish who had a harsher regime between Domitian and Caligula. This is because both rulers are renowned for their brutality during their reigns. Hence, it is challenging to pinpoint whose actions were more tyrannical compared to the others. Caligula better deserves the label of a tyrant because his executions, abuse of power, and perception of being supreme were more intense compared to Domitian’s.

Cruel Leadership Characterised by Brutal Execution

Caligula’s dynasty is perceived as one of the harshest regimes in history. Gaius Caesar Germanicus (Caligula) was the third Roman emperor who ruled from 37 to 41 A.D. He is one of the cruellest and unpredictable leaders in history. ¹During his reign, he had absolute power over the region and did not involve the Senate in his decisions. He had little or no regard for the Senate, most of whom became audiences in his public theatrics. ²For example, some studies show that he once threatened to make his horse a consul. Although many historians presume that he wanted to give the horse a position in the Senate, it can be viewed as a mere commentary to show his low opinion of the Senate. ³His cruel leadership was evident because, during his ascension to power, he ordered a mass human ritual that involved the slaughter of slaves and criminals all over the temples and arenas of the city. The massive bloodshed of oppressed citizens such as criminals and slaves depicts Caligula as a tyrant.

Caligula ordered the public executions of his opponents, particularly senators and philosophers. In this case, following the death of Drusilla, his sister, Caligula, ordered that statues and temples be erected in her honour. ⁴Research indicates that Caligula and Drusilla were in an incestuous relationship which may explain why Caligula wanted Drusilla to be perceived as god panthea. However, some senators and philosophers opposed the decree because only impeccable emperors, such as Augustus, deserved to become gods. Nonetheless, Caligula had their tongues pulled out, and they were also crucified upside down and burned alive. The executions also targeted the magicians and other religious sects who condemned his incestuous acts. Additionally, all other senators who conflicted with his policies were publicly executed. Similarly, according to Rohmann (2019), ‘Caligula forced parents to attend the execution of their own children.’⁵ As a leader, Caligula was also renowned for his lust. ⁶He opened a brothel in the palace where he slept with whoever pleased him, including the wives of senators and other government officials. Caligula would then report about the wives’ performances to their husbands.

Caligula resumed the treason trials that Tiberius had earlier initiated. The public arenas were turned into execution stages for his allies and rivals. ⁷He turned murder into a sport for entertaining the public. Caligula began targeting people at random who would be executed publicly, whether senators, criminals, high-ranking officials, or army commanders. He enjoyed witnessing the suffering of the people being executed. ⁸In this case, Suetonius, Caligula’s biographer, indicated that Caligula showed the keenest interest in observing the torment and anguish of the people being tortured to death. Worse still, he confiscated the property of the people who were executed, particularly those from the leading Roman families. His greed for wealth led to the slaughter of many wealthy families while he got to inherit all their wealth. These executions caused fear and panic among all citizens, but Caligula was not bothered; he wanted people to fear him. Therefore, Caligula’s cruelty was illustrated by his unquenchable need to witness the torture and murder of other people.

Domitian’s rule over Rome was associated with intense ruthlessness and atrocities. He governed Rome from 81 A.D to 96 A.D following the demise of his brother Titus Domitianus. Jones (1993) reveals that ‘power was concentrated at the imperial court, not in the Senate-house.’⁹ Domitian’s court not only passed judgement but was also responsible for executing the law, thus curtailing the powers of the Senate. He also ousted the Senate members whom he felt were unworthy. ¹⁰His reign was characterised by immense paranoia and fear of assassination, making him a harsh leader. He hired informants to report any incidences of rebel or plots to oust him. This portrays Domitian as a tyrant who had absolute and unrestrained power over Rome and ruled based on his terms instead of following the existing law.

Domitian’s cruelty was also demonstrated by the execution of imperial officials and senators who opposed his regulations. ¹¹After the executions, he would seize the wealth of the affluent Roman families and senators to fund his extravagant lifestyle. He also ordered the murders of vestal virgins and incorporated more torturous punishments for his opponents. Domitian’s dynasty greatly limited the freedom of speech, and he exiled all philosophers from Rome and Italy in 93 A.D. ¹²Several people were executed due to violating the speech regulations. This proves that Domitian was a tyrant who restricted his citizen’s freedom of speech, making them unable to express themselves for fear of being executed.

