![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I have amended and expanded the historical attributions. In a nutshell, the principle "Divide et impera" appears to be of early modern origin, retrojected with various degrees of accuracy upon the policies of the Roman Empire. Its attribution to Philip II appears to be bereft of historical merit. Although numerous writers attribute it to Machiavelli, I have been unable to corroborate his advocacy of "Divide et impera" as a political principle.
I have deleted this nonsense. This article deserves to be purged of such demagoguery. Larvatus 21:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)larvatus
What is this doing here? "doing the same that the Islamists did and at times, still do." ? All groups are probably guilty but if you're going to single one out, more information should be provided.
I've tagged this article for neutrality and sources. Statements like this:
are very non-neutral, and are especially assertive. This shouldn't be done unless there are sources to back it up.
In addition, modern examples (Middle East, Africa) are given their own sections, yet past examples, like the Roman Empire, are only mentioned in the introduction. This can bring about a bit of a slant against nations that have used the tactic in modern times. -- Wafulz 20:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
This article should include a reference to the British policy of exploiting the Roman Catholic/Protestant divide in Ireland, especially Ulster. Bill Tegner 12:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
The ways in which the US military and media reduce each Iraqi as either a Shia or Sunni is certainly a means of divide and conquer (or rule). A section should be added in the main article on this. Teetotaler
I believe one news source reported that Saddam a Sunni had oppressed the majority Shia Iraqis, implying that they would therefore be more anti-Saddam, and more pro-American. As the invasion was seen as a liberation, the US looked to those most oppressed by Saddam. Also, foreign Islamic insurgents have sought to divide Iraq to weaken the US backed government. A form of divide and conquer? Rds865 ( talk) 19:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The U.S.? It seems Al-Qaeda and Iran would be better equipped and more interested in dividing Iraq. Reports from Iraq reflect how difficult it is to stop this from happening. - Roy Boy 16:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I came across "Having divided to conquer, we must reunite to rule." a while back and like it quite a bit. I sourced it back to Michael Jackson (the computer scientist, not the pop star): Michael Jackson, “Some Complexities in Computer- Based Systems and Their Implications for System Development,” International Conference on Computer Systems and Software Engineering, Tel-Aviv, Israel, May 1990, pp. 344-351.
But I haven't been able to get a copy of the actual article to see if he attributes it to any source. Michael Jackson's formulation supports the article's observation that: "Maxims 'Divide et impera' or 'Divide ut regnes' are traditionally identified with the principle of government of Roman Senate. This attribution is not entirely reliable, insofar as the Roman policy mainly aimed to unite the conquered nations both politically and culturally, under Roman rule."
I post this comment in hopes that it may prove useful in getting to origin of the maxim. -- Nick ( talk) 21:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
It seems that this article is more of a list of how the British caused ethnic conflicts. It most cases the divide and conquer strategy simply exploited existing divisions. Some of the claims seem a stretch, like that the British caused the Jew-Arab conflict. A conflict always arrives when two people want the same thing. A lot of these conflicts come from the Colonial power uniting two groups. Before colonial conquest there was no India, and British rule actually united India. More sources besides a controversial book are needed Rds865 ( talk) 19:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
many of the examples given are of one nation supporting another in hopes that it will act in their favor. For example, the case of encouraging migration of British people to Ireland was the hopes that Ireland would become more British, and Unite, not divide. The strategy that my enemy's enemy is my friend, and supporting allies is not Divide and Conquer. If this was the case then American Support of the British was a attempt to divide Europe.
There are plenty of examples of this sort of tactic in america, especially in the subjugation of minorities through infighting. why are there none here? all I see are other, foreign countries. weird foreign countries and their weird empires. 205.155.225.1 ( talk) 22:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
In 1835, Thomas Macaulay articulated the goals of British colonial imperialism most clearly:"I have travelled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such caliber, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and, therefore, I propose that we replace the old and ancient education system, her culture, because if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self-esteem, their native self-culture and they will become what we want them to be, a truly dominated nation." The above quotation is not from Macaulay but is from a hostile reaction to his Minute on Education. All addresses from 1835 are available online; and this text forms no part of any of them. Unless someone can find a reputable source for this text, it should be removed. 60.50.117.38 ( talk) 02:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
needs to cover divide and rule in relation to interpersonal relationships and bullying. article has loads on the politics but little on the sociology.-- Penbat ( talk) 08:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
See
-- Penbat ( talk) 13:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Several points:
-- S. Rich ( talk) 18:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Looking at Wiktionary, it looks like divide and conquer relates to politics, military and economics while divide and rule is general purpose:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/divide_and_conquer
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/divide_and_rule
-- Penbat ( talk) 18:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
ive just worked out that most of this article should really be in divide and conquer -- Penbat ( talk) 18:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
almost all of this article should be moved to divide and conquer although much of it is badly sourced or not sourced and probably be deleted. It is not clear if anything would be left here apart from the wiktionary definition of divide and rule.-- Penbat ( talk) 18:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I have amended and expanded the historical attributions. In a nutshell, the principle "Divide et impera" appears to be of early modern origin, retrojected with various degrees of accuracy upon the policies of the Roman Empire. Its attribution to Philip II appears to be bereft of historical merit. Although numerous writers attribute it to Machiavelli, I have been unable to corroborate his advocacy of "Divide et impera" as a political principle.
