Prologue:
The reason for this text was given to me by the article by the philologist Mrs. Eleni Drakaki "60 ancient Greek phrases we use today! » with date
April 30, 2024.
The philologist says that this saying is of ancient Greek origin.
I'm amazed that a philologist, when she publishes something, doesn't research it first. The bad thing is that the "Panhellenic Network of Teachers" also published it.
I'm sorry that today's children are misinformed.
Many scholars also attribute this political strategy to Philip II of Macedon (~350 BC), who used the Greek equivalent divide and conquer to dominate the Greek city-states. A big mistake and I will prove this below.
Origin of the phrase Divide and Conquer
The saying "divide and rule" does not come from ancient Greek literature, nor have we encountered it in Byzantine literature, but is a more recent rendering of the Latin expression divides et emperor.
The Latin phrase divides et emperor became widely known in modern times.
It was closely associated with the works and thinking of thinkers such as Niccolò Machiavelli. It was later translated into modern languages, including modern Greek.
Historical reality
The idea existed long before it took on its specific linguistic form. Roman generals, such as Julius Caesar, implemented methods to subjugate neighboring tribes.
Philip wanted alliances
The phrase divide and conquer was contrary to the culture of the ancient Greeks.
His philosophy of "divide and rule" is in complete contradiction to the fundamental values, political thought, and the very structure of ancient Greek civilization.
This idea was foreign to the Greek spirit for several basic reasons:
The concept of "Reign" in Classical Greece
For the ancient Greeks of the classical era, absolute monarchy (to vasileve) was considered an outdated regime, identified with the "barbarians" (e.g. the Persian Empire) or with tyranny.
The Greek city-states valued above all individual freedom and the autonomy of each city.
The imposition of a permanent ruler who would rule through the deliberate discord of his subjects was an idea politically repugnant to the democratic or oligarchic ideals of the time.
The Ideal of "Same Blood" and "Same Language"
As Herodotus reports, the consciousness of common Greek identity was based on "Omaimon" (common blood), "Omoglosson" (common language), "common institutions of the gods and sacrifices" (common religion) and "similar gods" (common customs).
Despite the frequent wars between cities (which were fought for reasons of power and hegemony, not as part of a plan of permanent enslavement through deceit), the strategic pursuit of Greek thinkers was always unity and cooperation in the face of external dangers.
The Panhellenic Idea
Great thinkers, such as the rhetorician Isocrates, dedicated their work to promoting pan-Hellenic unity.
Isocrates argued that internal conflicts were weakening Greece and called for a joint campaign against the Persians to stop the mutual strife.
His theory of "divide and rule" assumes a tyrant ruler who wants his subjects weak and divided, while the Greek spirit sought an alliance of strong, autonomous partners.
Roman vs Greek Political Thought
The phrase Divide and conquer It fits perfectly with the policy of the Roman Empire, which conquered the then known world by turning one province or tribe against another, so that they could not unite against Rome.
The Romans ruled as a central, centralized power. In contrast, the Greeks, even during the heyday of large alliances (such as the Athenian or Peloponnesian Alliance), operated with the system of alliances (epigamia) and not with the "absolute ruler and subjects" model.
Therefore, "divide and rule" is not simply a phrase that was not said in ancient Greek, but constitutes an ideological concept foreign and contrary to the culture and values of the ancient Greeks.
The need for unity in the ancient Greek world was expressed in the most emblematic way through the Sacred Truce and the Panhellenic Games.
The Sacred Truce (Truce)
Cessation of hostilities: All military conflicts between the Greek city-states were compulsorily stopped.
Duration: Initially it lasted one month and was later extended to three months.
Purpose: The safe transportation of athletes and spectators to and from Olympia.
Religious guarantee: The agreement was protected by Zeus, making its violation a crime.
Penalties: Cities that violated the truce were excluded from the Games and paid heavy fines.
Panhellenic Unity Institutions
The four great Stefanite games functioned as a connecting link of Hellenism:
|
Events |
Venue |
Honored God |
|
Olympia |
Olympia |
Jupiter |
|
Pythoness |
Delphi |
Apollo |
|
Isthmia |
Isthmus of Corinth |
Poseidon |
|
Nemea |
Nemea |
Jupiter |
How Unity Was Reflected
Shared identity: The Games reminded the Greeks of their "omaimon" (common origin), their "homoglosson" and their common religion.
exclusiveness: Only those who were free Greek citizens had the right to participate.
Amphictyony: Political-religious associations of cities (such as Delphi) that protected the sanctuaries and enforced law.
Peaceful, noble rivalry: War was shifting from the battlefield to the stadium, with moral glory (an olive wreath) as the prize.
The positioning of Philip II as an exponent of "divide and conquer" is a historical inaccuracy, as his strategy was based on the exact opposite philosophy.