By comparing the tyrannical acts exhibited by Caligula and Domitian, it is apparent that Caligula was harsher compared to Domitian. ¹³In this case, Domitian’s paranoia may have driven him to execute members of the Senate and limit the freedom of speech for fear of assassination. Additionally, Domitian’s ordered the killing of vestal virgins to preserve the morality of the society. In contrast, Caligula’s executions did not only involve his opponents but also other citizens like criminals and slaves. Caligula executed people for entertainment and enjoyed witnessing the torture and suffering of people. He also organised executions publicly so that the people in Rome could fear him. Caligula also targeted wealthy families for execution to inherit their property. Thus, by examining the cruel acts of both emperors, Caligula’s deeds are harsher and severe than those of Domitian.

Abuse of Power for Personal Gain

Caligula used the Roman treasury to fund his extravagant lifestyle. After becoming an emperor, he realised that Tiberius had accumulated a lot of money before his death. ¹⁴Consequently, he spent a lot of resources on vanity projects such as renovating the arena for gladiator shows and organising lavish events like boxing matches, plays, and chariot races. He also constructed an amphitheatre in the palace, where he hired professional studs for entertaining the public. As a result, he plundered the region’s economy in funding his extravagant lifestyle. Due to his lavish lifestyle, the treasury funds were soon depleted, necessitating increasing taxes to maintain his lifestyle. This proves that Caligula did not care about the prosperity of the Romans but was only interested in accumulating money to cater to his profligate life.

Caligula waged meaningless wars to achieve a sense of military glory. He wanted to be viewed as a militant leader like his predecessors especially, Augustus. Though he annexed Mauritania, he engaged in numerous unsuccessful quests to conquer Germany and Britain. The expeditions were aimed at helping him become the most powerful emperor by conquering these northern regions. ¹⁵When he led an invasion against Britain, he changed his mind and ordered the soldiers to gather seashells to be exhibited back in Rome. Hence, waging war using public resources to achieve individual gains depicts Caligula as a tyrant. Unlike other leaders, he was not interested in expanding his territory but, most importantly, in recognition.

Domitian lived an extravagant life characterised by games, such as chariot races. ¹⁶He also engaged in several military expeditions, most of which were unsuccessful. His reign was linked with the misappropriation of funds resulting in financial stress to the city. However, he appointed government officials to analyse the finance usage by all provinces and prosecute those found guilty of looting the funds. ¹⁷Despite the financial crises, his reign was associated with multiple social improvements such as access to water, land entitlement, and a public building program, among others. Although Domitian was a harsh ruler who lived extravagantly, he still cared for the Roman people.

It is evident that both Caligula and Domitian abused their powers as leaders. They funded their lavish lifestyles using public resources, leaving their economies in crisis. Nevertheless, Caligula’s tyranny is more exaggerated than Domitian’s because after depleting the money in the treasury, he imposed higher taxes on the citizens to continue accumulating money to pursue his interests. This portrays him as a cruel ruler who did not show regard to the plight of his people. Although Domitian looted the government’s funds, he ensured to invest in several projects to benefit his people. Thus, Caligula was harsher than Domitian because he only pursued his ambitions.

Perception of Being Supreme

Caligula viewed himself as an immortal god and expected to receive similar treatment as other gods. Following his ascension to power, Caligula initiated his pursuit to become a god. The executions of both people and animals in the altars were perceived as a sacrifice to begin his self-deification. ¹⁸He later authorised the construction of temples in his name all over Rome, even in the smallest villages. A magnificent temple in the name of Caligula was also erected on Palatine Hill at the central point of Rome. During the executions at the altars, he would wear clothing associated with various gods, such as Jupiter, Hercules, Venus, and Mars, among others.

Caligula also expected the Roman citizens to respect him as a deity; he would be driven around the city in a luxurious carriage to identify the likely contenders for sacrifice at the altar. Like the gods, he felt that he had the power to decide the fate of his people. ¹⁹In this case, if he disliked an individual’s hairstyle or dressing code, then such a person would be put to death. On one occasion, Caligula challenged the god Jupiter to a duel, and following the non-appearance of the god, he declared himself the winner. Henceforth, everyone who appeared before him had to prostrate themselves on the ground and kiss his boots. In addition, Caligula also conflicted with the Jews in Jerusalem after they refused to erect a statue in his honour. He felt that the Jews did not respect him as a deity because they believed in only one true God.

On the other hand, Domitian also regarded himself as an absolute ruler and loved the idea of being addressed as a master or god. He also renamed two months on the calendar after him; September was named Germanicus while October was dubbed Domitianus. ²⁰However, some studies indicate that Domitian never coerced his citizens to refer to him as a god; instead, it was some government officials who sought favours from him who addressed him as master. In addition, he did not impose his preferences on his citizen’s lifestyles or cultural matters.

