Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Divide and conquer

Divide et impera, commonly rendered in English as "divide and conquer," denotes a strategic principle in politics and military affairs whereby a ruling power fragments the cohesion of potential rivals or subjects into isolated factions, thereby diminishing their capacity for collective opposition and enabling domination over each segment in turn.^[1] The maxim traces its attribution to Philip II of Macedon (382–336 BCE), who harnessed it through calculated diplomacy, bribery, and exploitation of inter-city-state animosities to consolidate Macedonian hegemony over fragmented Greece, culminating in decisive victories such as the Battle of Chaeronea in 338 BCE.^[2]^[3] This approach, grounded in the observable reality that disunited entities yield inferior coordinated strength, was later systematized by Roman generals like Julius Caesar, who applied it to subdue Gaul's tribal confederations by allying with select groups against others, as chronicled in his own Commentarii de Bello Gallico.^[1] Empires from antiquity to the colonial era, including the British in India, recurrently deployed variants of the tactic, underscoring its enduring utility in preempting unified resistance through engineered discord.^[4] While effective in causal terms—disunity demonstrably erodes bargaining power and military efficacy—the strategy invites scrutiny for its reliance on manipulation, though historical outcomes affirm its pragmatic dominance over frontal assaults on consolidated foes.^[1]

Conceptual Foundations

Definition and Principles

The divide and conquer strategy, originating from the Latin phrase divide et impera, constitutes a tactic for acquiring or preserving authority by fragmenting an adversary's unity into manageable segments that lack the collective power to resist effectively.^[5] This approach relies on the recognition that cohesive opposition poses a greater threat than dispersed elements, enabling the strategist to neutralize threats piecemeal rather than engaging a unified front.^[6] In political and military contexts, it manifests as deliberate efforts to exacerbate fissures, ensuring that internal discord undermines the target's capacity for coordinated action.^[7] Central principles include the exploitation of pre-existing divisions—such as ethnic, ideological, or socioeconomic cleavages—to incite conflict among subgroups, thereby redirecting their energies inward and eroding overall cohesion.^[6]^[7] The method further prescribes sequential engagement with isolated factions, leveraging disproportionate force against each weakened component while avoiding direct confrontation with the aggregate.^[8] Sustaining these divisions demands ongoing manipulation, often through incentives, propaganda, or alliances with select subgroups, to preclude reunification and perpetuate vulnerability.^[6] This strategy's efficacy stems from causal dynamics wherein unity amplifies strength through synergies like shared resources and morale, whereas division dissipates such advantages, rendering the whole less than the sum of its parts.^[7] Empirical applications underscore that success hinges on accurate intelligence regarding fault lines and precise calibration of divisive interventions to avoid galvanizing the opposition.^[8]

Etymology and Historical Origins

The phrase "divide and conquer" originates as an English translation of the Latin maxim divide et impera, meaning "divide and rule," which encapsulates a strategy of weakening adversaries by exploiting divisions among them.^[9] This Latin expression emerged in Roman political and military discourse, though its conceptual roots predate the phrase itself. The English form first appeared in the late 16th to early 17th century, notably invoked critically by jurist Edward Coke in 1600 against tactics perceived as divisive governance.^[10] Historically, the strategy is traditionally attributed to Philip II of Macedon (reigned 359–336 BC), who applied it systematically against the rival Greek city-states. By allying with some factions while undermining others—such as subsidizing Theban exiles to weaken Sparta and maneuvering between Athens and Thebes—Philip fragmented opposition, paving the way for Macedonian hegemony, as demonstrated by his victory at the Battle of Chaeronea in 338 BC.^[6] ^[11] The Greek equivalent, diaírei kài basíleue, underscores this as a deliberate policy of division to facilitate rule rather than mere conquest. The Romans refined and institutionalized the approach under divide et impera, using it to administer diverse provinces by favoring compliant groups over resistant ones. Julius Caesar notably employed it during the Gallic Wars (58–50 BC), forging pacts with tribes like the Remi and Aedui to isolate and defeat larger coalitions, such as the Helvetii and Belgae, thereby conquering Gaul piecemeal despite numerical disadvantages.^[12] This method, echoed in Caesar's own Commentarii de Bello Gallico, prioritized exploiting existing ethnic and tribal fissures for efficient subjugation.^[13]

Military and Conquest Applications

Ancient and Classical Warfare

Philip II of Macedon (r. 359–336 BCE) utilized divide and conquer tactics to dominate the divided Greek city-states, with the strategy traditionally attributed to him through the Greek phrase diaírei kài basíleue ("divide and rule").^[6] By leveraging diplomatic maneuvering and selective alliances, Philip intervened in internal Greek conflicts, such as supporting factions in the Third Sacred War (356–346 BCE), where he allied with Thessaly against Phocis, securing control over key passes and territories.^[14] This approach prevented unified opposition, allowing piecemeal conquests that expanded Macedonian influence from Thrace to the Peloponnese. The culmination came at the Battle of Chaeronea in August 338 BCE, where Philip's reformed phalanx defeated a coalition led by Athens and Thebes, comprising approximately 35,000 troops against Macedonia's 32,000.^[15] The victory dismantled the alliance, enabling Philip to impose the League of Corinth in 337 BCE, a federation binding Greek states to Macedonian hegemony for a planned invasion of Persia. This structure ensured compliance through mutual non-aggression pacts and tribute, exploiting persistent rivalries like those between Athens and Thebes. The Romans refined divide et impera as a core expansion principle from the 5th century BCE onward. During the conquest of the Italian peninsula (c. 500–264 BCE), Rome forged treaties with subjugated peoples, such as the Latin and Samnite communities, prohibiting alliances among them while mandating auxiliary troops for Roman campaigns, thus isolating potential rebels and integrating them into a hierarchical system.^[11] By 264 BCE, this fragmented control extended Roman dominance from the Arno River to Sicily.^[11] In provincial administration, the strategy persisted; proconsul Aulus Gabinius in 57 BCE reorganized Judea into five districts under separate rulers to suppress unified revolt, as recorded by Josephus.^[11] Similarly, against Etruscan cities in the 4th century BCE, Rome incited internal discord, such as during the Gallic sack of Rome in 390 BCE, to prevent confederation.^[16] This methodical division weakened collective resistance, facilitating assimilation over direct annihilation.

