But look at the european empires, see where they've been. Look at native NA populations, African populations, what they've done and the way their territories have shifted and which ones are stable or not stable.
Areas where one group has successfully subjugated the others for a long time and either continue to hold power, or have otherwise transitioned into a coexisting state, those are the stable ones
The long and short of it is. If you're going to get into a war, not that you should, after victory you need to be able to secure and occupy territory for at a long time.
If you seek to exert biological dominance over the largest geographic area with no regards to social stability or the establishment of government, the Mongol Empire comes to mind.
occupation must last long enough that the ones who held the original ideology that pushed them to hate you are dead. Long enough that those who hold a grudge over their defeat are dead. Long enough that everyone alive has lived under your rule, your system and considers it to be normal.
That's an unfortunate truth. The eradication of the opposing ideology and complete demoralization of a people is truly required for the death of a culture.
Additionally, removing a system required the inception of a more preferable societal structure to prevent resurgence. This is historically accomplished by individual and economic empowerment, while the subjugation of conquered nations instills the seeds of contempt for future warfare.
Precisely. This touches on the current warfare of the past 2 decades in the Middle East. While foreign forces may seek to captivate the hearts and minds of the conquered, in reality the creation of a new system of government is required for the stability of a region. The Arab Spring was infinitely more successful than the previous campaigns of removing dictators, simply creating a vacuum for new caliphates and leaders to take the mantle.
