IV. Why the Kingdom of Darius, Conquered by Alexander, Did Not Rebel Against His Successors After His Death
Considering the difficulties of holding a newly acquired state, someone might wonder how it happened that Alexander the Great became lord of Asia in a few years and died when he had barely occupied it. It would seem reasonable that the whole state should have rebelled; nevertheless Alexander’s successors kept it, and had no difficulty in holding it except what arose among themselves from their own ambition. I answer that the principalities of which we have any record are found to be governed in two different ways: either by a prince with everyone else as his servants, who help him govern the kingdom as ministers by his grace and permission; or by a prince and barons, who hold their rank not by the grace of their lord but by the antiquity of their blood. Barons of this kind have states and subjects of their own, who recognize them as their lords and feel a natural affection for them. In states governed by a prince and servants, the prince has more authority, because in all his province there is no one who recognizes anyone as superior except him; and if they obey anyone else, they do it 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, and the others are his servants; he divides his kingdom into sanjaks, sends various administrators to them, and moves and changes them as he pleases. But the king of France stands in the midst of an ancient multitude of lords, recognized in that state by their subjects and loved by them. They have their privileges, and the king cannot take them away without danger to himself. Whoever considers these two states, then, will find that the Turk’s state is difficult to acquire, but once conquered, very easy to hold. The reasons why the kingdom of the Turk is difficult to seize are that the invader cannot be called in by the princes of that kingdom, nor hope to make his enterprise easier through the rebellion of those around the sultan. This follows from the reasons given above: since they are all slaves and bound to him, they are harder to corrupt; and even if they were corrupted, little use could be expected from it, since they cannot carry the people with them, for the reasons I have given. So whoever attacks the Turk must expect to find him united, and must rely more on his own forces than on the disorders of others. But once the Turk has been beaten and routed in the field so that he cannot raise new armies, there is nothing to fear except the family of the prince; and when that is wiped out, no one remains to be feared, since the others have no standing with the people. And just as the victor could not count on them before the victory, so he need not fear them after it.
The opposite happens in kingdoms governed like that of France, because you can enter them easily by winning over some baron of the kingdom, since there are always malcontents and men who want change. These, for the reasons given, can open the way into that state for you and make your victory easy. But afterward, if you want to hold on, that victory brings endless difficulties in its train, both with those who helped you and with those you have crushed. Nor is it enough for you to wipe out the family of the prince, because the lords remain who make themselves leaders of new uprisings; and since you can neither satisfy them nor wipe them out, you lose that state whenever the occasion comes.
Now if you consider what kind of government Darius had, you will find it like the kingdom of the Turk. So Alexander first had to strike it with his whole force and drive Darius from the field; after that victory, Darius being dead, the state remained secure for Alexander, for the reasons discussed above. And if his successors had been united, they could have enjoyed it at their ease; no disturbances arose in that kingdom except those they stirred up themselves. But it is impossible to possess states organized like that of France with so much quiet. This is the source of the frequent rebellions against the Romans in Spain, France, and Greece, because of the many principalities in those lands.1 As long as their memory lasted, the Romans were always uncertain of their possession; but once that memory was extinguished, by the power and long duration of their empire they became secure possessors. And later, when the Romans fought among themselves, each of them was able to draw a part of those provinces after him, according to the authority he had gained there; and the provinces, since the family of their old lords had been extinguished, recognized no one but the Romans. Considering all these things, then, no one will be surprised at the ease with which Alexander held the state of Asia, or at the difficulties others have had in preserving what they acquired, like Pyrrhus and many more.2 This came not from the great or small ability of the victor, but from the difference in what he conquered.