Ashoka was able to retain his power

The argument

Ashoka held his kingdom for almost half a century, far longer than many other historical figures that managed to accumulate vast amounts of power. Duration is a demanding test of power precisely because acquiring it and keeping it require different things: conquest can be accomplished in a season, while holding what has been conquered must be renewed continually against everyone with an interest in taking it back. After the conquest in his ascent to power, he renounced violence and war. Considering many of the most powerful rulers in history acquired their land and power through war and violence, Ashoka's decision to follow the tenets of Buddhism and abstain from violent practices is impressive. It is also what makes his longevity remarkable rather than merely long, since he set aside the instrument on which rulers in his position ordinarily relied, and did so while holding territory won by exactly that instrument. His power was maintained through his values, and not by his armies. The same cannot be said for many of the great rulers through human history. Rule resting on force has to be re-imposed wherever it is resisted, and it generates the resistance it then must suppress; rule accepted by those living under it does not have to be reasserted at all, which is why it can last. He communicated with people through his virtues, respecting the personal beliefs of many of his subjects. That tolerance removed the most reliable cause of revolt in a diverse empire, since subjects left to their own convictions have far less reason to rise against a ruler. In many ways, he fostered an open society more than a millennium before the Enlightenment, and that is the measure of the power he was able to retain.

Context

Of what use is power if you don’t have it long enough to do anything? The most powerful leader of all time should not only be able to accumulate power, but they should have had it long enough to wield it.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Emperor Ashoka may have had a grip on power for his lifetime, but he was unable to sustain a multi-generational kingdom. His successor inherited a declining empire and lost control of some of the territories that Ashoka once held. Other empires, such as Rome, were able to maintain centuries of power through economic, military, and geographical dominance. If Ashoka had maintained power over India through force, he would have perhaps passed on a more stable empire to his successors. Instead, Ashoka's power died with him.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The measure of power is better done by land occupied, the size of the military, and wealth. [Rejecting P2] Ashoka may have maintained power for his lifetime, but his kingdom declined soon after. [Rejecting P3] Maintaining power through force guarantees the longevity of the empire as a whole.

Framing

It takes far more effort to retain power than accumulate power. Those that can accumulate and then maintain power have far more real power than those that can accumulate it quickly but cannot hold it.