Medieval and Imperial Expansions

The Mongol Empire's expansions from the early 13th century onward demonstrated divide and conquer tactics on a vast scale, beginning with Genghis Khan's unification of nomadic tribes in the Mongolian steppe. Rather than confronting a cohesive opposition, Khan systematically exploited intertribal feuds, allying with weaker or rival groups to isolate and defeat stronger ones, such as the Merkits and Tatars, before incorporating survivors into his military structure. By 1206, this piecemeal approach had subdued fragmented confederations across Mongolia and southern Siberia, enabling a force of approximately 100,000 warriors to project power outward without initial overextension.^[17] In imperial conquests beyond the steppe, the Mongols capitalized on divisions among sedentary empires. During campaigns against the Jin Dynasty (1211–1234), they leveraged the longstanding enmity between Jin and the Southern Song Dynasty, initially avoiding a two-front war by focusing on Jin while the Song remained neutral or indirectly benefited; later, under Ögedei Khan, Mongol forces allied with the Song to dismantle Jin remnants, only to turn against the Song afterward (1235–1279). This sequential weakening prevented unified resistance, contributing to the conquest of northern China and facilitating further advances into Central Asia and Eastern Europe by 1241.^[18] The Ottoman Empire's Balkan expansions in the 14th and 15th centuries similarly relied on exploiting regional disunity for conquest. Following the mid-14th-century collapse of centralized Byzantine and Serbian authority, which fragmented into rival principalities amid internal strife and the Black Death's demographic toll (reducing populations by up to 30–60% in affected areas), Ottoman forces under sultans like Murad I (r. 1362–1389) defeated isolated foes sequentially, such as at the Battle of Kosovo in 1389 against a Serbian-led coalition marred by Bulgarian and Bosnian hesitations. Diplomacy further amplified divisions, with offers of autonomy or alliances to peripheral Christian lords deterring broader coalitions, enabling the capture of key fortresses like Adrianople (Edirne) in 1361 and culminating in Constantinople's fall in 1453.^[19]

Political and Governance Strategies

Domestic Power Consolidation

In domestic politics, divide and conquer strategies enable rulers to consolidate authority by exacerbating divisions among domestic factions, such as nobility, religious sects, or social classes, thereby preventing unified opposition. This approach relies on identifying and amplifying existing rivalries, selectively allying with weaker groups to undermine stronger ones, and using intrigue or policy to foster mutual suspicion. By fragmenting potential coalitions, the central power reduces threats to its dominance, often at the cost of long-term social cohesion.^[7] Niccolò Machiavelli formalized this tactic in The Prince (1532), recommending that princes divide adversaries to avoid concerted resistance, as a united front poses existential risks while isolated foes can be neutralized sequentially. He exemplified this by advising rulers to exploit internal discords, such as pitting city factions against each other, to secure loyalty through dependence rather than affection. This principle, rooted in observations of Italian city-states, emphasized pragmatic power maintenance over moral considerations, influencing subsequent absolutist regimes. King Louis XI of France (r. 1461–1483) applied divide et impera to subjugate feudal lords, employing spies, forged alliances, and targeted exiles to sow distrust among vassals like the Duke of Burgundy and Armagnac factions. By 1483, these maneuvers had dismantled independent noble power bases, confiscating lands from over 30 major families and integrating them into royal administration, which strengthened the monarchy's fiscal and military control—evidenced by a tripling of royal revenues from 1.2 million to 3.9 million livres tournois between 1461 and 1483.^[20] ^[21] In later absolutist contexts, such as Cardinal Richelieu's ministry under Louis XIII (1624–1642), similar tactics curtailed noble and Huguenot autonomy through selective privileges and suppression of leagues, reducing aristocratic châteaux from over 1,000 to fewer than 200 fortified sites by 1635 and integrating provincial governors into centralized oversight. This consolidation prioritized state sovereignty, though it provoked revolts like the Fronde (1648–1653), highlighting risks of backlash when divisions erode legitimacy.^[22]^[23]

Economic and Class Divisions

In political governance, divide and conquer strategies applied to economic and class divisions typically involve elites or authorities amplifying natural antagonisms between socioeconomic groups—such as laborers versus owners, or skilled versus unskilled workers—to fragment potential coalitions that could challenge the status quo. By channeling grievances toward intra-class or horizontal conflicts rather than unified demands for redistribution or reform, rulers sustain dominance without addressing underlying inequalities rooted in property relations and production control. This approach exploits verifiable economic incentives, where zero-sum perceptions of resources like wages and employment opportunities foster rivalry over cooperation.^[24]^[25] A foundational example emerged in colonial Virginia during Bacon's Rebellion of 1676, when indentured European servants and enslaved Africans united against planter elites amid disputes over land access, tobacco quotas, and economic exclusion from frontier opportunities. The rebellion, which saw over 500 participants burn Jamestown before its suppression, threatened the economic hierarchy dependent on coerced labor. In aftermath, elites enacted laws granting economic privileges to poor whites—including eased taxes, militia exemptions, and land incentives—while codifying harsher penalties for Africans, such as perpetual enslavement and weapon bans, thereby realigning lower-class whites with the property-owning class and averting further cross-racial economic alliances.^[25] In the industrial era, U.S. employers systematically divided the working class to counter unionization drives, leveraging immigration waves and skill differentials to create wage hierarchies that undermined solidarity. From 1900 to 1945, factory owners recruited ethnic-specific strikebreakers—such as during the 1912 Lawrence Textile Strike, where Italian and Polish workers were pitted against Irish counterparts through targeted pay incentives—and segmented labor markets by national origin, reducing collective leverage as evidenced by fragmented strike outcomes and delayed industry-wide bargaining until the 1935 Wagner Act.^[26] This tactic preserved capital's control over surplus value extraction, with data showing union density stagnating below 10% in manufacturing until New Deal interventions.^[26] Modern variants persist in labor relations, notably through two-tier wage systems where employers negotiate inferior contracts for newer hires, institutionalizing resentment between veteran and entry-level workers. In the 1970s U.S. auto sector, the United Auto Workers accepted such structures at firms like Ford and GM to avert plant closures amid oil shocks and Japanese competition, resulting in new workers earning 70-80% of legacy wages by 1982, which eroded morale and bargaining unity as internal disputes over equity supplanted demands for broader gains.^[27]^[28] Governments have mirrored this, as in a 2019 White House memo advising President Trump to fragment federal unions by reclassifying employees into weaker bargaining units, aiming to dilute collective power amid fiscal pressures.^[29] These strategies succeed by aligning segments of the lower classes with elite interests via selective concessions, empirically correlating with suppressed wage growth—U.S. real median wages rose only 9% from 1979 to 2019 despite productivity doubling—while diverting scrutiny from systemic factors like monopoly power and regulatory capture. Critics from labor economists argue this perpetuates inequality, as divided workforces concede more in negotiations, though proponents in management literature frame it as pragmatic adaptation to global competition.^[28]^[1]

