Hey johannfowl, to me this seems a thinly veiled reference to Game of Thrones. It might serve you better if you were to ask on the actual History stack, because it could be judged out-of-scope here. Alternatively you might ask on Science Fiction & Fantasy or Movies & TV. In all cases you would need to read the terms and help center. My apologies If I've misunderstood your question.

I see more direct relevance to Aquaman. Asking about real historical analogues might indeed get better answers on History StackExchange, though.

Sounds a lot like the process of Italian unification. Basically, the Netherland-sized state of Piedmont annexed the nearby equal-sized states to grow into one of the main European states and be able to fill the difference against its main rival (the Austro-Hungarian Empire).

I swear I had none of these works in mind, but I can see the similarities. Thanks for the advice about History Stack Exchange, should I delete this question after asking there? Maybe I could share an answer here. Also thanks McTroopers for the Italian example.

Strategies have rarely worked out in history. Sometimes in a different way as intended, or half a century later. Has never stopped people from making strategies, or trying to realise them.

Classical warfare-for-conquest tends to be a very expensive way to amass power. Warhorses and knights are not cheap. She might conquer several neighbors, then discover her treasury is empty for further adventures...and defense.

You do not need to ask on History unless you are actually asking for a historical analysis of unification events. This would be out of scope there - not even a region is named, let alone any specific events, and its open-ended or you'd get comments about needing to do your own research. It is fine to ask for historical examples here in the context of worldbuilding.

Now if you find a particular event from this question and then were to want depth (and could form a question which meets History.SE's requirements) then you could ask there

Don't worry about folks jabbing you with "thinly veiled reference" references. GoT was not conceived and written in a vacuum. Like any work of fiction, it has antecedents and matters of inspiration. Sounds like you've got an interesting premise all the same!

This is a standard tactic for small kingdoms wanting to conquer the world in many grand strategy games, sometimes referred as "blobbing". Some games attempt to counter this with a coalition system, where AIs will create an alliance against fast-expanding kingdoms, but this will only slow down a canny, patient player.

In Civilization, this strategy works most of the times. The key point is to stop and consolidate at the right points, to ensure that the conquered areas actually contribute resources instead of binding them.

Read about the Roman empire. They did not conquer neighbors because of some other threat, but they were able to steamroll over much of the known world by continually replenishing, or even increasing, their army from those they conquered. The story of Rome could easily be changed into what you describe. Check it out.

If I may paraphrase, the ruler sees that P is powerful enough to take on everyone, so the ruler becomes P', taking on everyone before dealing with P. Funny how we become the things we hate the most.

Just a comment, do with it what you will: Whenever I read/watch a plot like this where a group that needs to fight a common enemy starts weakening itself by infighting--I get angry. It always feels like an artificial way to generate drama that shouldn't actually happen. Even if it WOULD happen, it's not something I want to see. The Walking Dead REALLY annoys me. Also, I couldn't ever empathize with your would-be conqueror, I would hope she would lose and die miserably regardless of anything else she does.

What's funny is that the queen becomes the Predator to the other five. I'd love to see them come to the same conclusion that she did and ally against her as the foreign invader. Working together, in a way she was too arrogant to admit that they could.

You mean like China? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warring_States_period

Plot twist - P finds out the ruler of A is doing this, and allies with B,C,D,E, and F against her.

TV Tropes calls this the Genghis Gambit.

I would say time-scale matters a lot. If you've got 30 years before P can actually be a threat and you can fool B, C, D, E, and F to not unite against you, then to conquer can work. That is awfully convenient, though.

Yes, @jacco, time is a key here. Some people are pointing out that she may not have time, and they are not wrong; however it seems some of these guys assume that P is somehow immune to logistic difficulties, is in the imminence of attacking and has a perfect plan. Maybe my question kind of shows P like that, but it's not really the case.

"which is a woman" Why is this relevant for the question?

@FooBar I thought the same thing when I started reading the question. "What does that have to do with anything?" But OP points out later that the other leaders will not follow a woman. OP could have just said "Other leaders would not follow this leader" and left it generic, but instead OP decided to provide the reason.