Dwilight University/Political Studies/Tyranny!
Tyranny!
This article is both a compliment and a reply to Student Reynard Vaughan’s work on Monarchies and Republics.
It is a common misconception to believe that tyrannies are realms of injustice, oppression and criminality. That tyrants are megalomaniacs and practitioners of tyranny are innately immoral. Students of the Political Studies Department will learn via this article that tyranny is not strictly used by villains but is in fact merely a pole on the political spectrum. This article first seeks to define tyranny in its simplest textbook form, then to visit it in two case examples and finally to explore my own personal version of tyranny.
Textbook Tyranny
Viewing the political spectrum employed by our nobility you will find tyranny on the opposite end of democracy. Where democracy is power of the nobility over the government, especially its ruler, tyranny is power of the ruler over its nobility. Between these two poles we find monarchy (this position is shared by theocracy), which is second to tyranny, and then republic as the step before democracy. Of course, anarchy is no power of nobility whatsoever and roguery is power outside of the hands of nobility. Knowing the position of tyranny we can continue to further define it. Tyranny is the purest form of political power. All other forms are simply over ornamented decorations of tyranny. Tyranny allows the freedom for one noble to select and shape their government as they deem fit. The autocrat holds the highest amount of power in the realm versus their court and councils and general public. A tyrant may hold more than one government position as well as a land title, and reigns as the ultimate authority over all aspects of the realm be it economy, law, diplomacy or military with or without the advice of councils or courts. The tyrant appoints all positions based on their own private criteria or favour. The tyrant decides when and why to replace its cabinet, whereas the other governments allow elections and prestige to make the decision. Depending on the character of the tyrant, they may allow their governing subjects to rule their departments without interference unless necessary, a laissez faire attitude, or, a tyrant may have a heavy hand in all aspects of the realm ruling with an iron heel. Like all government systems the realm is only as vocal and communal as their leader. The realm’s continuity relies on the tyrant’s strength and courage to lead its realm passionately and with devotion. A tyrant can only be replaced through rebellion or mass protest. Tyranny differs from other government types in the way that a tyrant shapes the government’s policies alone whereas a monarch, for example, cooperates with councils and lords or a republic decides matters in communion with the lords and nobility. The definition of tyranny then is a realm ruled by an autocrat who may or may not hold more than one position and may or may not rule with more or less direct control in specific realm departments, it is a realm designed with a pyramid hierarchy and all power resting solely at the peak.
Case Examples: The Do’s and Don’ts
For our two case examples we will look at two tyrannies, one done right and the other done wrong. I shall begin with the incorrect application of tyranny first.
The first tyranny we shall examine is the Raivanlands. The Raivanlands was founded by Low Edward Raiva in the Winter of 4 YD in order to remain neutral in the Secession Wars that raged through the Empire of Springdale. I lived in the Raivanlands for a short time during this period as a military delegate from D'Hara and witnessed first-hand the incorrect way to apply tyranny. The first and most serious issue of the Raivanlands was that it was ruled by a weak and vacant ruler. Low Edward, outside of seceding his duchy, seemed to have little interest in actual realm building. It is typical of a ruler to be vocally present in the realm and to routinely make decisions of consequence. Additionally, a ruler is expected to lead the nobility with vision, order, and charisma. Low Edward remained distant from his responsibility and merely occupied the ducal seat. A weak tyrant causes stagnation and impotency for a tyranny. Since the tyrant is the sole authority of the realm they must pay full attention to their subjects. All fault lies in their laps and therefore their position is amplified to affect the nobility and the future of the tyranny. In other government systems stagnation can be caused by factors outside of the ruler’s control and they may find excuses to answer to this. In a tyranny, the tyrant is the major power of the realm and must ensure activity at all times be it through socializing, through leisure or through military engagements. There is nothing more threatening to an autocrat’s power than stagnation. Low Edward should have known this and could have made a huge difference from the beginning had he been strong enough and suitable enough for the task. Low Edward’s tyranny was further flawed because it had no sense of national identity or common interest. It is not enough to rule because you are the founder of the tyranny. One must also provide the realm with a heritage and a destiny. The tyrant must charge the nobility with a concrete vision or mission for which all may rally around. Heritage and destiny are the pillars of a healthy tyranny and create pride for the nobility. The result of this lacking feature caused the next flaw in Low Edward’s tyranny. The last issue of the Raivanlands was its lack of cohesion. I have lived in many realms made up of as different nobles as you could find. Nobles of opposing religions, political inclinations and conflicting ambitions but they were united by the yoke of the realm towards a common goal. The nobles under Low Edward had nothing in common except being nobles of the duchy of Aegir. A core identity would have been the natural catalyst for community between these nobles but because they were ruled by a weak tyrant in a tyranny with no substance there was nothing for them to celebrate, or to discuss, or to compete for or to do together. The Raivanlands contained nothing nourishing for the nobles and thus in the end the Raivanlands was defeated by its own people when Aegir overthrew its nobility and went rogue in the Winter of 9 YD. If Low Edward was an active and strong tyrant he would have addressed all of these issues and created a lasting tyranny. The Raivanlands is an example of an ill practiced tyranny because it was ruled by a weak tyrant who gave his subjects no sources of pride and encouraged little community. Low Edward was a poor negligent tyrant, his realm was insubstantial and therefore his tyranny failed.
