conquest became his raison d'etre

[alpacinou]

Does it make sense to say "conquest became raison d'etre" of a ruler?

Is this okay? [the dates and cities are imaginary]

Conquest became his raison d'etre. He invaded and plundered Athens in 1667 but that victory only served to whet his appetite for vanquishing more of his enemies. In 1672 he marched into Rome with his troops to do more ransacking and conquering.

 

[alpacinou]

This is about an imaginary ruler. Does it work?

 

[Rover_KE]

Yes, but your title needs to include 'his'.

 

[alpacinou]

Yes, but your title needs to include 'his'.

Done.

I hope the rest of the sentence in post #1 okay.

 

[emsr2d2]

I'm not keen on "to do more ransacking and conquering".

 

[alpacinou]

I'm not keen on "to do more ransacking and conquering".

What do you suggest I use instead of that?

 

[alpacinou]

I'm not keen on "to do more ransacking and conquering".

What about this?

Conquest became his raison d'etre. He invaded and plundered Athens in 1667 but that victory only served to whet his appetite for vanquishing more of his enemies. In 1672 he marched into Rome with his troops to conquer and plunder some more.

 

[Tarheel]

@alpacinou Try: "but that only served to whet his appetite for conquest."

 

[alpacinou]

Is this okay?

Conquest became his raison d'etre. He invaded and plundered Athens in 1667 but that victory only served to whet his appetite for conquest. In 1672 he marched into Rome with his troops to conquer and plunder some more.

 

[Tarheel]

@alpacinou Maybe I'm being nitpicky, but Athens and Rome are real cities. (You could just say the events are fictional.)

I don't think you need "with his troops" in the second sentence. For example, if you say Alexander conquered Egypt nobody thinks he did it by himself. (He had an army.)

Other than those things, it's perfect. ☺