The strategy for imperial power was for a ruler to be seen as kind and just
at
The strategy more effective for imperial power was for a ruler to be seen as kind and just. If a leader could set an example for how best to act, his people would loyally follow, emulate his benevolent nature, and pay tribute with little to none fight. For example, the Persians were more accepting of local indigenous traditions, and encouraged different cultures and religions. Cyrus is known as being a great and kind ruler- freeing the people of Juduh from the Babylonians and, “encouraging them to rebuild their temple (Video: Persia).” This fostering of knowledge and different ideas without fighting over who was right or wrong allowed for a society with good communication, trade, and plentiful schools of thought. On the other hand, the Assyrians harsh rule created resentment in those they defeated, or those outside of the “yoke of Asshur.” This resentment would eventually lead to their downfall as their system was overthrown by a coalition allied with the Babylonians. Now, one could argue that Persia, just as Assyria fell and that technically, Assyria did last longer; however, Persia’s political context at the time of their demise furthers the argument that ruling with benevolence is more beneficial for all parties. During the 5th century this, “benevolent image, memory of the oder of the Persian Shaw was altered after conflict and war broke out between Persians and Greeks… image of the Persians in the West became increasingly viewed in an adversarial light (Video: Persia).” Of course, following this discourse, their empire fell as challenges with the Greeks and invading armies arose. As soon as their image of benevolent emancipators fell, they became more subjected to conflict and attack- further proving that their initial strategy- perhaps best emulated in King Cyrus, was what provided their successes in communication with others, trade facilitation, and military efforts.
State why you agree with this point
Sample Solution
I agree with this point as it is evident throughout history that those empires and societies which fostered peace-keeping, rather than oppressive rule, tended to last longer and be more successful. For example, the Persian Empire under King Cyrus was known for its benevolent rule, where he respected different cultures and religions and allowed them freedom from Babylonian oppression. This created a sense of loyalty which led to trade facilitation, communication with other societies, and military successes against enemies such as the Assyrians. Conversely, the Assyrians were known for their harsh tactics in ruling those outside of Asshur; this ultimately led to resentment amongst those they had defeated or oppressed leading to the downfall of their empire when a coalition allied with Babylonians overthrew them. Even in Persias’s later years when conflict rose between Persia and Greece causing changes in how they were perceived in Western countries – thereby changing their image of benevolence – Persian emperors still found success through military efforts before falling (Video: Persia). In short, fostering benevolence towards local traditions is not only morally just government policy but more effective long term strategy as it leads to better communication channels with other tribes/nations and can even lead to advantages during conflicts due to increased loyalty within your own society. Additionally, leaders who foster respect are often remembered fondly by future generations leading to greater prevalence of positive historical accounts regarding said leader(s) — furthering any potential strategies involving diplomacy or trade agreements on either side.