I have deleted this nonsense. This article deserves to be purged of such demagoguery. Larvatus 21:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)larvatus
What is this doing here? "doing the same that the Islamists did and at times, still do." ? All groups are probably guilty but if you're going to single one out, more information should be provided.
I've tagged this article for neutrality and sources. Statements like this:
are very non-neutral, and are especially assertive. This shouldn't be done unless there are sources to back it up.
In addition, modern examples (Middle East, Africa) are given their own sections, yet past examples, like the Roman Empire, are only mentioned in the introduction. This can bring about a bit of a slant against nations that have used the tactic in modern times. -- Wafulz 20:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
This article should include a reference to the British policy of exploiting the Roman Catholic/Protestant divide in Ireland, especially Ulster. Bill Tegner 12:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
The ways in which the US military and media reduce each Iraqi as either a Shia or Sunni is certainly a means of divide and conquer (or rule). A section should be added in the main article on this. Teetotaler
I believe one news source reported that Saddam a Sunni had oppressed the majority Shia Iraqis, implying that they would therefore be more anti-Saddam, and more pro-American. As the invasion was seen as a liberation, the US looked to those most oppressed by Saddam. Also, foreign Islamic insurgents have sought to divide Iraq to weaken the US backed government. A form of divide and conquer? Rds865 ( talk) 19:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The U.S.? It seems Al-Qaeda and Iran would be better equipped and more interested in dividing Iraq. Reports from Iraq reflect how difficult it is to stop this from happening. - Roy Boy 16:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I came across "Having divided to conquer, we must reunite to rule." a while back and like it quite a bit. I sourced it back to Michael Jackson (the computer scientist, not the pop star): Michael Jackson, “Some Complexities in Computer- Based Systems and Their Implications for System Development,” International Conference on Computer Systems and Software Engineering, Tel-Aviv, Israel, May 1990, pp. 344-351.
But I haven't been able to get a copy of the actual article to see if he attributes it to any source. Michael Jackson's formulation supports the article's observation that: "Maxims 'Divide et impera' or 'Divide ut regnes' are traditionally identified with the principle of government of Roman Senate. This attribution is not entirely reliable, insofar as the Roman policy mainly aimed to unite the conquered nations both politically and culturally, under Roman rule."
I post this comment in hopes that it may prove useful in getting to origin of the maxim. -- Nick ( talk) 21:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
It seems that this article is more of a list of how the British caused ethnic conflicts. It most cases the divide and conquer strategy simply exploited existing divisions. Some of the claims seem a stretch, like that the British caused the Jew-Arab conflict. A conflict always arrives when two people want the same thing. A lot of these conflicts come from the Colonial power uniting two groups. Before colonial conquest there was no India, and British rule actually united India. More sources besides a controversial book are needed Rds865 ( talk) 19:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
many of the examples given are of one nation supporting another in hopes that it will act in their favor. For example, the case of encouraging migration of British people to Ireland was the hopes that Ireland would become more British, and Unite, not divide. The strategy that my enemy's enemy is my friend, and supporting allies is not Divide and Conquer. If this was the case then American Support of the British was a attempt to divide Europe.
There are plenty of examples of this sort of tactic in america, especially in the subjugation of minorities through infighting. why are there none here? all I see are other, foreign countries. weird foreign countries and their weird empires. 205.155.225.1 ( talk) 22:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
In 1835, Thomas Macaulay articulated the goals of British colonial imperialism most clearly:"I have travelled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such caliber, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and, therefore, I propose that we replace the old and ancient education system, her culture, because if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self-esteem, their native self-culture and they will become what we want them to be, a truly dominated nation." The above quotation is not from Macaulay but is from a hostile reaction to his Minute on Education. All addresses from 1835 are available online; and this text forms no part of any of them. Unless someone can find a reputable source for this text, it should be removed. 60.50.117.38 ( talk) 02:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
needs to cover divide and rule in relation to interpersonal relationships and bullying. article has loads on the politics but little on the sociology.-- Penbat ( talk) 08:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
See
-- Penbat ( talk) 13:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Several points:
-- S. Rich ( talk) 18:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Looking at Wiktionary, it looks like divide and conquer relates to politics, military and economics while divide and rule is general purpose:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/divide_and_conquer
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/divide_and_rule
-- Penbat ( talk) 18:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
ive just worked out that most of this article should really be in divide and conquer -- Penbat ( talk) 18:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
almost all of this article should be moved to divide and conquer although much of it is badly sourced or not sourced and probably be deleted. It is not clear if anything would be left here apart from the wiktionary definition of divide and rule.-- Penbat ( talk) 18:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)