At least, that’s according to 18th-century historian Alexander Tytler.
He claimed democracies always follow a predictable pattern which ends in servitude…🧵
Tytler was a Scottish judge, writer, and Professor of Universal History as well as Greek and Roman Antiquities at the University of Edinburgh.
After studying dozens of civilizations, he noticed some intriguing patterns…
He believed that democracies naturally evolved from initial virtue to eventual corruption and decline.
In ancient Greece, for example, he argued that "the patriotic spirit and love of ingenious freedom...became gradually corrupted as the nation advanced in power and splendor."
A pure democracy was a “chimera” or a “utopian theory”—it never existed, and never could exist because a democracy relied on the virtue of its citizens to function properly.
Basically, without a perfect citizenry a democracy devolves into a worse form of government.
Republics also had this problem, and people that disillusioned themselves into envisioning a well-functioning republic were imagining “a republic not of men, but of angels."
All governments, according to Tytler, actually functioned as either monarchies or oligarchies, regardless of how their leaders were elected.
Once a leader is in place, the people must obey. Democracies and republics are no different.
Voters in democracies were always influenced by the “basest corruption and bribery,” but once leaders were in power, these leaders no longer acted in the interest of the people.
The people had to submit to their rule “as if they were under the rule of a monarch"
Tytler also noticed some striking similarities about how democracies end.
Democracies always collapse in the same way—poor monetary policy.
Tytler writes:
“the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship”
From democracy to dictatorship seems like a big leap, but Tytler laid out the steps that these civilizations always follow—this is the “Tytler Cycle,” and it lasts about 200 years.
Civilizations are broken into a series of stages, with each inevitably leading to the next stage.
I should note that the "Tytler Cycle" has not been definitely attributed to Tytler. An op-ed in 1951 attributed it to him, though any references before that are either lost or non-existent.
Nonetheless, the cycle is in line with much of Tytler's thinking, so we'll review it here
The stages are as follows:
“From bondage to spiritual faith; spiritual faith to great courage; courage to liberty; liberty to abundance; abundance to selfishness; selfishness to complacency; complacency to apathy; apathy to dependence; dependence back into bondage”
Initially, cultures start out in bondage to superior ones—think America’s colonial past or Israel’s enslavement to Egypt.
But after a courageous revolution, liberty is achieved.
And through liberty great abundance is attained—a civilization grows wealthy and powerful.
Selfishness and complacency are lurking around the corner, though. This is where the decline starts.
Tytler claims that it is a nation's wealth that weakens its people:
"It is a law of nature to which no experience has ever furnished an exception, that the rising grandeur and opulence of a nation must be balanced by the decline of its heroic virtues"
The lack of virtue within a nation leads to its atomization. Apathy toward one’s fellow man—and the system as a whole—is commonplace. Then, tyrants are allowed to seize control.
Which ultimately brings a nation full-circle back to the bondage stage.
Tyter’s Cycle points toward the inevitability of democracies to devolve into tyrannies, an observation other thinkers like Aristotle pointed out too.
But was Tytler’s theory correct? Is democracy doomed to fail after only a couple hundred years?
Where are we now in the cycle?
If you enjoyed this thread and would like to join the mission of promoting western tradition, kindly repost the first post (linked below) and consider following: @thinkingwest
If you like Greek or Roman classics, you can thank a monk.
Just as much as on any battlefield, Western civilization was safeguarded within the quiet confines of a monastery...🧵
In the 6th century, the fate of western Europe was uncertain.
Barbarians had deposed the Roman emperor; age-old institutions were left decaying; the flame of civilization almost gone…
But at a monastery in Calabria, a monk named Cassiodorus toiled to keep this flame alight.
Born into an aristocratic family, Cassiodorus’ early career was a far cry from his later vocation.
He rose through the ranks of the Roman political scene, ultimately reaching Praetorian Prefect, the highest administrative role in the empire directly under Theodoric the Great.
Despite wielding absolute power, they used their authority to maintain peace and stability throughout the Roman empire and ushered in an age of unparalleled cultural heights🧵
In order, they were:
Nerva (reign 96–98 AD)
Trajan (98–117)
Hadrian (117–138)
Antoninus Pius (138–161)
Marcus Aurelius (161–180)
Notably, they were not a bloodline. All were either adopted, or in Nerva’s case, raised to power by assassins of Domitian (the previous emperor).
Machiavelli coined the term the “good emperors,” claiming their quality as leaders was a direct result of them being adopted and not inheriting the throne via blood.
He maintained that those who were raised to power by virtue of mere blood usually ended up being poor leaders.
Rome was the preeminent engineering civilization. Its roads, bridges, and aqueducts ensured an unmatched quality of life for its citizens.
Yet its greatest engineering feat wasn’t about providing a comfortable life—the Colosseum was built for a dramatic death🧵
The Colosseum became famous for its gladiatorial contests, executions, reenactments of famous battles, and even mock sea fights.
It was a theater designed with two things in mind: death and spectacle.
Constructed between 72-80 AD under Vespasian, the Colosseum was the largest amphitheater in the Roman world. Holding a capacity of 65000 spectators, the building project required extraordinary human ingenuity.
Of course, such a massive undertaking required a lot of money…
In 1831, French aristocrat Alexis de Tocqueville traveled to the US to study democracy.
He saw some positives, but also noted a few flaws such as:
-tyranny of the majority
-isolated individuals
-materialism
He claimed religion was essential to prevent these dangers...🧵
Alexis de Tocqueville was a diplomat sent by the French government to learn about the prison system in America.
While abroad, he used the opportunity to investigate American society as a whole, penning his most famous work ”Democracy in America.”
Traveling during the height of the industrial revolution, he believed democracy and industrialization went hand-in-hand—American democracy was the embodiment of this unification.
De Tocqueville described America as “a democratic revolution caused by industrialization.”
We’ve all seen gargoyles before — ghoulish carvings set outside old churches.
But why pair such ugly images with sacred buildings?
Well, to protect something priceless, you need something *monstrous*.
They teach us a lesson about defending what we love…🧵
First off, what is a gargoyle?
The word gargoyle comes from the French gargouille meaning “gullet” or “throat.”
A gargoyle, then, is a decorated water spout. They were used for a utilitarian purpose: to prevent water from flowing down the sides of buildings, causing erosion.
Not all the monstrous sculptures outside of cathedrals are gargoyles, though. Many are technically grotesques since they don’t funnel any water. A grotesque is simply a fantastic stone carving that’s secured to the wall or roof of a building.