Therefore, by analysing both leaders’ perceptions and expectations of being treated like a god, Caligula is depicted as a worse tyrant than Domitian. Caligula perceived himself as a god and coerced people to respect him as a deity and prostrate before him. He also ordered the construction of temples throughout Rome in his name, forcing people to worship him contrary to Roman values. ²¹Those who opposed his status as a deity were executed, including the magicians and other culturists. His view of being a deity also encouraged more executions as he felt that he had the power to decide who died and who lived. Domitian may have loved the idea of being referred to as a god. However, unlike Caligula, he did not coerce his citizens to regard him as a deity, neither did he order the construction of temples in his honour. Thus, Caligula deserves the tyrant label due to his vicious actions compared to Domitian.

Analysis of Caligula’s Tyrannical Acts

It is important to note that, although Caligula had an oppressive and harsh regime, there is a possibility that a mental disorder contributed to his erratic behaviour. ²²He experienced a traumatizing childhood following the deaths of his father, mother, and elder brothers. This may have had a negative impact on his psychological health. Likewise, Tiberius later adopted him and treated him like a prisoner. In addition, while living with Tiberius, Caligula witnessed a lot of torture and brutality and was also coerced to participate in obscene acts. All these may have had adverse effects on young Caligula’s mental state, leading to a mental disorder during his reign that affected his behaviour. During his initial months as an emperor, he was perceived as a good leader who freed the citizens who Tiberius had unfairly jailed. ²³He also eliminated the unpopular tax system and treason trials initiated by Tiberius. These actions portray a leader who cared for the lives of his people.

Caligula’s cruel acts became evident after recovering from a prolonged illness. ²⁴Some historians presume that he may have been suffering from temporal lobe epilepsy, while others infer that he may have had a mental disorder. Thus, the illness may have accounted for his erratic tendencies, such as ordering arbitrary executions and proclaiming himself a god. ²⁵However, some historians object to the idea of a mental illness by stating that if Caligula had an ailment, the Senate would have removed him from power. There is also another possibility that Caligula was harsh because he lacked the appropriate leadership skills. He might have never been a leader if his father and two older brothers were never murdered. Therefore, Caligula’s tyranny may have resulted from bad leadership skills or an acute illness that affected his mental state.

Conclusion

Caligula and Domitian are among the most authoritarian leaders in world history. Both had absolute power, making other leaders and the Senate-house insignificant. They are also renowned for the brutal executions of their opponents and critics. Domitian and Caligula also misused government funds, resulting in financial crises, and perceived themselves as gods (deity). Even though these leaders shared similar tyrannical characteristics, Caligula’s cruel acts were more extreme than Domitian’s; thus, he better deserves the label of a tyrant. This is because his executions were not only limited to his critics and rivals but also included slaves, criminals, and royal families. He randomly selected who would die, and he enjoyed watching people get tortured. His resumption of the treason trials indicates that he wanted to inflict fear upon people, a prominent characteristic of a tyrant. Similarly, after squandering the treasury funds to maintain his lavish lifestyle, he imposed heavy taxes on the citizens so that he could continue living a luxurious life. This portrays him as a selfish leader who is only concerned about himself. Therefore, between Caligula and Domitian, Caligula best fits the title of a tyrant.

Reference List

Barrett, A.A. (1989). Caligula: The Corruption of Power. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Bontty, M.M. (2020). Ancient Rome: Facts and Fictions. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO.

Boyle, A. and Dominik, W.J. (2002). Flavian Rome: Culture, Image, Text. Leiden: Brill.

Flower, H.I. (2011). The art of forgetting: Disgrace & Oblivion in Roman Political Culture. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Jones, B. (1993). The Emperor Domitian. Milton Park: Routledge.

Rohmann, D. (2019). Christianity and the History of Violence in the Roman Empire: A Sourcebook. Stuttgart: UTB GmbH.

Strauss, B. (2019). Ten Caesars: Roman Emperors from Augustus to Constantine. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Winterling, A. (2015). Caligula: A Biography. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Footnotes

1. Aloys Winterling, Caligula: A Biography (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2015), 24.
2. Anthony A. Barrett, Caligula: The Corruption of Power (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 120.
3. Dirk Rohmann, Christianity and the History of Violence in the Roman Empire: A Sourcebook (Stuttgart: UTB GmbH, 2019), 35.
4. Monica M. Bontty, Ancient Rome: Facts and Fictions (Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2020), 130.
5. Rohmann, Christianity and the History of Violence in the Roman Empire, 21.
6. Winterling, Caligula, 1.
7. Barrett, Caligula, 124-125.
8. Winterling, 1.
9. Brian Jones, The Emperor Domitian (Milton Park: Routledge, 1993), 23.
10. Harriet I. Flower, The Art of Forgetting: Disgrace & Oblivion in Roman Political Culture (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2011), 36-65.
11. Anthony A. Boyle and William J. Dominik, Flavian Rome: Culture, Image, Text (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 255-270.
12. Barry Strauss, Ten Caesars: Roman Emperors from Augustus to Constantine (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2019), 98.
13. Strauss, Ten Caesars, 259.
14. Bontty, Ancient Rome, 206.
15. Winterling, 130-131.
16. Jones, The Emperor, 159-161.
17. Boyle and Dominik, Flavian Rome, 14.
18. Winterling, 75.
19. Barrett, 140.
20. Jones, 108.
21. Winterling, 132.
22. Barrett, 9.
23. Winterling, 68.
24. Bontty, 106.
25. Winterling, 212.

