Lehal Library

Conquered by Alexander the Great, the Kingdom of Darius did not rebel against his successors after his death. Why not? Now that we’ve seen how difficult it is to hold on to recently acquired territory some readers will be surprised to recall what happened when Alexander the Great conquered Asia in just a few years, then died very soon after his victory was complete. You would have thought the whole area would have rebelled, yet Alexander’s successors held on to it and the only trouble they had arose from their own personal ambitions and infighting. To explain this situation let’s start by remembering that all monarchies on record have been governed in one of two ways: either by a king and the servants he appoints as ministers to run his kingdom; or by a king and a number of barons, who are not appointed by the king but hold their positions thanks to hereditary privilege. These barons have their own lands and their own subjects who recognize the barons as their masters and are naturally loyal to them. Where a state is governed by a king and his ministers the king is more powerful since he is the only person in the state whom people recognize as superior. When they obey someone else it is only because he is a minister or official and they have no special loyalty to him. Examples of these two forms of government in our own times are Turkey and France. The whole of Turkey is gov- erned by one ruler, or sultan. Everyone serves him. He divides his realm into provinces, or sanjaks, and sends administrators to run them, appointing and dismissing them as he sees fit.