Philip's policy of alliances
Congress of Corinth: Philip did not seek to keep the Greek city-states permanently divided. Instead, in 337 BC he founded the Greek public (later known as League Corinth a pan-Hellenic political and military alliance.
Panhellenic unit: His goal was to unite the forces of all Greeks under his own hegemony, in order to create a common front for the campaign against the Persian Empire.
Diplomacy and marriages: Use systematically the alliances through marriages and diplomacy to stabilize the borders of the Macedonian kingdom, integrating neighboring peoples and Greek cities into a broader network of cooperation
The rhetoric of "division" came mainly from his political opponents, such as Demosthenes in Athens, who presented his diplomatic moves as an attempt to weaken the traditional powers. In reality, Philip believed that strength lay in union and alliance.
Philip II's strategy for achieving pan-Hellenic unification is one of the most masterful examples of diplomacy in antiquity. After his victory at Battle of Chaeronia In 338 BC, Philip acted not as a bloodthirsty conqueror, but as a far-sighted politician.
Instead of razing the defeated cities, he used a series of carefully planned steps to lead them gently towards the establishment of his Greek Public (ή Congress of Corinth).
The Policy of "Generous Peace" (Example of Athens)
Philip knew that violent submission would breed future revolutions.
Peace of Demades: He offered extremely favorable terms to defeated Athens.
Return of prisoners: He returned the Athenian prisoners without ransom and even with an honorable escort (under the young Alexander and Antipater).
Maintaining autonomy: He did not install a Macedonian garrison in Athens nor did he abolish its democratic regime, earning the respect of its citizens.
The Isolation of the Unrepentant (Example of Sparta)
Where generosity did not work, Philip applied diplomatic and geographical isolation.
Sparta categorically refused to cooperate.
Philip did not besiege Sparta, as this would have required time and blood.
On the contrary, he invaded Laconia and returned the disputed territories to its neighbors (Messians, Arcadians, Argives). In this way, it weakened Sparta and at the same time secured the eternal gratitude of the rest of the Peloponnesians.
The Pretext of the Common Enemy
To unite different sides, you need a common purpose. Philip used the most ideal argument for the time: the revenge against the Persians for the desecration of Greek sanctuaries by the Medes (150 years ago).
This gave the Greek cities a powerful incentive.
He transformed the Macedonian hegemony from an "occupation" into a "holy alliance".
The Institutional Framework of the League of Corinth (337 BC)
The Commonwealth of the Greeks was not a simple peace treaty, but a collective organization with modern federal bases:
Autonomy and Freedom: Each city maintained its own constitution, laws, and freedom of trade and navigation.
Prohibition of internal wars: The member cities swore to never fight among themselves.
The Congress (Parliament): A representative body was created where each city had a vote according to its military strength. This Congress judged disputes and made major decisions.
The Hegemon: Philip was appointed "General Emperor" (commander-in-chief) of the alliance, having executive power only for the war against the Persians, without interfering in the internal affairs of the cities
With these methods, Philip achieved what the Athenians, Spartans, and Thebans had failed to do for centuries by force: to unite Greece under a common national strategy, paving the way for the conquests of Alexander the Great.
Ancient and Modern Use
Translated from English by Dimitris Symeonidis JP
Julius Caesar:
He famously implemented the strategy during the Gallic Wars to prevent the Celtic tribes from forming a united front against Rome.
Niccolo Machiavelli:
He popularized the tactic in early modern political literature, explicitly describing it as a military strategy in his 1521 treatise, "The Art of War."
Napoleon Bonaparte:
He often used the strategy alongside his own variation, divide ut regnes ("divide to reign").
Colonial Era
The strategy became the basic framework of governance for European colonial empires. Notably, in 1859, the British Governor of Bombay, Lord Elphinstone, he explicitly wrote: “Divide et impera was an old Roman motto and it will be ours,” institutionalizing it to exploit religious and ethnic divisions in British India.
The exact phrase “divide et impera” does not appear in any surviving text from ancient Rome. Instead, the concept was first described in different words by ancient writers, and the literal Latin phrase first appeared in print centuries later during the Renaissance and early modern period. The most famous historical texts that conceptualize or explicitly mention the phrase include: Julius Caesar, Commentaries on the Gallic (c. 40s BC) While Caesar never used the exact words “divide and rule,” he did record the precise strategic formula in his text on the Gallic Wars:
«Ipse Diviciacum Haedum magnopere cohort docet necesse that manus enemy distineri, ne How tanta multitude a time to fight sit».
Translation: "He urgently explained to the Aeduans' Diviciacus the necessity of dividing the enemy forces, so that they would not have to fight such a large crowd at the same time."