Colonial and Imperial Administration

In colonial and imperial administration, European powers employed divide and conquer tactics to govern vast, heterogeneous territories by exploiting or amplifying pre-existing ethnic, religious, and tribal divisions, thereby preventing cohesive resistance and minimizing the need for large garrisons. This strategy involved co-opting select local elites or groups as intermediaries, granting them privileges to enforce rule over rivals, which aligned with causal incentives of resource efficiency in low-density occupations. British officials in India explicitly invoked the principle post-1857 Indian Rebellion, with Mountstuart Elphinstone, Governor of Bombay, writing in 1859 that "Divide et impera was the old Roman motto, and it shall be ours," advocating separation of antagonistic populations to maintain order.^[30] ^[31] The approach shifted from direct confrontation to indirect governance, recruiting from designated "martial races" like Sikhs and Gurkhas—viewed as loyal after their roles in suppressing the rebellion—while disfavoring others associated with the uprising, such as certain Hindu communities in the Bengal army.^[32] A key implementation occurred with the 1905 Partition of Bengal under Viceroy Lord Curzon, which divided the province into a Hindu-majority western part (including Bihar and Orissa) and a Muslim-majority eastern Bengal and Assam, ostensibly for administrative efficiency given Bengal's 78 million population but effectively to fragment Bengali nationalist agitation by separating religious majorities.^[33] ^[34] The policy provoked the Swadeshi Movement and widespread boycotts, leading to its annulment in 1911, yet it signaled a deliberate communal wedge. The Indian Councils Act 1909, known as the Morley-Minto Reforms, institutionalized this by introducing separate electorates for Muslims—allowing them to vote exclusively for Muslim representatives in provincial legislatures—while reserving disproportionate seats for them relative to their 25% population share, ostensibly to counter Hindu dominance but embedding religious division into electoral politics.^[35] ^[36] Similar tactics marked French administration in Algeria, where from the 1830s onward, authorities promoted Kabyle Berbers as culturally closer to Europeans and more amenable to assimilation, granting them preferential access to education and administration over Arab Muslims, thereby fostering intra-indigenous rivalry to dilute unified opposition.^[37] ^[38] In Belgian Congo and Ruanda-Urundi (modern Rwanda and Burundi), colonial rulers rigidified fluid Hutu-Tutsi distinctions through 1930s ethnic identity cards and anthropometric classifications, favoring Tutsis as a "superior" Hamitic race for elite positions, which entrenched hierarchies and bred Hutu grievances that persisted post-independence.^[39] ^[40] These policies, while stabilizing short-term control—e.g., British India avoided another pan-Indian revolt until 1940s mobilization—often generated backlash through heightened intergroup animosities, contributing to partitions like India's 1947 division and Rwanda's 1994 genocide precursors.^[1]

Foreign Policy and Geopolitics

United States Approaches

In the realm of Cold War geopolitics, the United States employed divide-and-conquer tactics by exploiting fissures within the communist bloc, most notably through President Richard Nixon's 1972 diplomatic overture to the People's Republic of China. This strategy, orchestrated by Nixon and National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger, aimed to leverage the existing Sino-Soviet split—exacerbated by ideological disputes, border clashes in 1969, and mutual suspicions—to isolate the Soviet Union and compel concessions on issues like arms control and Vietnam. By establishing formal ties with Beijing via the Shanghai Communiqué, which acknowledged a "one China" principle while maintaining U.S. security commitments to Taiwan, Washington positioned itself as the fulcrum in a triangular relationship, forcing Moscow to compete for American favor and ultimately contributing to détente, including the 1972 Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT I).^[41] This approach yielded tangible strategic gains: Soviet leaders, fearing a U.S.-China alignment, accelerated negotiations that reduced tensions and limited nuclear arsenals, while China's economic isolation eased, indirectly pressuring the USSR's overextended empire. Empirical evidence from declassified documents reveals Kissinger's explicit intent to "play the China card" against Soviet expansionism, as articulated in National Security Council memos emphasizing the rivalry's potential to fragment the Eastern bloc's cohesion.^[42] Historians note that this maneuver weakened Soviet influence in Asia and beyond, as Beijing's outreach to the West diminished Moscow's leverage over global communist movements, though it also sowed long-term seeds of Sino-American interdependence that later complicated U.S. containment efforts.^[43] Beyond the Sino-Soviet dynamic, U.S. policymakers sporadically applied similar principles in the Middle East during the Iran-Iraq War (1980–1988), tilting support toward Iraq under Saddam Hussein to counter the revolutionary Islamist regime in Tehran following the 1979 hostage crisis. The Reagan administration provided Baghdad with intelligence, economic credits totaling over $5 billion, and dual-use technology—despite Hussein's use of chemical weapons—framing it as a balance against Iranian hegemony rather than outright conquest.^[44] This opportunistic backing prolonged the conflict, draining resources from both parties and preventing either from dominating the Persian Gulf oil routes critical to U.S. energy security, though it drew criticism for enabling atrocities without decisively altering regional power balances. Declassified records confirm the policy's pragmatic calculus: by sustaining mutual exhaustion, Washington preserved its mediating role amid Arab-Persian divides, echoing classical divide-et-impera without direct territorial ambition.^[45] Such tactics, rooted in realist power balancing, underscore American foreign policy's emphasis on exploiting adversary vulnerabilities over ideological purity, yielding short-term leverage at the cost of ethical entanglements.

Russian and Eurasian Tactics

Russia has employed divide and conquer tactics in its Eurasian foreign policy to maintain dominance over post-Soviet states, particularly by fostering internal divisions that prevent alignment with Western institutions.^[46] This approach draws on imperial traditions of exploiting ethnic and regional fissures, adapted in the post-Cold War era to counter NATO and EU expansion.^[47] In the 1990s and 2000s, Moscow supported separatist movements in Moldova's Transnistria region following the 1992 conflict, establishing a Russian-backed de facto entity that remains militarily dependent on approximately 1,500 Russian troops stationed there.^[48] Similarly, in Georgia, Russia backed Abkhazian and South Ossetian separatists during the 1990s civil unrest, culminating in the 2008 five-day war where Russian forces intervened, recognized the regions' independence, and deployed over 5,000 troops, effectively partitioning Georgia and halting its NATO aspirations.^[49] These "frozen conflicts" serve as leverage points, allowing Russia to veto unfavorable policies in affected states without full annexation, as evidenced by the persistent instability that has deterred foreign investment and integration efforts.^[50] The 2014 crisis in Ukraine exemplified this strategy's escalation, where after annexing Crimea—home to Russia's Black Sea Fleet—Moscow armed and directed Donbas separatists, leading to a conflict that displaced over 1.5 million people and entrenched pro-Russian entities controlling about 7% of Ukrainian territory by 2022.^[48] Russian intelligence and military advisors, including Wagner Group mercenaries, provided operational support, framing the intervention as protection for Russian speakers while deepening Ukraine's ethnic and linguistic divides.^[51] This tactic not only weakened Kyiv's central authority but also sowed distrust toward Western aid, with Russia using energy cutoffs and disinformation to amplify domestic Ukrainian fractures.^[49] Analysts note that such frozen conflicts enable Russia to project power asymmetrically, controlling outcomes in states attempting to pivot westward without bearing governance costs.^[50] In Central Asia, Russia's strategy shifted post-2010 from treating the region as a unified "privileged sphere" to a divide-and-rule model, balancing influence among Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and others to prevent collective defiance.^[47] For instance, Moscow has alternated support between regimes, leveraging the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) for selective interventions—like the 2022 deployment of 2,000 CSTO troops to Kazakhstan amid unrest—while exploiting border disputes and water-sharing conflicts to keep states interdependent and divided from Chinese or Turkish alternatives.^[47] The Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), formalized in 2015 with Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia, and Kyrgyzstan, functions less as equitable integration and more as a tool to subordinate economies to Moscow's orbit, countering EU association agreements by imposing tariffs and standards that fragment regional trade blocs.^[52] Membership has tied these states' policies to Russian vetoes on external deals, as seen in Armenia's stalled EU ties amid Nagorno-Karabakh tensions, where Russia mediated but ultimately failed to prevent Azerbaijan's 2023 reconquest, highlighting limits when divisions backfire.^[48] These tactics reflect a broader Eurasian realism, prioritizing bilateral dependencies over multilateral unity to sustain Russia's geopolitical buffer, though they risk overextension as local resentments grow—evident in Uzbekistan's EAEU observer status without full commitment and Kazakhstan's multi-vector diplomacy.^[47] Empirical outcomes include stalled EU Eastern Partnership progress, with affected states averaging 20-30% lower GDP growth due to instability, per regional economic assessments.^[53] While effective in the short term for influence retention, the strategy has provoked countermeasures, such as Ukraine's 2022 NATO application surge and Central Asian hedging toward Turkey.^[54]

