There is no actual historical example of this supposed "divide and conquer" strategy.
What do you mean? Your post alone is clearly designed to divide and conquer the schizophrenics and autists on this board through the power of bait.
>>18542830Britain’s entire colonial empire, particularly in India.
United Statians policies in America as well as SpanishBritish policies in DESI and MENAThe entirety of Roman history
Cortes more or less directly talks about using divide and conquer against Mesoamerican states in Central Mexico in his expedition against the Mexica of the Aztec capital.Of course, in reality, local kings and officials like Xicotencatl II, Ixtlilxochitl II, Xicomecoatl etc were also using and manipulating him as much as Cortes was using them, but in so doing they were also using a "divide and conquer" strategy to an extent(for people curious about this and how Cortes himself was being used, see pastebin.com/h18M28BR and arch.b4k.dev/v/thread/640670498/#640679139 and desuarchive.org/his/thread/16781148/#16781964 and desuarchive.org/int/thread/220614413/#220624574 and desuarchive.org/k/thread/64935126/#64961571 and desuarchive.org/k/thread/64434397/#64469714 + the other posts I link to within that /k/ post and the two posts of mine directly preceding that one )
>>18542857The Romans created no Division in Gaul and are in fact resposnible for the notion that they were united, when they weren't even linguistically related in some cases (Aquitanians), The Romans only exploited pre-existing political devisions.
>>18542872It seems this thread is going to be a series examples of exactly what I meant when I said the so called "divide and conquer" strategy is ahistorical, in reality it is almost always the acknowledgment of pre-existing divisions rather than the creation of new ones.
>>18542875No. It's already you redefining what divide and conquer means so that you can claim that examples that prove you wrong don't count.
>>18542830Roman Conquest of Greece/Hellenistic Empire. Besides being divided into by Alexander's generals, Greece was divided into leagues of city-states that fought against the Macedonians alongside the Romans, only to be conquered by them soon after.
>>18542898Divide and conquer means creating a strong division where there is none, to make it easier to conquer, not a strong division before hand that appears to be counter-productive to the "collective struggle" (That did not exist) after the fact.
>>18542830Blue vs green rome.
>>18542945>where there is none>the "collective struggle"Just blatantly making up bullshit. There are no two people that have ever lived that did not have some form of exploitable division and exploitable unity. Divide and conquer is simply using the former to circumvent the latter. It has never meant anything else.If Hannibal had succeeded in his attempt to turn Rome's allies against them, you'd be sitting here saying he didn't actually do anything, they always hated one another, they were never unified in anyway. Because that's essnetially what you're already doing for Cortez and the Aztecs.
>>18542830certified historylet award
>>18542853India was always divided. So divided that it's erroneous to even refer to it as "India" since it wasn't a unified state.>>18542857>>18542872The native American Indians regularly sold off patches of hunting ground or signed treaties in exchange for muskets to kill enemy tribes with. Spain likewise dealt with a region under constant tribal warfare. Neither "divided" anyone that wasn't already fighting.
Ottoman empire>Jews suddenly deserve a homeland right now>The Amazigh aren't arabs actually>we need a christian state but also add in a bunch of Shittes too>let's make sure everyone has an equal amount of kurds instead of giving the Kurds their own state or keeping their land within one state>Algerian jews get French citizenship and legal status unlike other Algerians just because, lmao>hmm you now what the jews can have administrative rights over the west bank what could go wrong?
