WHY THE KINGDOM OF DARIUS, OCCUPIED BY ALEXANDER, DID NOT REBEL AGAINST
THE SUCCESSORS OF THE LATTER AFTER HIS DEATH.
Considering the difficulties there are in holding a newly acquired
state, some may wonder how it came to pass that Alexander the Great
became master of Asia in a few years, and had hardly occupied it
when he died, from which it might be supposed that the whole state
would have rebelled. However, his successors maintained themselves in
possession, and had no further difficulty in doing so than those which
arose among themselves from their own ambitions.
I reply that the kingdoms known to history have been governed in two
ways: either by a prince and his servants, who, as ministers by his
grace and permission, assist in governing the realm; or by a prince
and by barons, who hold their positions not by favour of the ruler but
by antiquity of blood. Such barons have states and subjects of their
own, who recognise them as their lords, and are naturally attached to
them. In those states which are governed by a prince and his servants,
the prince possesses more authority, because there is no one in the
state regarded as a superior besides himself, and if others are obeyed
it is merely as ministers and officials of the prince, and no one
regards them with any special affection. Examples of these two kinds
of government in our own time are the Turk and the King of France.
All the Turkish monarchy is governed by one ruler, the others are his
servants, and dividing his kingdom into "sangiacates," he sends to them
various administrators, and changes or recalls them at his pleasure.
But the King of France is surrounded by a large number of ancient
nobles, recognised as such by their subjects, and loved by them; they
have their prerogatives, which the king cannot deprive them of without
danger to himself. Whoever now considers these two states will see that
it would be difficult to acquire the state of the Turk; but having
conquered it, it would be very easy to hold it.
The causes of the difficulty of occupying the Turkish kingdom are, that
the invader could not be invited by princes of that kingdom, nor hope
to facilitate his enterprise by the rebellion of those around him, as
will be evident from reasons given above. Because, being all slaves,
and bound, it will be more difficult to corrupt them, and even if
they were corrupted, little effect could be hoped for, as they would
not be able to carry the people with them for the reasons mentioned.
Therefore, whoever assaults the Turk must be prepared to meet his
united forces, and must rely more on his own strength than on the
disorders of others; but having once conquered him, and beaten him in
battle so that he can no longer raise armies, nothing else is to be
feared except the family of the prince, and if this is extinguished,
there is no longer any one to be feared, the others having no credit
with the people; and as the victor before the victory could place no
hope in them, so he need not fear them afterwards. The contrary is
the case in kingdoms governed like that of France, because it is easy
to enter them by winning over some baron of the kingdom, there being
always some malcontents, and those desiring innovations. These can,
for the reasons stated, open the way to you and facilitate victory;
but afterwards, if you wish to keep possession, infinite difficulties
arise, both from those who have aided you and from those you have
oppressed. Nor is it sufficient to extinguish the family of the prince,
for there remain those nobles who will make themselves the head of new
changes, and being neither able to content them nor exterminate them,
you will lose the state whenever an occasion arises. Now if you will
consider what was the nature of the government of Darius you will find
it similar to the kingdom of the Turk, and therefore Alexander had
first to completely overthrow it and seize the country, after which
victory, Darius being dead, the state remained secure to Alexander,
for the reasons discussed above. And his successors, had they remained
united, might have enjoyed it in peace, nor did any tumults arise in
the kingdom except those fomented by themselves. But it is impossible
to possess with such ease countries constituted like France.
Hence arose the frequent rebellions of Spain, France, and Greece
against the Romans, owing to the numerous principalities which existed
in those states; for, as long as the memory of these lasted, the Romans
were always uncertain of their possessions; but when the memory of
these principalities had been extinguished they became, with the power
and duration of the empire, secure possessions.
And afterwards the latter could, when fighting among themselves, draw
each one with him a portion of these provinces, according to the
authority he had established there, and these provinces, when the
family of their ancient princes was extinct, recognised no other rulers
but the Romans. Considering these things, therefore, let no one be
surprised at the facility with which Alexander could hold Asia, and at
the difficulties that others have had in holding acquired possessions,
like Pyrrhus and many others; as this was not caused by the greater or
smaller ability of the conqueror, but depended on the dissimilarity of
the conditions.