Other National Examples

China has utilized divide-and-conquer tactics in its foreign engagements with Europe and Southeast Asia to advance its geopolitical objectives. In Europe, Beijing's 17+1 cooperation framework—launched in 2012 with Central and Eastern European nations—aimed to foster bilateral ties that circumvent EU-wide policies, enabling investments and agreements on issues like Huawei's 5G infrastructure despite broader bloc concerns over security and debt. EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs Josep Borrell explicitly described this as an attempt to "divide and rule" in a 2020 speech, highlighting how China exploits internal EU divergences on trade, human rights, and technology to weaken collective bargaining power.^[55] By 2022, Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia withdrew from the format, citing its role in undermining EU unity, though China persisted with tailored diplomacy toward Hungary and Serbia, as seen in Xi Jinping's 2024 visits emphasizing bilateral gains over multilateral constraints.^[56] In Southeast Asia, China's approach in the South China Sea involves economic coercion and incentives to fracture ASEAN cohesion. Amid 2024 escalations with the Philippines over disputed reefs, Beijing courted Cambodia and Laos—nations with significant Chinese infrastructure investments—to veto ASEAN joint statements criticizing Chinese maritime claims, effectively isolating Manila and preventing unified regional pushback.^[57] This tactic, rooted in leveraging Belt and Road Initiative dependencies, has delayed ASEAN's code of conduct negotiations since 2002, allowing China to consolidate de facto control over contested waters covering approximately 3.5 million square kilometers.^[57] Analysts attribute this to a broader strategy of bilateral pressure, as evidenced by China's 2019 detention of Canadian citizens in retaliation for Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou's arrest, aimed at wedging U.S. allies.^[58] France's Françafrique policy exemplifies post-colonial divide-and-rule in African foreign relations, prioritizing influence through selective support for compliant regimes amid rival factions. In Côte d'Ivoire during the 2002-2011 civil war, Paris backed southern leaders like Alassane Ouattara while intervening militarily—deploying over 4,000 troops by 2011—to counter northern rebels, exacerbating ethnic divides to secure access to cocoa exports (Ivory Coast produces 40% of global supply) and maintain the CFA franc's peg to the euro, which funnels reserves to France.^[59] This approach extended to the Sahel, where French operations like Barkhane (2014-2022), involving 5,000 troops, propped up Mali's government against Tuareg and jihadist insurgents but fueled perceptions of neocolonial meddling by favoring certain ethnic elites.^[60] By 2023-2024, coups in Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso led to French troop expulsions and base closures, with juntas citing Françafrique's divisive interventions as eroding sovereignty, resulting in a 90% drop in French military presence from 2013 peaks.^[60]

Effectiveness and Case Studies

Successes and Achievements

Philip II of Macedon applied divide and conquer principles to exploit rivalries among Greek city-states, securing Macedonian dominance through diplomatic alliances and selective military interventions that prevented unified opposition. By 338 BC, his victory at the Battle of Chaeronea over a coalition of Theban and Athenian forces established hegemony over central Greece, enabling the formation of the League of Corinth under Macedonian leadership and laying the groundwork for further expansion under his son Alexander.^[61]^[62] Julius Caesar utilized similar tactics during the Gallic Wars (58–50 BC), allying with tribes such as the Aedui against rivals like the Helvetii and Nervii, thereby fragmenting Gallic resistance and conquering the region piecemeal. This approach allowed a Roman force of approximately 50,000–60,000 legionaries to subdue Gaul's estimated 3–5 million inhabitants, incorporating the territory into the Roman Republic, generating vast revenues from plunder and tribute—equivalent to decades of annual Roman tax income—and providing Caesar with loyal legions that bolstered his political power in Rome.^[62] The Ottoman Empire's millet system represented a sustained administrative success of divide and rule, granting semi-autonomous governance to religious communities (such as Orthodox Christians, Armenians, and Jews) under their own leaders, which inhibited cross-group alliances and facilitated control over a diverse empire spanning three continents from the 15th to 19th centuries. This structure minimized centralized administrative burdens, collected taxes efficiently through community intermediaries, and maintained relative stability amid ethnic and religious heterogeneity, contributing to the empire's endurance for over 400 years despite internal pressures.^[63] In colonial India, British authorities leveraged existing divisions between Hindus and Muslims, as well as among princely states and castes, to govern a population exceeding 300 million with fewer than 100,000 British troops by the early 20th century. Policies like separate electorates introduced in the 1909 Morley-Minto Reforms entrenched communal separations, enabling indirect rule through loyal local elites and suppressing large-scale revolts, which sustained imperial extraction of resources—India supplied over 20% of Britain's cotton imports and significant military manpower during World Wars I and II—until independence in 1947.^[62]^[64]