Introduction

Montezuma, in 1787 identified the need to avoid a consolidated system of governance. A system where the judiciary, legislature, and the presidency interact at the same level leads to tyranny. In such regimes, votes have no powers but to elect leaders who are corrupted by powerful members of the ruling class. Even the judiciary became an instrument used by the government to achieve certain objectives. Tyranny in modern society is still evident even though there is an illusion that democracy rules America.

Overview of the Message

Aristocratic tendencies characterized the government in 1787. The nation was duped into the establishment of the House of Representatives as part of democracy. However, the House of Representatives as a lower house have no influence since every bill they create is subject to negative views of the president and the upper house (The Federalist Papers). Leaders in the House of Representatives are perpetual officeholders with no powers. Even when leaders of integrity are elected, good manners are corrupted by systems that encourage aristocracy. Even the judiciary is a “gun” used by the government to achieve its objectives. The Court embraces the supreme laws of the land while neglecting the need to guaranty equity (The Federalist Papers).

Intent in Writing

Montezuma wrote the essay on October 17, 1787, to demonstrate how the government engaged in monarchy and aristocracy. In particular, society in 1787 elected men into the House of Representatives. However, the House of Representatives experiences aristocratic democracy because the bills generated in this house are subject to negative reviews of the president and the upper house (The Federalist Papers). In particular, the people who elect leaders at the lower level have no representation in the government. The citizens at the time only had the power to elect legislatures.

Response to the message if lived at that the time

The president and the upper house should not have control over bills prepared in the House of Representatives. Tyranny can be eliminated by recognizing the power vested in American citizens (Helfman 107). As a result, it is necessary to allocate equal powers to bills at any level of representation so that concerns of voters are considered. American citizens should not just have the authority to elect leaders who have no influence in governance (Johnson 7). High levels of tyranny in the legislature, judiciary, and presidency should be eliminated so that all levels of governance become independent.

Correlation between the message and current events

Pole (149) argues that the power of the lower-class, especially voters in the United States have no voice. The president and legislators have immense power in determining all aspects of life. The power to increase taxes, wage war, and increase military presence in other countries is vested among legislators. According to Roark, Johnson, Cohen, Stage, and Hartmann (5), leaders elected, whether republicans or democrats, only serve the wishes of the powerful in the society based on private businesses. No leader is prepared to destroy the monster (the government) and its businesses. At the same time, citizens have no right to speak or publish daring sentiments even though they have the power to elect leaders (Bresciani 984).

Conclusion

American citizens are far from achieving democracy. Citizens have no powers but to elect leaders. Elected leaders have no other interest but to preserve private businesses of the ruling class. Furthermore, the president and the upper house have powers to discredit the bill arising from lower levels of representation in states. Leaders in the first-class inspection level approve of every idea and legislation, thereby leading to high concentrations of aristocracy and bureaucracy.

Works Cited

Bresciani, Marco. “Socialism, Antifascism and Anti-Totalitarianism: The Intellectual Dialogue (and Discord) between Andrea Caffi and Nicola Chiaromonte (1932– 1955).” History of European Ideas 40.7 (2014): 984–1003. Web.

Helfman, Tara. “The Law of Nations in the Federalist Papers.” The Journal of Legal History 23.2 (2002): 107–128. Web.

Johnson, Michael. Reading the American past: Selected historical documents: Volume 1: To 1877 (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martinâs, 2012. Print.

Pole, Jack. “How to Avoid a Coup D’état: The Federalist on the American Constitution.” Parliaments, Estates and Representation 20.1 (2000): 149–158. Web.

Roark, James, Johnson, Micheal, Cohen, Patricia, Stage, Sarah, and Hartmann, Susan. The American promise: A concise history, volume 1: To 1877 (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martinâs, 2014. Print.

The Federalist Papers. Anti-federalist Papers # 9: A consolidated Government is a tyranny. The Federal Papers, 2016. Web.