Louis; hand me that guillotine!

[HoreTore]

Surprisingly not.

Once a nation beheads its king, it is typical for it to descend into a tyranny and then go back to a king again.

Yes, we all know modern Russia is a constitutional monarchy.

EDIT: And just what is the difference between having a king and a tyranny...? A tyranny usually whacks people they don't like for whatever reason, if any. Every king in history with the power to do so have killed the people they don't like for whatever reason, if any....

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yes, we all know modern Russia is a constitutional monarchy.

EDIT: And just what is the difference between having a king and a tyranny...? A tyranny usually whacks people they don't like for whatever reason, if any. Every king in history with the power to do so have killed the people they don't like for whatever reason, if any....

A Tyrrany is constitutionally illegal, and maintaind primarily through violence. A King rules through the force of law and tradition, as well as repriscosity.

Russia is currently in the "Tyranny" faze.

[HoreTore]

A Tyrrany is constitutionally illegal, and maintaind primarily through violence. A King rules through the force of law and tradition, as well as repriscosity.

Russia is currently in the "Tyranny" faze.

Just how is Medvedevs rule unconstitutional...?

And I dare say that most kings with actual power have been ruling as they have seen fit, rewarding and killing as they please.

EDIT: Plato and Aristotle define a tyrant as, "one who rules without law, looks to his own advantage rather than that of his subjects, and uses extreme and cruel tactics -- against his own people as well as others".

I can think of a lot of Kings who would fit that description...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Just how is Medvedevs rule unconstitutional...?

He's a puppet, Putin rules, everyone knows this. Putin is a Tyrant.

And I dare say that most kings with actual power have been ruling as they have seen fit, rewarding and killing as they please.

EDIT: Plato and Aristotle define a tyrant as, "one who rules without law, looks to his own advantage rather than that of his subjects, and uses extreme and cruel tactics -- against his own people as well as others".

I can think of a lot of Kings who would fit that description...

well, obviously a King who rules against law is a tyrant, I would have thought that was obvious. However, Plato was making an ideaological point... the crucial distinction between King and Tyrant is their attitude to the Law.

Remember I said the Law was Sacred and sacrosanct?

[Kralizec]

well, obviously a King who rules against law is a tyrant, I would have thought that was obvious. However, Plato was making an ideaological point... the crucial distinction between King and Tyrant is their attitude to the Law.

Remember I said the Law was Sacred and sacrosanct?

If I recall correctly (and I stress, "if") the ancient Greeks defined "tyrant" as someone who achieved power by irregular means, outside the normal workings of the law. It didn't imply more than that, some tyrants were considered good rulers while still labeled as tyrants.
Plato uses the word negatively of course, but I guess that most people were less concerned with how the rulers got there than with how they ruled.

Somewhere down the line people started using it negatively...much like the word dictator.