Failures and Backlash

The Roman Empire's divide et impera policy, which sought to exploit divisions among barbarian tribes to maintain control over frontier regions, ultimately failed against the Huns under Attila in the 5th century CE. By attempting to pit Hunnic allies against core forces through bribes and alliances with subordinate tribes, Roman diplomats like Flavius Aetius aimed to fragment external threats, but this strategy backfired when Attila consolidated power over diverse groups, including Ostrogoths and Gepids, enabling invasions that sacked cities like Naissus in 441 CE and threatened Gaul. The policy's reliance on short-term manipulations eroded long-term deterrence, contributing to the Western Empire's collapse by fostering a unified barbarian coalition that overwhelmed fragmented Roman defenses.^[65] British colonial administration in India exemplified divide-and-rule tactics that provoked severe backlash, culminating in the 1947 partition. Officials exacerbated Hindu-Muslim tensions through policies like separate electorates introduced in the 1909 Morley-Minto Reforms, which allocated political representation by religion, intending to prevent unified anti-colonial fronts; however, this deepened communal violence, including the 1946 Calcutta Killings that claimed over 4,000 lives in days. The strategy accelerated independence demands but fragmented the subcontinent into India and Pakistan, triggering mass migrations of 14-18 million people and riots killing 1-2 million, as divided groups turned hostilities inward rather than against British rule. Far from stabilizing control, it unified Indian nationalists under figures like Gandhi against perceived manipulation, hastening the Raj's end on August 15, 1947, while bequeathing enduring conflicts like the Kashmir dispute.^[62]^[66] In Ireland, England's centuries-long application of divide-and-rule—favoring Protestant settlers over Catholic natives since the 16th-century plantations—sustained control for over 800 years but eroded through escalating resistance. By privileging Anglican loyalists and suppressing Gaelic culture via Penal Laws from 1695, which barred Catholics from land ownership and education, the strategy aimed to fragment opposition; yet it fueled revolts like the 1798 United Irishmen uprising, blending sectarian lines into broader anti-English sentiment. This backlash intensified in the 20th century, with the 1916 Easter Rising and subsequent Irish War of Independence (1919-1921) leading to partition in 1921, but persistent divisions manifested in the Troubles (1968-1998), claiming 3,500 lives and undermining British authority until the Good Friday Agreement. The approach, while delaying full independence, ultimately amplified irredentist claims, resulting in the 26-county Irish Free State's secession and ongoing unification pressures.^[67] Modern geopolitical efforts, such as U.S. strategies in Eurasia post-Cold War, have shown similar vulnerabilities. Attempts to divide Russian-aligned states through support for color revolutions and ethnic autonomies, as in Ukraine's 2014 Euromaidan, intended to weaken Moscow's sphere but instead consolidated Russian resolve under Putin, enabling annexations like Crimea in March 2014 and fostering alliances with China. Analysts note that such tactics, echoing Kissinger-era realpolitik, overlook cultural unities, leading to unified backlash that strengthens targeted powers rather than fragmenting them, as evidenced by Russia's deepened ties with Belarus and Central Asian states amid Western isolation efforts.^[68]

Criticisms and Philosophical Debates

Ethical and Moral Critiques

Critics of the divide and conquer strategy contend that it inherently relies on deception and the artificial exacerbation of social fissures, prioritizing the manipulator's gain over collective well-being and genuine resolution of conflicts. This approach, by design, exploits preexisting ethnic, religious, or class differences to weaken opposition, often fostering long-term animosity and instability rather than sustainable peace. For instance, in British colonial India, officials systematically promoted separate Hindu and Muslim electorates through measures like the 1909 Morley-Minto Reforms, which entrenched communal divisions to forestall unified nationalist resistance; this policy contributed directly to the 1947 Partition, resulting in an estimated 1 to 2 million deaths and the displacement of 10 to 18 million people amid widespread communal violence.^[31] Such outcomes underscore moral concerns that divide and conquer sacrifices human lives and social fabric for transient control, as evidenced by the enduring Indo-Pakistani conflicts tracing back to these engineered schisms. From a moral philosophy standpoint, the strategy conflicts with principles of justice and autonomy, as it instrumentalizes groups—treating them as pawns in power games rather than agents deserving transparent governance. Authoritarian regimes employing divide and rule, such as through selective repression and propaganda to pit factions against each other, erode human rights by perpetuating cycles of division that hinder accountability and reconciliation; this manipulation sustains rule but at the cost of societal trust and ethical governance.^[69] Indian independence leader Mahatma Gandhi implicitly critiqued such tactics by advocating non-violent unity across divides, arguing that true self-rule required transcending imposed cleavages rather than succumbing to them, a stance he maintained even as Partition loomed despite his opposition to it.^[70] In broader ethical terms, divide and conquer is faulted for contravening realist moral constraints in international relations, where even pragmatic necessities like maintaining empire are weighed against the foreseeable carnage of balkanization; British Viceroy Lord Curzon noted in 1901 that divide et impera had "worked too well," ensuring a fragmented subcontinent incapable of cohesive independence, yet this presaged moral bankruptcy in bequeathing partitioned states riven by inherited hatreds.^[31] Philosophers like James Madison, while acknowledging its utility in federalism to check factionalism, warned in Federalist No. 10 of its perils when wielded tyrannically, as unchecked division invites vice over virtue in public life. These critiques highlight a causal chain: short-term tactical victories yield enduring ethical failures, including eroded legitimacy and backlash, as divided subjects eventually coalesce against the divider.

Pragmatic Defenses and Realist Perspectives

In the realist tradition of international relations, divide and conquer is defended as a rational, self-interested strategy for states navigating an anarchic system where survival demands maximizing relative power and minimizing threats from coalitions. Realists argue that by exploiting existing fissures among adversaries—such as ethnic, ideological, or economic divisions—a state can prevent unified fronts that might overwhelm it, thereby achieving security gains at lower cost than direct confrontation. This approach aligns with the core realist premise that international politics is inherently competitive, with moral considerations subordinated to pragmatic imperatives of power preservation.^[71]^[72] Niccolò Machiavelli, a foundational figure in realist thought, provides an early pragmatic endorsement, advising rulers in The Prince (1532) to foster divisions among enemies rather than permit their consolidation, as united opponents pose existential risks while fragmented ones can be sequentially subdued or neutralized. He contends that such tactics, though potentially ruthless, secure the prince's dominion by leveraging human tendencies toward discord and self-interest, prioritizing effective governance over ethical purity. This counsel reflects a causal understanding: undivided foes amplify threats through collective strength, whereas induced splits dilute their capacity for coordinated action, enabling the ruler to dictate terms.^[73]^[74] From a modern realpolitik vantage, defenders emphasize empirical efficacy in balancing against superior powers, as in wedge strategies that pry allies from rivals to avert encirclement. For instance, historical analyses highlight how external actors have weakened targets by amplifying internal divisions, yielding measurable outcomes like delayed aggression or territorial concessions without exhaustive warfare. Critics of ethical qualms counter that abstaining from such methods in zero-sum environments invites exploitation by less restrained actors, underscoring realism's focus on verifiable state survival over normative ideals.^[75]^[1]

