4 ms·

I must be reading something incorrectly. Certainly I didn't hear about these exchanges before. But is it correct that most of the exchanges can be boiled down t

by erikb 11y ago

I must be reading something incorrectly. Certainly I didn't hear about these exchanges before. But is it correct that most of the exchanges can be boiled down to "be nice to people"? I always thought politics was based on keeping control of import political powers like media, military, law, food, and money while replacing people in high positions who don't work for you with people that you improved to these positions so that they will follow your rule. In some regard that's nice, at least to the people you improved, but in another regard it's also a selfish business. Can one go to another country, declare oneself as their leader and then just lead by being nice?

restalis 11y ago
"Can one go to another country, declare oneself as their leader and then just lead by being nice?" The thing is that Alexander's biggest proportion of conquests were the former Persian Empire's - lands of various people which all their life lived under some foreign rule. So there was a change in power, now here's this new ambitious and charismatic leader offering some of the most nicest conditions imaginable if you just submit. Considering Alexander's record of winnings and therefore - the chances of a revolt against him, is it that hard to believe that people preferred to stay put?
- erikb 11y ago
  For most people you are right. But in every group large enough there are a few who always want more and who don't think as much about the risk. I'd argue that Alexander himself also was such a person. If you offered him nice conditions for his submission and a low chance to succeed by fighting, do you think he would have submitted? And what about days when not everything is well and nice? Drought, famines, storms, sickness. When something irritating happens people tend to blame leaders. Suddenly the situation doesn't feel nice, no matter what you do as a leader. What do you do then? Go home and stop leading? Just think about us. We probably live in the richest, most peacefully, culturally most widely developed time of human history, yet we don't feel happy about it. Many people would argue that another leader might be better for them than the current one. So I would argue that even if one lives a happy, good life, one is not so happy about it to fully trust the leader.

by erikb 11y ago

restalis 11y ago

"Can one go to another country, declare oneself as their leader and then just lead by being nice?" The thing is that Alexander's biggest proportion of conquests were the former Persian Empire's - lands of various people which all their life lived under some foreign rule. So there was a change in power, now here's this new ambitious and charismatic leader offering some of the most nicest conditions imaginable if you just submit. Considering Alexander's record of winnings and therefore - the chances of a revolt against him, is it that hard to believe that people preferred to stay put?

erikb 11y ago
For most people you are right. But in every group large enough there are a few who always want more and who don't think as much about the risk. I'd argue that Alexander himself also was such a person. If you offered him nice conditions for his submission and a low chance to succeed by fighting, do you think he would have submitted? And what about days when not everything is well and nice? Drought, famines, storms, sickness. When something irritating happens people tend to blame leaders. Suddenly the situation doesn't feel nice, no matter what you do as a leader. What do you do then? Go home and stop leading? Just think about us. We probably live in the richest, most peacefully, culturally most widely developed time of human history, yet we don't feel happy about it. Many people would argue that another leader might be better for them than the current one. So I would argue that even if one lives a happy, good life, one is not so happy about it to fully trust the leader.