|
Power
Apr 24, 2008 7:35:37 GMT -5
Post by setiishadim on Apr 24, 2008 7:35:37 GMT -5
Might I also remind that there are many types of Sith, & many follow different ideologies, strategies & goals. Also, in the case of the American Revolution, they weren't just fighting for an ideology-they were defending their families & homes. History is filled with leaders who have forgotten about the home turf advantage.
|
|
Khaos
Force User
Posts: 26
|
Power
Apr 24, 2008 8:43:01 GMT -5
Post by Khaos on Apr 24, 2008 8:43:01 GMT -5
Agreed Syvack, I wasnt really talking about what they were fighting for so much as the tactics they utilized to win. I dont believe a Sith has to be trustworthy, just gain trust. The people must trust there leader in order to die for him, but he could be an outright liar. Napoleon said he could make men die for anything,and Sun Tsu stated that the use of spies were key in warfare. They could spread false information and distrust, seem as if they were in league with the enemy and not be. Lies, secrecy,betrayal. Or in Frederick the great's Instructions to his generals he states.
" In war and life the skin of a fox is at times as necessary as that of the lion, for cunning may succeed where force fails.
Ultimately I agree With Darth Draconis, not all Sith wish to be leaders, or view the gaining of power in conjuntion with leadership. In the end its all a matter of opinion I suppose and as Syvack Said, what your idealologies and goal are wil more than likely determine your approach to war
|
|
|
Power
Apr 24, 2008 21:58:22 GMT -5
Post by setiishadim on Apr 24, 2008 21:58:22 GMT -5
Agreed. In light of your post & speaking only for myself, I would never accept a position of total leadership. The second you do , you become a target of the power hungry. Snipers are a dime a dozen and anyone can pull a trigger. Martial skills mean nothing against a well placed bullet or bomb. lol But, if you have influence rather than power-sometimes that is more lucrative. For example, Karl Rove welded massive influence & left Bush holding the bag. I detest his ideology, but his methodology was brilliant.
-Syvak
|
|
|
Power
Apr 24, 2008 23:05:53 GMT -5
Post by darthreignus on Apr 24, 2008 23:05:53 GMT -5
And thus we see that referent power, or the power of trust, is the strongest. Much stronger than coercion, for it is the weakest. It is stronger than reward power, than the power of title, stronger than any other form. If you make yourself trustworthy (or so seem to others) they will grant you all the power. Those who rule will come to you for your advice and tailor their policies and opinions based upon what their trusted advisor says. The problem with referent power is that as soon as you are no longer seen as trustworthy (at least by those who have power over you) you lose all your power.
|
|
|
Power
Apr 25, 2008 12:36:17 GMT -5
Post by setiishadim on Apr 25, 2008 12:36:17 GMT -5
How does that follow? One can be an authority, who others do not trust, but who is accepted due to being an authority in their particular field. There is a fundamental difference between respect and trust.
-Syvak
|
|
|
Power
Apr 26, 2008 1:07:18 GMT -5
Post by darthreignus on Apr 26, 2008 1:07:18 GMT -5
How much power did Nixon have after the Watergate scandal? Would anyone have done anything he wanted them to? If you believe so, you may want to ask why he resigned. That's why people lead uprisings against their government. If you aren't trustworthy to those who follow you, they will take your power away.
|
|
|
Power
Apr 26, 2008 3:37:32 GMT -5
Post by setiishadim on Apr 26, 2008 3:37:32 GMT -5
You have some valid points in your general argument. However, you keep switching the argument and the terminology. How much "power" did Nixon have? Quite a bit. He was an adviser to every president from the time of his resignation up until his death. He was respected for his knowledge & experience. Thus, you have inadvertently proven my point that there is a distinction between trust and respect.
-Syvak
|
|
|
Power
Nov 4, 2008 16:28:20 GMT -5
Post by The Dark Lord of the GITH on Nov 4, 2008 16:28:20 GMT -5
Hey, I was just saying that while power is at first great it would become boring if it had no joy... and cannot love be passionate!? Is this not what pushed anakin down the path of the darkside... any emotion can become passionate, not just anger.(oh, andlook at the conflict I spurred... Beautiful, isn't it?)
|
|
|
Power
Apr 9, 2009 16:04:27 GMT -5
Post by Marcho Millennius on Apr 9, 2009 16:04:27 GMT -5
The joy in power is the hunger for more. Power over an individual, group or a nation even the world cannot be enough. Even Sidious was not content with power over a galaxy, he was intent on a universe wide magocracy... So power once attainted is boring but the hunger for more never is
|
|