Modern Applications and Analyses

Internal Societal Divisions

In contemporary political theory, internal applications of divide and conquer involve elites or governing authorities exploiting or amplifying existing societal cleavages—such as those based on race, ethnicity, gender, religion, or class—to fragment potential opposition and consolidate power. Theoretical models demonstrate that when elites perceive threats from unified masses, they may strategically initiate intergroup conflicts to induce polarization, thereby diverting attention from systemic inequalities and reducing collective bargaining power.^[76]^[77] This approach contrasts with external divide and conquer by targeting domestic cohesion, often through policy, rhetoric, or institutional mechanisms that prioritize group-specific grievances over broader unity. A key modern manifestation is the elevation of identity politics, where emphasis on subgroup identities is posited to serve elite interests by supplanting class solidarity with fragmented cultural antagonisms. Scholars observe that this dynamic redirects public discourse from economic redistribution toward symbolic conflicts, allowing wealth concentration to persist; for instance, analyses of professional-class advocacy highlight how identity-focused strategies align with policies favoring affluent subgroups rather than mass economic uplift.^[78]^[79] Empirical patterns in Western societies, including rising affective polarization since the 1990s, correlate with such tactics, as measured by partisan hostility metrics showing mutual perceptions of threat exceeding 50% in major democracies by the early 2020s.^[80] Digital media exacerbates these divisions, with platform algorithms incentivizing outrage-driven content that reinforces echo chambers and intergroup animosity, effectively automating elite-driven fragmentation without direct orchestration. Systematic reviews of digital influences on democracy reveal detrimental effects on cohesion in established systems, where connectivity amplifies polarized debates over resource allocation or governance.^[81] Critics from realist perspectives argue this yields pragmatic stability for incumbents, though it risks long-term instability if divisions erode institutional trust, as evidenced by declining confidence in shared narratives across polarized electorates.^[82] Such strategies, while effective in short-term power retention, underscore causal links between manufactured discord and weakened societal resilience.

Contemporary Geopolitical Uses

China's strategy in the South China Sea exemplifies divide-and-conquer tactics in contemporary geopolitics, where Beijing exploits economic dependencies and bilateral diplomacy to fragment ASEAN unity among claimant states. By providing financial incentives, such as loans and infrastructure projects under the Belt and Road Initiative, to less confrontational members like Cambodia and Laos, China secures their acquiescence or veto power within ASEAN forums, preventing consensus on issues like a binding Code of Conduct for the sea. This approach intensified after the 2016 arbitral ruling favoring the Philippines, with China rejecting multilateral talks in favor of one-on-one deals that isolate bolder actors like Vietnam and the Philippines.^[83]^[57]^[84] In 2024, these tactics escalated amid heightened clashes, including water cannon incidents against Philippine vessels at Second Thomas Shoal, prompting China to court neutrality from other Southeast Asian states through targeted investments exceeding $50 billion in ASEAN since 2013. Analysts note this financial leverage creates asymmetric vulnerabilities, as recipient nations hesitate to endorse unified resistance, evidenced by ASEAN's repeated inability to issue joint statements condemning Chinese actions despite annual maritime incidents numbering over 100 in disputed areas.^[85]^[86] Similar fragmentation strategies appear in other arenas, such as the United Arab Emirates' promotion of proxy militias in Yemen and Libya to carve spheres of influence, exploiting sectarian and tribal divides to expand regional leverage without direct confrontation. In Yemen, UAE-backed southern separatists clashed with Hadi government forces in 2019–2020, diverting attention from Iranian proxies and securing port access deals. This yielded territorial gains but fueled local instability, with over 377,000 deaths attributed to the conflict by 2021.^[87]

