>>> Show me one truly powerful person who could have survived 30% of his subjects actively resisting.
>> It's a lot easier for "truly powerful person" to keep "his subjects [from] actively resisting" than you seem to think.
> Depends completely on the people.
Not really, unless you have a fictitious people that isn't subject to social coordination problems.
However, real populations are subject to those problems, which is why we've seen dynasties of awful dictators survive for generations (e.g. North Korea). The lesson of those dynasties is also probably "don't let up on the oppression or you'll lose power," which might be easier to keep up if the immortal leader doesn't doesn't have to be replaced by a naive successor.
> You have a mental virus that wants to believe everything is doomed.
LOL. Comments like that are totally unpersuasive, and also against the rules.
>> It's a lot easier for "truly powerful person" to keep "his subjects [from] actively resisting" than you seem to think.
> Depends completely on the people.
Not really, unless you have a fictitious people that isn't subject to social coordination problems.
However, real populations are subject to those problems, which is why we've seen dynasties of awful dictators survive for generations (e.g. North Korea). The lesson of those dynasties is also probably "don't let up on the oppression or you'll lose power," which might be easier to keep up if the immortal leader doesn't doesn't have to be replaced by a naive successor.
> You have a mental virus that wants to believe everything is doomed.
LOL. Comments like that are totally unpersuasive, and also against the rules.