4 ms·

"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 conquest

"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.