Our last case example is the tyranny of Thulsoma under Queen Haruka. Thulsoma was originally founded as an Astromancer theocracy in the Winter of 6 YD but changed its course and government when the Queen took the throne in the Autumn of 10 YD. Her ascension to the throne completely reversed the decline of Thulsoma. I visited the realm during its war against the Astromancer Hegemony and found it to be a lively and interesting place. Contrasting the rule of Low Edward, Queen Haruka was highly active and committed to her realm. She was involved in all decisions made by the government and firmly directed the realm during its short but bright lifespan. In addition to carefully ruling a realm under heavy attack, she created a realm boasting an exotic and unique character. Thulsomans could be proud of their Saxon heritage and pious in their state religion, both aspects Haruka installed and reigned over as the central figure. She was charismatic, strong willed and intelligent. Although Thulsoma was ultimately defeated by a coalition army in the Spring of 13 YD it left behind a memorable legacy of fierce military accomplishments, of deep cultural roots, and a lasting image of a proper tyrant. The tyranny of Queen Haruka possessed all the ingredients of a successful tyranny. It had a dedicated and skilled tyrant who weaved a proud heritage and a glorious destiny into her tyranny and it had an intimate community of nobles to back it. Had Thulsoma been left unmolested by enemies it would have thrived and expanded across the Nifel Peninsula.
The Ironlaw
Now I shall explain to you my private theories and principles on tyranny. Some of these ideas I attempted to install in Aquilegia and others I speculate over. I call the collection of my tyrannical thoughts the Ironlaw. A realm that applies my theories can be said to be an Ironlaw tyranny. I believe that the core strength of the Ironlaw is a principle I call “dynamic challenge.” A tyrant who effectively wields dynamic challenge, or thoroughly installs dynamic challenges into their tyranny, will succeed in their rule without opposition or conflict and will certainly cure the realm illness of stagnation. Stagnation is the greatest threat to a tyrant’s power and hopefully this principle will be the cure of it. Dynamic challenge is defined in two aspects. The first aspect of dynamic challenge is an environment of opportunism. A tyrant must provide opportunities through regular change for its nobility to strive for. The second aspect of dynamic challenge is the aspiration of a noble to attempt to attain their objectives. A tyranny must be comprised of nobles who have the quality and the strength to recognize the opportunities the realm offers. Dynamic challenge occurs in practice, then, when a realm allows for fluid change for nobles who want to ascend in the realm. If a tyranny has nobles who are lazy and uncommitted it will certainly decline to dust even if it offers as much opportunity as it can. Conversely, if a tyranny is filled with ambitious and skilled nobles but has no opportunity then it will also shrink and decline. That is the root concern of the dynamic challenge theory.
