Fascinating! Why not? Why would you just lay down and let someone else rule over you?

In terms of survival strategies, letting someone else rule over you was sort of the OG Christian thing before they got control of the Roman Empire. It's kind of the default in most places. Declaring independence and actually succeeding at it and governing yourself is remarkably rare. The question isn't what you think is wise, or what you would do (because no one knows until they're in that situation). It's whether you feel you have anything worth preserving when you are conquered. Some people don't, evidently. Other people do.

	▲	dmpk2k 5 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> Some people don't, evidently. Other people do. I like how this can be interpreted two ways, depending on whether you place loved ones above governance, or vice versa.
	▲	thworp 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		You simply cannot compare the experience of being conquered in a pre-modern society to being conquered by the PRC. Premodern States simply couldn't afford the level of oppression and exploitation that is possible today. They usually just replaced the upper layers of the old hierarchy, put some small garrisons in a few places and left most local elites in charge, often with their local armies. If there was an organized rebellion, there would usually be a a few skirmishes and then a re-negotiation of the terms. Today even Morocco could afford to turn Western Sahara into a territory with total surveillance, checkpoints everywhere and an impenetrable wall in the desert while slowly ethnically cleansing the native population.