Chapter IV

Why the Kingdom of Darius, Conquered by Alexander, Did Not Rebel against Alexander's Successors after His Death

Considering the difficulties there are in holding a newly acquired state, one might wonder how it came about that Alexander the Great became master of Asia in a few years and, having barely occupied it, died; whereupon it seemed reasonable that the whole state should rebel. Nevertheless his successors maintained themselves there, and had no other difficulty in holding it than that which arose among themselves from their own ambition. I answer that the principalities of which we have record are found to be governed in two different ways: either by a prince with all the others as his servants, who help govern the kingdom as ministers by his grace and permission; or by a prince and by barons, who hold their rank not by the grace of their lord but by the antiquity of their blood. Such barons have states and subjects of their own, who recognise them as lords and bear them a natural affection. In states governed by a prince and his servants, the prince has more authority, because in all his province there is no one whom anyone recognises as superior except him; and if they obey anyone else, they do so as to a minister and official, and bear him no particular love. The examples of these two kinds of government in our own times are the Turk and the king of France. The whole monarchy of the Turk is governed by one lord; the others are his servants; and dividing his kingdom into sanjaks,¹ he sends various administrators there, and moves and changes them as he pleases. But the king of France is set in the midst of an ancient multitude of lords, recognised by their subjects and loved by them; they have their privileges, and the king cannot take these from them without danger to himself. Whoever considers both these states, then, will find that it is difficult to acquire the state of the Turk, but once it is conquered, it is very easy to hold.

The reasons for the difficulty of occupying the kingdom of the Turk are that the invader cannot be called in by the princes of that kingdom, nor hope that his enterprise will be made easier by the rebellion of those around the ruler. This arises from the reasons given above: since they are all his slaves and bound to him, they can be corrupted only with greater difficulty; and even if they were corrupted, little advantage could be hoped for, since they cannot carry the people with them, for the reasons stated. Hence whoever attacks the Turk must reckon on finding him united, and must rely more on his own strength than on the disorders of others. But once the Turk has been conquered and beaten in the field in such a way that he cannot rebuild his armies, there is nothing else to fear except the family of the prince; and once that is extinguished, there remains no one to be feared, since the others have no credit with the people. And as the victor before his victory could place no hope in them, so after it he need not fear them.

The contrary happens in kingdoms governed like that of France, for you can enter them easily by winning over some baron of the kingdom, since there are always malcontents and men who desire change. These, for the reasons given, can open the way into that state for you and make victory easy. But afterwards, if you wish to maintain yourself there, it brings with it endless difficulties, both with those who have helped you and with those you have oppressed. Nor is it enough for you to extinguish the family of the prince, for there remain those lords who make themselves the leaders of new upheavals; and since you can neither satisfy them nor extinguish them, you lose that state whenever the occasion arises. Now if you consider of what nature the government of Darius was, you will find it similar to the kingdom of the Turk; and therefore Alexander first had to overthrow him completely and deprive him of the field. After that victory, Darius being dead, the state remained secure for Alexander, for the reasons discussed above. And his successors, had they been united, could have enjoyed it at their ease; nor did any other tumults arise in that kingdom than those they themselves stirred up. But states ordered like that of France cannot possibly be held with such quiet. Hence arose the frequent rebellions of Spain, France and Greece against the Romans, because of the many principalities that existed in those states. As long as the memory of them lasted, the Romans were always uncertain of their possession; but once that memory was extinguished, with the power and long duration of their empire, they became secure possessors. And afterwards, when the Romans fought among themselves, each could draw after him a part of those provinces according to the authority he had gained there; and those provinces, the family of their ancient lord having been extinguished, recognised no one but the Romans. Considering these things, then, no one will marvel at the ease with which Alexander held the state of Asia, and at the difficulties others have had in keeping what they acquired, such as Pyrrhus and many others. This did not come from the greater or lesser virtue of the victor, but from the difference in the subject.

1. The provinces of the Ottoman empire. ↩