Next, an Ironlaw tyranny constructs social stratification – a patronage system. I believe that variety contributes to the success of a realm and therefore it must be developed in an applicable way. Variety can be understood in the sense of activities but for this principle mainly it is used in the sense of nobility. It is not enough to have a realm strictly filled with warriors. If that were to be so a tyrant would be forced to continuously make war to satisfy the purpose of its nobility. A tyranny must have a variety of features to it in order to thrive and expand and therefore an Ironlaw tyranny must apply the patronage system. The patronage system is the grouping of nobility by class into micro-societies. The patronage system is an application of dynamic challenge. The culmination of these groupings is worthiness for a government position. We shall discuss worthiness next. A noble will strive to achieve power, or at least to perfect their craft, through one of the societies. The traders shall be given their own forum and influence, as will the bureaucrats and diplomats, the priests and of course the soldiers. Separating these fields will allow for each inclined noble to pursue excellence in the stream of their choosing. A warrior cannot become a banker because they would have no connections or experience in the trading society. Each noble may choose the class they wish to practice and enter that society where they will compete and cooperate to further improve the realm. The top of the society is the ruling governor of that field. In an Ironlaw tyranny these positions are called Viceroys because they are distinct positions of power over a sect of the nobility. The trading society is headed by the Viceroy of Banking (Banker), the diplomatic and bureaucratic society is headed by the Viceroy of Law (Judge), and the strongest warrior leads the military arm of the realm as the Military Viceroy. Sitting above these power positions must be the tyrant, who ultimately reins each element of its tyranny through the Viceroys. Dynamic challenge is expressed through the patronage system by allowing opportunities for ambitious nobles to enter a society and climb it to the top post.
Following the principle of dynamic challenge in an Ironlaw tyranny is the recognition, celebration and rewarding of “worth.” Worth is an integral part of dynamic challenge in that it allows for quality nobles to earn rewards for their efforts. Worth is calculated by the amount of successful actions a noble has accomplished for the realm. A noble who has conquered the most territory for the realm or is the strongest swordsman may be a gleaming candidate for the Military Viceroy position. At the time I was General of Aquilegia we had a very small population of nobles, many of which had little experience in warfare. When I formed the Viper Legion and had the Marshal and Vice-Marshal positions to offer I could not choose the nobles who were most experienced. So, in line with worthiness, I ordered the two competing nobles to duel for the Marshal position. The winner would be appointed and the loser would get the Vice-Marshal rank. Also, as Aquilegia began expanding, albeit not very far, I allowed the noble who took over the new region to become its Lord. This was because that noble was worthy of the seat by virtue of providing the new region for the realm. These are examples of how worth operates in an Ironlaw tyranny. Applied to the patronage system, a noble who is the most gifted member of that class and/or has the most support from its peers may be worthy to reign as Viceroy. If a second noble arises with even greater skill, connection, and worth then the incumbent Viceroy is replaced. If there is no noble of worth then the tyrant will hold the Viceroy rank. Applying worth to regions and cities after they are conquered by the tyranny, should a lord step down, then the tyrant may either choose to appoint a new noble based on favour or through the method of dueling. Elections should be avoided since it conflicts with the smooth operation of the patronage system. How could nobles be allowed to vote when ranks are assigned based on personal reputation in a class? Worth through voting is a gross corruption of popularity.
Tyranny is the purest form of government because it allows the strongest noble, the tyrant, create the strongest functioning government. An Ironlaw tyranny is the greatest form of government because it does not restrict the nobility from aspiring nor does it contain the nobility into rigid election seasons and stagnant ruling cabinets. An Ironlaw tyranny effectively installs the tyrant as the centre of a political centrifuge in which the positions around the tyrant change regularly and are being attained by worthy ambitious nobles. Therefore, the quality of the government will increase at each succession because the noble preceding would have been beaten by someone of higher quality, better social connections in their class and martial skill. The tyrant can safely manage his position without worrying about upheaval from below because they are preoccupied with dynamic challenge and he can count on the quality of his peers because the methods to which they achieved that position rely on their worthiness. An Ironlaw tyranny may seem complicated in its mechanics but when applied it will offer the tyrant the best levers to rule their realm and offer the realm the most opportunity for the best nobles. An Ironlaw tyrant who is also active, and provides their tyranny with a heritage and destiny, and encourages a community would be unopposed by forces without and within.
Winter of 17 YD (or the 16th of January, 2012)
