Ganon's Path to Greatness

[Ganondorf]

Lest we forget, The Emperor gained dominion over a free people to accolades and cheering because he made them love him. Aragorn also gained his power from the Stewards of Gondor, due to the backing of the people. Sauron ruled with fear and was repeatedly overthrown.

You assume a fear-based governance system is valid in the long run, and it just isn't. Even if you manage to gain power with it, holding that power is nearly impossible as resentment and hatred breeds in that environment. However, if you foster your rule based on the support and adoration of the people, you could effectively rule forever. You'll never need to worry about a coup from within.

[Thaal Sinestro]

And we'll see how long those rulers last, their armies weak with love-sick soldiers, their populations able to take such flippant action without fear of punishment.

Sinestro formed one of the msot elite fighting forces in the universe, one that crushes not just worlds, but SYSTEMS, and legitimately challenges a system of authority that spans back to the DAWN OF CREATION.

Love gives, fear demands.

[Thaal Sinestro]

PS:
"he must endeavour only to avoid hatred, as is noted"

[Ganondorf]

And yet... the Sinestro Corps regularly gets beaten by a guy who's super power is that he's stubborn.

And you forget what love of country can do to a fighting man's spirit. A man who fears his ruler may defect in a time of crisis. A man who believes in and supports his ruler will fight for him to the end.

You also assume that a love-based system of rule would have no structure. Far from it. A populace could love their ruler for having harsh penalties for crimes, as that gives them security. They could love him for making near slaves of them, because each is given food, water, a place to live, and everything they need to survive and thrive. They could love him for taxing their paychecks to nothingness because he uses those taxes to fund public transportation, schools, roads, security, emergency services, medical care, and to expand and hold the boundaries of their paradise.

You think love is weak. I disagree. Weak rulers are weak. Love can be the single strongest force in existence.

P.S.: It's hard to avoid hatred when you rule through fear, as evidenced by Nero and others like him.

P.P.S.: If it's not hatred among your people, it's hatred of your neighbors. And then you fight a war on two fronts; within and without.

[Thaal Sinestro]

Ah, but you've outlined a system that operates on BOTH love AND fear - a point that, stated by Machiavelli, is preferable. However, if a ruler can choose but ONE of the two, love or fear, it is almost undoubtedly fear.

We are not talking about the Walking Dead dynamic; we're talking about nations, not tight-knit groups. Thousands of men and women will always find reason to place love aside when it is impersonal. What people will not place aside in an impersonal matter is FEAR. The terror that comes from knowing you will be punished overwhelms the loyalty that comes from a leader who gives generously.

Let me ask you this: Do you think there are more criminals in America, or North Korea? (Before you argue about military, realize the population, income and other inequalities)

[Ganondorf]

Are you seriously putting forth the claim that America rules through love? If anything, American government controls its populace through apathy. They depend on good old American laziness to see them through another day.

However, I'll play along. America undoubtedly has a higher crime per person percentage. We also operate under a highly materialistic and infamy-based lifestyle. Research has shown that fear of the law doesn't affect 90% of criminals. Many U.S. states have very strict penalties tied to some crimes which STILL occur. However, if you make the people love the law, many of these crimes (of which a large portion of spur of the moment), would not occur.

[Ganondorf]

Additionally, you confuse willingness with fear. As I stated above, The Emperor actually made the people love the strictures he put on their lives.

[Thaal Sinestro]

And again, my point is that you cannot make the populace love you intimately as you would a friend or a leader of a group you're in. A leader of a nation is a distant figure, alien in his ways. America ATTEMPTS to rule with love, as does Britain and Sweden and all the other modern nations.

And, here we are again, this only applies marginally to the modern world. In a world where power and fealty isn't guaranteed, fear is sooo preferred to love. And, of course, feared and loved to either singularly.

[Ganondorf]

I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point. However, we can work this to our advantage, particularly in the Dunes. I make the town love me, you make the bandits fear you.

[Thaal Sinestro]

Then we can make both groups feel both emotions!

[Magus]

Interesting arguments.

I just wanna put this out there: Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great were definitely not loved.