The La Balance Politics by Traiano Boccalini (1678)
Italian satirist Traiano Boccalini is widely credited with one of the first clear references to the literal phrase "divide and rule" as a standard maxim in political science texts, citing it as a typical tool used by rulers to manipulate different factions.
The Institutes of the Laws of England by Sir Edward Coke (1644)
In English legal history, jurist Edward Coke explicitly criticized the precise Latin phrase in Chapter I of his Fourth Institute: «Explosum is illud diverbium: Divides, & emperor, How radix & vertex empires in obedience subjects consist».
Translation: "This common proverb is rejected: Divide and conquer, since the root and summit of power rests on the obedience of the subjects."
The Travel pictures by Heinrich Heine (1826–1831)
In the history of literature, the German poet Heinrich Heine famously summarized the phrase's transition into a political slogan by writing: "Divide and conquer!"
Ancient and Modern Usage
Julius Caesar:
Famously put the strategy into action during the Gallic Wars to keep Celtic tribes from forming a unified front against Rome
Niccolo Machiavelli:
Popularized the tactic in early modern political literature, explicitly detailing it as a military strategy in his 1521 treatise, The Art of War
Napoleon Bonaparte:
Frequently utilized the strategy alongside his own variation, divide ut regnes (“divide so that you may reign”).
Colonial Era
The strategy became the core governance framework for European colonial empires. Notably, in 1859, the British Governor of Bombay, Lord Elphinstone, explicitly wrote, "Divide et impera was an old Roman motto, and it shall be ours," institutionalizing it to exploit religious and ethnic divisions in British India.
The British game of 'divide and rule' *
Instead, the concept was first described in different words by ancient authors, and the literal Latin phrase first appeared in print centuries later during the Renaissance and early modern eras. The most famous historical texts that conceptualize or explicitly mention the phrase include:1. Julius Caesar's Commentarii de Bello Gallico (c. 40s BC) While Caesar never used the exact words “divide et impera,” he wrote down the exact strategic formula in his Gallic Wars
text:"Ipse Diviciacum Haedum magnopere cohortatus docet necesse esse manus hostium distineri, ne cum tanta multitudine uno tempore pugnandum sit."
Translation: "He explained urgently to Diviciacus of the Aeduans the necessity of dividing the enemy's forces, so that they would not have to fight so great a multitude at one time."
Traiano Boccalini's
La Bilancia Politica (1678) Italian satirist Traiano Boccalini is widely credited with one of the earliest explicit references to the literal phrase "divide et impera" as a formalized maxim in political science text, citing it as a standard tool used by rulers to manipulate different factions.
Sir Edward Coke's Institutes of the Lawes of England (1644)
In English legal history, jurist Edward Coke explicitly criticized the exact Latin phrase in Chapter I of his Fourth Institute:
“Explosum est illud diverbium: Divide, & impera, cum radix & vertex imperii in obedientia subjectorum consistat
“Translation: "That common saying is rejected: Divide and rule, since the root and the summit of authority rest upon the obedience of the subjects."
Heinrich Heine's Reisebilder (1826–1831)
In literary history, the German poet Heinrich Heine famously summarized the phrase's transition into a political motto by writing: "Divide et impera! —
Bibliography
Sir Edward Coke: His work Institutes of the Lawes of England (1644)
Trajan Mouthpieces: The Italian satirist in his work La Bilancia Politica (1678) is often cited as one of the first to use “divide et impera” as a common political principle.
Sir Francis Bacon: He used the variation “separa et impera” in a letter to James I in 1615.
James Madison: In a letter to Thomas Jefferson in 1787, he calls “Divide et impera” “the accursed axiom of tyranny.”
A dictionary of Greek and Roman antiquities / by various writers; ed. by William Smith,
Immanuel Lace: In his essay Perpetual Peace (1795), “Divide et impera” is mentioned as one of the three political axioms
Histories (Herodotus)/Ourania
Isocrates:
Panegyricus: His most famous speech, where he calls on the Greek cities to unite against the Persians, is the central source for the Panhellenic idea.
To Philip (To Philip): The speech he addresses to Philip II of Macedon, calling on him to lead a common Greek campaign against Persia.
On the Peace and Panathenaicus: Speeches concerning Athens, its internal politics and his criticism of wrong political choices that lead to controversies.
Demosthenes:
Demosthenes, Speeches 1-17 (University of Texas Press, 2011): This volume, in the series Oratory of Classical Greece, contains translations of the surviving oratorical speeches of Demosthenes.
Three Olynthiacs (Olynthiacs A, B, C): Reasons that urge the Athenians to help Olynthus against Philip.
Four Philippics: His most famous speeches, in which he denounces Philip as a threat to the freedom of Athens and all of Greece
Photo By Fotogeniss – Own work, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=25564881, https://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/
