• marcos@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    Splitting up and then one of the division conquering all the others is what Rome did.

    • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 days ago

      Other way around - divide et impera means that Rome attempted to divide their enemies so they could conquer them one at a time (or rule them peaceably while they were focused on hating each other, since ‘impera’ means ‘rule’).

      • marcos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        Hum… People do have a really strong bias toward looking at only the republic era and the first few decades of the empire.

        • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOPM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 days ago

          … what?

          The Roman Kingdom certainly didn’t divide itself to conquer its enemies. The Crisis of the Third Century included some of the Empire dividing itself, but certainly not conquering anyone - Rome lost territory during the Crisis. The Dominate likewise was a period in which land was largely lost, not gained.

          • marcos@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            4 days ago

            Where you got that it was to conquer its enemies? (Edit: Oh, reading my post again I see where you got that idea.)

            It was always dividing itself and conquering itself again. Unless you count parts of it as enemies (what would be reasonable).