References

[1]
[PDF] Divide and Conquer - Chicago Unbound
May 26, 2009 · The maxim “divide and conquer” (divide et impera) is frequently invoked in legal theory and the social sciences.Missing: sources | Show results with:sources
[2]
CSE 548: Analysis of Algorithms Lecture 2 ( Divide-and-Conquer ...
Philip II, king of Macedon (382-336 BC), describing his policy toward the Greek ...
[3]
[PDF] Drive from BU CS to Logan Airport
Philip II of Macedon (BC359). • divide et impera = divide and rule ... Divide-and-conquer paradigm - Mergesort. Input: n ... T(n)=2 ⋅ T(n/2) + n/2. T(n)=3 ...
[4]
Divide and Conquer or Divide and Concede: How Do States ...
Apr 28, 2011 · The divide and conquer logic suggests that divided SD movements will not be accommodated by states because they are weak and unable to make ...
[5]
Definition of DIVIDE ET IMPERA
- **Definition**: "Divide et impera" is a Latin phrase meaning "divide and rule" or "split the opposition so that it ceases to threaten your own power."
[6]
“Divide et Impera”: A History of “Divide and Rule” - Brewminate
Jul 22, 2019 · The maxim divide et impera has been attributed to Philip II of Macedon. It was utilised by the Roman ruler Caesar and the French emperor ...
[7]
Divide et Impera - Hoover Institution
Divide et impera—divide and conquer—is an ancient strategy. Thomas H. Henriksen explains how to adapt it to the war on terror, exploiting the ideological and ...Missing: meaning | Show results with:meaning
[8]
Divide and Conquer - ModelThinkers
Divide and Conquer is a mental model that helps to break up a problem, power structure, or challenge in order to overcome it.
[9]
DIVIDE AND CONQUER Definition & Meaning - Dictionary.com
For example, Divide and conquer was once a very successful policy in sub-Saharan Africa. This expression is a translation of the Latin maxim, Divide et impera ( ...
[10]
Divide and conquer? - Chinadaily.com.cn
Apr 22, 2025 · “Divide and conquer” as an expression has its origin in the Latin phrase “divide et impera”. ... Philip II of Macedon, the father of Alexander the ...
[11]
Divide and conquer - Romans' method of conquest
Jul 13, 2022 · It is widely accepted in science that these words were first spoken by the Macedonian king Philip II. Sources. Historia Powszechna t. 4.
[12]
Was Divide and Conquer a Julius Caesar Invention, or Not?
Oct 3, 2024 · The concept of divide and conquer can be traced back to Philip II of Macedon, the father of Alexander the Great. Philip used this tactic to ...<|separator|>
[13]
Divide and Conquer: Origins, Modern Use, and Justification
Mar 14, 2025 · The strategy involves breaking up large groups into smaller, weaker factions that can be manipulated or controlled more easily. The Roman Empire ...
[14]
https://historyguild.org/macedonian-conquest/
[15]
The Battle of Chaeronea: Philip II and the Rise of Macedon
Philip adopted and modified these tactics to fit the character of his Macedonian army. He assigned the offensive to his excellent cavalry, the Companions, and ...
[16]
https://scholarworks.brandeis.edu/view/pdfCoverPage?instCode=01BRAND_INST&filePid=13419036700001921
[17]
The Legacy of Genghis Khan - The Metropolitan Museum of Art
Genghis Khan (ca. 1162–1227) and the Mongols are invariably associated with terrible tales of conquest, destruction, and bloodshed. This famed clan leader and ...
[18]
What Motivated the Mongol Conquests of Genghis Khan? - ThoughtCo
May 1, 2025 · The Jin played their tributary tribes such as the Mongols and Tatars against one another to divide and rule them. The Jin initially ...
[19]
Outline 6
The Balkans under Ottoman Rule. Preconditions for Ottoman Conquest. Mid-14th century disintegration of Serbian and Byzantine Empires.
[20]
Louis XI. - Collection at Bartleby.com
Divide et impera (Divide in order to rule). The principle upon which he broke down the power of his great vassals. When feeble, he could accommodate himself to ...Missing: conquer | Show results with:conquer<|separator|>
[21]
https://brill.com/edcollchap-oa/book/9789004345348/B9789004345348_010.xml
[22]
Raison d'Etat: Richelieu's Grand Strategy During the Thirty Years' War
Jun 25, 2019 · Many of Richelieu's first actions as chief minister focused on domestic consolidation and on preempting any perceived political threats to the ...
[23]
Cardinal de Richelieu | Research Starters - EBSCO
Richelieu is best known for centralizing royal power and diminishing the influence of the nobility and Huguenots in France. His foreign policy was characterized ...Missing: rule | Show results with:rule
[24]
[PDF] Divide and Conquer - Harvard DASH
The Oxford Dictionary of Proverbs (2009) says that. ''divide and rule'' (another common translation of ''divide et impera'') is a ''common maxim'' in English ...
[25]
[PDF] UNDERSTANDING AND RESISTING DIVIDE AND CONQUER ...
“Divide and conquer” is a strategy used by elites (often understood as “the oppressors”) to break down the relationships and unity between subjugated (often ...
[26]
https://oxfordre.com/americanhistory/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199329175.001.0001/acrefore-9780199329175-e-330
[27]
[PDF] Kaiser's Divide and Conquer Bargaining Strategy
Tales of Two-tier: A typical employer “divide and conquer” strategy. A loss: In the 1970s, the United Auto Workers union (UAW), hoping to keep the auto industry.Missing: labor | Show results with:labor
[28]
How two-tier unions turn workers against one another
Aug 29, 2018 · ... union, but here's a way to divide and conquer, undermining them from within and locking in division between workers in the process.
[29]
White House memo details divide-and-conquer labor strategy - Politico
Oct 4, 2019 · White House memo details divide-and-conquer labor strategy ... A senior White House labor adviser encouraged President Donald Trump to eliminate ...Missing: employers | Show results with:employers
[30]
'But what about the railways ...?' The myth of Britain's gifts to India
Mar 8, 2017 · As early as 1859, the then British governor of Bombay, Lord Elphinstone, advised London that “Divide et impera was the old Roman maxim, and it ...
[31]
The Partition: The British game of 'divide and rule' | Al Jazeera
Aug 10, 2017 · Divide et impera had worked too well: a device meant to perpetuate British rule in India ensured a united India could not survive without the ...
[32]
[PDF] The British Art of Colonialism in India: Subjugation and Division
The British used the strategy of “divide and rule” to provoke hostility between Hindus and Muslims. The divide and rule policy used religion to drive a wedge ...
[33]
[PDF] The Partition of Bengal - History for the 21st Century
In 1905, Bengal was split into two provinces: Eastern Bengal (majority Muslim) and a majority-Hindu western province, by George Curzon.
[34]
Partition of Bengal (1905), Background, Reasons, Impact, Annulment
Oct 1, 2025 · The Partition of Bengal (1905) was a territorial reorganization separating Hindu western areas from Muslim eastern areas, intended to stifle ...
[35]
Indian Councils Act, 1909 (Morley-Minto reforms) - BYJU'S
It was instituted to placate the Moderates (Congress) and introduce separate electorates on the basis of religion. Therefore, Lord Minto came to be known as the ...
[36]
Morley Minto Reforms 1909: Background, Objectives ... - Tarun IAS
Jul 9, 2025 · The introduction of separate electorates for Muslims created a permanent wedge between Hindus and Muslims. This division was later exploited in ...
[37]
The Kabyle Berbers, AQIM and the search for peace in Algeria
Feb 24, 2013 · With the advent of French colonisation beginning in 1830, the Kabyle came under central rule for the first time. The French colonial policy in ...
[38]
[PDF] French and Spanish colonial policy in North Africa - HAL
Jun 27, 2018 · Among the useful analytical concepts to be examined are the so-called. Kabyle myth in French Algeria and the Berber policy in Morocco, that ...
[39]
What led to the genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda? | CMHR
Jun 26, 2019 · This favoritism created ongoing and deeper tensions between Hutu and Tutsi. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, struggles for independence ...
[40]
A Critical Analysis of the Rwanda-Burundi Genocide and the ...
... Belgian colonial rule may have had in the 1994 genocide. First, the ethnic ... The Belgians justified this favoritism under the notion that Tutsis were ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[41]
https://www.ushistory.org/us/56g.asp
[42]
[PDF] Nixon's Policies toward China and the Soviet Union
The Sino-Soviet split and China's subsequent in- ternational isolation, as well as the mutual friendship with. Pakistan, had laid the basis for contact.
[43]
The Sino-Soviet Split and the U.S. Normalization with China
Cracks in the USSR-China relationship then began appearing, which led President Richard Nixon to pursue improving ties with Beijing, a move which drastically ...
[44]
Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein - The National Security Archive
Feb 25, 2003 · The U.S. was officially neutral regarding the Iran-Iraq war, and claimed that it armed neither side. Iran depended on U.S.-origin weapons, ...
[45]
U.S. Secretly Gave Aid to Iraq Early in Its War Against Iran
Jan 26, 1992 · The American decision to lend crucial help to Baghdad so early in the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war came after American intelligence agencies warned ...Missing: divide | Show results with:divide<|separator|>
[46]
Moscow's divide and rule strategy - CEPA
