CHAPTER IV
Why The Kingdom Of Darius, Conquered
By Alexander, Did Not Rebel Against The Successors Of Alexander At His
Death
CONSIDERING the difficulties which men
have had to hold a newly acquired state, some might wonder how, seeing
that Alexander the Great became the master of Asia in a few years, and
died whilst it was yet scarcely settled (whence it might appear
reasonable that the whole empire would have rebelled), nevertheless
his successors maintained themselves, and had to meet no other
difficulty than that which arose among themselves from their own
ambitions. (Note 1)
I answer that the principalities of
which one has record are found to be governed in two different ways:
either by a prince, with a body of servants, who assist him to govern
the kingdom as ministers by his favour and permission; or by a prince
and barons, who hold that dignity by antiquity of blood and not by the
grace of the prince. Such barons have states and their own subjects,
who recognize them as lords and hold them in natural affection. Those
states that are governed by a prince and his servants hold their
prince in more consideration, because in all the country there is no
one who is recognized as superior to him, and if they yield obedience
to another they do it as to a minister and official, and they do not
bear him any particular affection. (Note
2)
The examples of these two governments
in our time are the Turk and the King of France. The entire monarchy
of the Turk is governed by one lord, the others are his servants; and,
dividing his kingdom into sanjaks, he sends there different
administrators, and shifts and changes them as he chooses. But the
King of France is placed in the midst of an ancient body of lords,
acknowledged by their own subjects, and beloved by them; they have
their own prerogatives, nor can the king take these away except at his
peril. Therefore, he who considers both of these states will recognize
great difficulties in seizing the state of the Turk, but, once it is
conquered, great ease in holding it. The causes of the difficulties in
seizing the kingdom of the Turk are that the usurper cannot be called
in by the princes of the kingdom, nor can he hope to be assisted in
his designs by the revolt of those whom the lord has around him. This
arises from the reasons given above; for his ministers, being all
slaves and bondmen, can only be corrupted with great difficulty, and
one can expect little advantage from them when they have been
corrupted, as they cannot carry the people with them, for the reasons
assigned. Hence, he who attacks the Turk must bear in mind that he
will find him united, and he will have to rely more on his own
strength than on the revolt of others; but, if once the Turk has been
conquered, and routed in the field in such a way that he cannot
replace his armies, there is nothing to fear but the family of the
prince, and, this being exterminated, there remains no one to fear,
the others having no credit with the people; and as the conqueror did
not rely on them before his victory, so he ought not to fear them
after it.
The contrary happens in kingdoms
governed like that of France, because one can easily enter there by
gaining over some baron of the kingdom, for one always finds
malcontents and such as desire a change. Such men, for the reasons
given, can open the way into the state and render the victory easy;
but if you wish to hold it afterwards, you meet with infinite
difficulties, both from those who have assisted you and from those you
have crushed. Nor is it enough for you to have exterminated the family
of the prince, because the lords that remain make themselves the heads
of fresh movements against you, and as you are unable either to
satisfy or exterminate them, that state is lost whenever time brings
the opportunity.
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 it was only necessary for
Alexander, first to overthrow him in the field, and then to take the
country from him. After which victory, Darius being killed, the state
remained secure to Alexander, for the above reasons. And if his
successors had been united they would have enjoyed it securely and at
their ease, for there were no tumults raised in the kingdom except
those they provoked themselves.
But it is impossible to hold with such
tranquillity states constituted like that of France. Hence arose those
frequent rebellions against the Romans in Spain, France, and Greece,
owing to the many principalities there were in these states, of which,
as long as the memory of them endured, the Romans always held an
insecure possession; but with the power and long continuance of the
empire the memory of them passed away, and the Romans then became
secure possessors. And when fighting afterwards amongst themselves,
each one was able to attach to himself his own parts of the country,
according to the authority he had assumed there; and the family of the
former lord being exterminated, none other than the Romans were
acknowledged. (Note
3)
When these things are remembered no
one will marvel at the ease with which Alexander held the Empire of
Asia, or at the difficulties which others have had to keep an
acquisition, such as Pyrrhus and many more; this is not occasioned by
the little or abundance of ability in the conqueror, but by the want
of uniformity in the subject state. (Note
4)