Caesar was loved as a hero, right until he declared himself 'dictator for life.' After that point, the Senate feared and loathed him, although it's possible he still had the support of many of the citizens. Regardless, he was stabbed to death on the steps of the Senate in March, 36 BC. Certainly not because any senators had any love for the man. However, the legacy of Rome reaches out to us even today. Rome, in that light, may well be the most successful civilization of all time.

Alexander the Great was never loved. Hell, he wasn't even well-liked. An impossibly arrogant man who murdered his father as well as his best friend/lover, was a terrible alcoholic, alienated his own soldiers with grueling military campaigns and later alienated them further by appropriating Persian clothes and customs. He tried to bring the concept of proskynesis (essentially bowing on one's hands and knees on the floor) back to the Greek world, infuriating those in Macedon and all Greece.

Alexander certainly ruled through fear. His temper tantrums are so incredibly over-the-top, it's one of the things we know best about the man thousands of years later. He once had an island city-state beseiged for over a year, at huge expense to himself in terms of money, supplies, manpower, and TIME (he set out to conquer Persia and this was a HUGE setback). The city-state presented no threat or strategic benefit at all. Alex slaughtered them because they told him he couldn't rule them. He had the entire town crucified. Men, women, kids. That's not love.

Alexander conquered nearly the entire known world, and hardly anyone even knows that Macedon ever existed at all. Just like Attila, shortly after his death, pretty much all of Macedon collapsed into infighting or reverted back to their previous cultural identity, etc. Alexander's Macedon was scoured from the world and it took no time at all in an historical context.

[Proto Man]

Caesar was loved by the citizens of Rome. The Senate feared him because they feared they would lose power. So they murdered him and fulfilled their own prophecy when his nephew turned them into figureheads.

As for Alexander, he certainly was a bombastic person (blame his dad, that guy was a prick fo sho), but he was also cold and logical so I'm not sure 'temper tantrums' is the correct term. Are you discussing the Siege of Tyre? If so, it took that long because it was an island surrounded by walls. It was also one of the most important cities in the Levant. The Crusades spent about a year besieging it as well. He also didn't crucify everyone, he had most fighting men crucified and sold the others into slavery.

To most people, Alexander was Greek rather than Macedonian. I'm not sure if you're construing 'Alexander's Macedon' for the empire he forged, but if you are, I think the phrase 'scoured from the world' is probably the least accurate remark, seeing as how most of the world was ruled by members of his entourage: Ptolemic Egypt, Selucid Persia, and Macedon remained the strongest kingdom in Ionia until the Romans swept in and destroyed them (as Romans are wont to do). So don't equate the longevity of Alexander's legacy with that of Atilla the Hun (a more appropriate comparison would have been Ghengis Khan, whose empire genuinely fragmented and localized and then vanished after an albeit long decline).

As for his thing with eastern customs, that was really part of a broader plan to incorporate the best elements of all the various cultures. He was a fan of how Persia governed provinces, for instance, and he also supported a lot of emigration from Greece to his new lands (which continued after his death). He didn't expect to die, and if he had survived, I imagine he would have had a fruitful empire.

[Thaal Sinestro]

ALEX, TELL US IF FEAR OR LOVE IS BETTER IN ANCIENT SOCIETY

[Ganondorf]

I've been wondering why we've been arguing ancient society, when the Dunes are desert modern/old west/post-apocalyptic, each of which are modern settings.

[Nanoha Takamachi]

Man I remember when Caesar tried to take the Hoover Dam. Man those were the days.

[Thaal Sinestro]

I've been wondering why we've been arguing ancient society, when the Dunes are desert modern/old west/post-apocalyptic, each of which are modern settings.

Cause it's a bunch of loose knit factions struggling for resources, which will most likely follow the behavior of an ancient society. I guess.

[Sarah_Kerrigan]

Man I remember when Caesar tried to take the Hoover Dam. Man those were the days.

I know right. Did you help him?

[Thaal Sinestro]

You're all obviously interested in joining us.

[Ganondorf]

Working on my post now. Should be up shortly. It might be a bit... wordy. I apologize, but I want to get the plan laid out there.

[Nanoha Takamachi]

Man I remember when Caesar tried to take the Hoover Dam. Man those were the days.

I know right. Did you help him?

I helped him for a bit, realised he was a bit of a jerk and changed my mind.

Hoover Dam is mine!