Then the same can be said about the Mongols who were as brutal as it gets as conquerors yet did not have their empire fall due to rebellions and uprising but rather civil wars among the various Mongol leaders.KnightofPhoenix said:I never claimed it was not a weakness, but that's irrelevant to the discussion. Their means of conquest have nothing to do with the instability that occurred, which was fought only among Arabs, the conquerors themselves.
Had the conquered decided to rise up, the empires would have collapsed permanently right then and then.
The Brutal Conqueror can be as effective if not more so then the benevolent one. Ghenkis Khan proved that as did his immediate successors. Instilling fear into a population so they would surrender rather then fight did work, and the propaganda efforts by the Mongols paid off. Now of course the Mongols did help those that bent their knees to rise up and incorporated them into their Empire.