Initiative always belongs to the strongest, and the "league of the weak" was formed precisely at the expense of the stronger, who, by sheer will to dominate, or by love, have always found a natural sphere of activity for their superabundance of life, to dominate or to love their fellows.
But the strength here is branded as such on the basis that it is of an individual nature, accretive or collective strength is considered weakness on the grounds that its individual agents have rather than produce, and assumes that the natural state of strength is pure expenditure of energy for its own sake. There remains a disconnect between the notion of those who are strong but enslaved and those who are strong but unfettered. One who uses one's strength to escape fetters will naturally appear stronger than those he rises above. The weak and strong are here assigned, not by pure epistemological realities, but aesthetic categories organized by their utility in the game of hierarchizing values.