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 to 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

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.

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.

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 this

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.

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.