Dec 18, 2017 · A profitable strategy pursued by Moscow to subvert its neighbors is the classic imperial policy of divide and rule.
[47]
The Changing Logic of Russian Strategy in Central Asia
Jul 9, 2013 · As scholars have argued, the logic of hierarchy is not one of geopolitical balancing but of pursuing “divide and rule”—supporting a client state ...
[48]
Occupational therapy: Frozen conflicts, Russian aggression and EU ...
Aug 4, 2025 · For the last 30 years, Moscow has systematically exploited local tensions in some former Soviet states to create and prolong “frozen conflicts”, ...
[49]
Russia's approach to Frozen Conflicts, studying the past to prevent ...
Aug 24, 2022 · Frozen conflicts in the former Soviet republics' territory make developing international ties in Eastern Europe and the South Caucasus difficult ...
[50]
[PDF] Russia's Frozen Conflicts and the Donbas - USAWC Press
Russia's history with frozen conflicts reveals preventative measures post-Soviet states may take to reduce or to degrade Russia's ability to foment separatism ...
[51]
Russian Involvement in Frozen Conflicts of the Post Soviet Space as ...
Frozen conflicts allow Russia to control outcomes when states make attempts to leave the Russian orbit, never free from the agenda of parent states or external ...
[52]
Russia's Eurasian Union Could Endanger the Neighborhood and ...
Jun 14, 2013 · The formation of a Eurasian Union (EAU) is the next in a series of Russian initiatives to reassert control over the former Soviet space.Missing: conquer | Show results with:conquer
[53]
[PDF] Post-Soviet Frozen Conflicts
Continuation of frozen conflicts hampers regional development, trade and economic growth, making losers of all parties. russia has always been best positioned ...
[54]
The death of frozen conflicts: why Ukraine must win
Apr 11, 2025 · These frozen conflicts allow Russia to control neighbouring states without the burden of fully governing them, creating grey zones where Moscow ...
[55]
China trying to divide and rule in Europe, EU foreign policy chief says
May 16, 2020 · China trying to divide and rule in Europe, EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell says ... On the subject of the World Trade Organisation, Borrell ...
[56]
China Wants to 'Divide and Conquer' Europe - Foreign Policy
May 7, 2024 · China Wants to 'Divide and Conquer' Europe. Why Xi Jinping is visiting France, Serbia, and Hungary this week. By Ravi Agrawal, the editor in ...
[57]
Beijing uses 'divide and conquer' tactic with Asean as South China ...
Sep 26, 2024 · As China doubles down on its tactics against the Philippines, it is trying to pull other Southeast Asian nations away from Manila.
[58]
'Divide and conquer': China puts the pressure on US allies
Feb 2, 2019 · Analysts say China is trying to isolate the US by going after its allies. Two Canadians remain in detention in China over unspecified ...
[59]
[PDF] The End of Francafrique? French Economic and Political Strategies ...
Through the use of a divide-and-rule strategy, the French only allowed access to these rights to a minority of Ivoirians that were educated in the French.
[60]
The End of Françafrique? - Foreign Policy
Feb 26, 2024 · Festering resentment of French neocolonialism is motivating a backlash against Paris across West Africa.
[61]
Philip II | Facts, Definition, & King of Macedonia | Britannica
Oct 16, 2025 · 18th king of Macedonia (359–336 bce), who restored internal peace to his country and by 339 had gained domination over all of Greece by military and diplomatic ...
[62]
Divide and rule | British Policy, India, Partition, History, & Facts
Jun 5, 2025 · The Roman Empire employed divide et impera as a military strategy by fragmenting existing power structures and eliminating or absorbing the ...
[63]
The Ottoman Millet System: Non-Territorial Autonomy and its ...
Dec 21, 2015 · The millet system—an innovation that Ottoman rulers used to organize the empire's religious groups from the conquest of Constantinople in ...
[64]
British raj | Empire, India, Impact, History, & Facts | Britannica
Sep 22, 2025 · British raj, period of direct British rule over the Indian subcontinent from 1858 until the independence of India and Pakistan in 1947.
[65]
(PDF) Attila the Hun and the Failure of the Divide et impera Roman ...
Dec 27, 2024 · Attila the Hun and the Failure of the Divide et impera Roman Policy. December 2024. Authors: Oto Mestek at Charles University in Prague · Oto ...
[66]
The Bloody Legacy of Indian Partition | The New Yorker
Jun 22, 2015 · Whereas British rule in India had long been marked by violent revolts and brutal suppressions, the British Army was able to march out of the ...Missing: backlash | Show results with:backlash
[67]
Divide and Conquer as Imperial Rules - FPIF - Foreign Policy in Focus
The Israelis should be using the tactic of “divide and conquer,” the cornerstone policy of an empire that dominated virtually every continent on the globe save ...
[68]
How the British failed India and Pakistan - Vox
Mar 22, 2019 · To discourage unified Indian campaigns for independence, the British reinforced divisions along religious lines.
[69]
[PDF] "Divide and Rule" Strategies and Their Human Rights Consequences
Jun 16, 2025 · Authoritarianism. Theory and the "divide and rule" strategy both rely on manipulation, division, and selective repression to maintain control ...
[70]
Why did Mahatma Gandhi oppose Partition of India 1947 (if ... - Quora
Sep 27, 2021 · Gandhi was totally against partition but surrendered to the demand of Mr Jinnah. The British also played a role. · Gandhi thought that partition ...
[71]
Political Realism in International Relations
Jul 26, 2010 · Realism, also known as political realism, is a view of international politics that stresses its competitive and conflictual side.
[72]
14.5 The Realist Worldview - Introduction to Political Science
May 18, 2022 · Realism is distinctly characterized by marked self-interest. According to realism, states embark on policy initiatives with a go-it-alone ...
[73]
Letters from Machiavelli: divide and rule - by Al Campbell
Feb 23, 2025 · In this book, Machiavelli issues recommendations to a would-be prince for obtaining, retaining, and strengthening a hypothetical state.Missing: power | Show results with:power
[74]
Machiavelli, Niccolò - Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Machiavelli says that a wise prince should never be idle in peaceful times but should instead use his industry (industria) to resist adversity when fortune ...
[75]
Levels of division: How wedge strategies shape international and ...
Apr 23, 2025 · This section examines the evolution of Japan's wedge strategy against China between 1911 and 1945, which was a key factor in the East Asian ...
[76]
[PDF] Divide and Rule: An Origin of Polarization and Conflict
Dec 31, 2018 · In summary, the key implication of the model is that the elite applies a divide- and-rule strategy to maintain its own power: when the threat ...
[77]
Divide and Rule: How Political Elites Polarize Society
Feb 18, 2021 · We propose a theory of endogenous polarization where a political elite strategically initiates conflicts between groups of people to polarize society.Missing: evidence internally modern<|separator|>
[78]
Identity Politics and Elite Capture - Boston Review
May 7, 2020 · Identity politics is deployed by elites in the service of their own interests, rather than in the service of the vulnerable people they often ...Missing: divide conquer
[79]
Why Elites Love Identity Politics - Jacobin
Jan 14, 2025 · Chibber explains how identity politics promotes strategies and policies that primarily address the interests of elites rather than the vast majority of working ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[80]
Polarization, Democracy, and Political Violence in the United States
Sep 5, 2023 · American voters are less ideologically polarized than they think they are, and that misperception is greatest for the most politically engaged people.
[81]
A systematic review of worldwide causal and correlational evidence ...
This systematic review on digital media and democracy finds beneficial relationships mostly in emerging democracies but detrimental associations in established ...
[82]
disentangling the relationship between polarization and democracy ...
Indeed, our findings suggest that modern-day identity politics employed by the elite is strengthening societal conflict rather than solving it. Exploiting ...
[83]
(PDF) Dividing ASEAN and Conquering the South China Sea
Dividing ASEAN and Conquering the South China Sea analyzes how China uses its influence to divide ASEAN countries in order to prevent them from acting ...
[84]
How to Respond to China's Tactics in the South China Sea | RAND
Jun 3, 2024 · The odds of armed conflict in the South China Sea are high and rising. China's relentless assertiveness against the Philippines—harassing ...
[85]
As Philippines, Vietnam close ranks, China adopts 'divide and ...
Aug 12, 2024 · China is undertaking a “divide and conquer” approach in dealing with Vietnam and the Philippines over their differences in the South China Sea.
[86]
Stiffening the ASEAN spine in the South China Sea | Lowy Institute
Mar 25, 2022 · Finding unity among like-minded states, first and foremost, is necessary to outmanoeuvre Beijing's “divide and conquer” approach. Resolving ...
[87]
Divide and Conquer: The UAE Expands Its Influence By Promoting ...
The UAE preaches unity at home but pursues division abroad: It is carving out a sphere of influence through militias who carve up Arab states.