Georgetown University The Prince by Machiavelli Book Report

User Generated

nysana

Humanities

Georgetown University

Description

The application essay should be approximately 800-1,000 words. The first half of the essay should be the summary of the concept of the Prince which is attached below, and the second half of the essay should be the application of the same concept.

You must summarize the argument of a philosopher and to apply the argument to politics.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Niccolo Machiavelli Of Principalities To the Magnificent Lorenzo de' Medici [Nicolai Maclavelli De principatibus Ad magnificum Laurentium Medicem] CONTENTS Dedicatory Letter 5 How many kinds of principalities there are and the ways they are acquired 7 Of hereditary principalities 7 III. Of mixed principalities 8 IV. Why the kingdom of Darius, occupied by Alexander, did not rebel against his successors after the-death of Alexander 16 How cities or principalities should be governed that lived by their own laws before they were occupied 19 Of new principalities acquired by one's own troops and virtue 20 Of new principalities acquired with the arms of others and by Fortune 23 Of those who have become princes through wickedness 30 .Of the civil principality 34 How the strength of all principalities should be measured 38 Of ecclesiastical principalities 40 Of the various kinds of troops and mercenary soldiers 42 Of auxiliary, mixed, and citizen soldiers 47 A prince's duty concerning military matters 50 I. II. V. ,VI. VII. VIII. IX. X. XI. XII. XIII. XIV. Contents 4 xv. Of those things for which men, and particularly XVI. XVII. XVIII. XIX. princes, are praised or blamed 53 Of generosity and miserliness 54 Of cruelty and mercy, and whether it is better to be loved than to be feared, or the contrary How a prince should keep his word 57 60 Of avoiding being despised and hated 62 xx. Of whether fortresses and many things that princes XXI. employ every day are useful or harmful 72 How a prince should act to acquire esteem 76 Of the prince's private secretaries XXIII. Of how to avoid flatterers 79 80 XXIV. Why Italian princes have lost their states 82 Of Fortune's power in human affairs and how she can be resisted 84 An exhortation to seize Italy and to free her from the barbarians 87 XXII. XXV. XXVI. DEDICATORY LETTER Niccolo Machiavelli to the Magnificent Lorenzo de' Medici* [Nicolaus Maclavellus magnifico Laurentiio Medici iuniori salutem*] IN most instances it is customary for those who desire to win the favour of a prince to present themselves to him along with those things which they value most or which they feel will most please him.* Thus, we oftel)..see princes given horses, ar!Ds, and vestments of gold cloth, precious stpnes, and similar ornaments suited to their greatness.* Wishing, therefore, to offer myself to Your Magnificence with some evidence of my devotion to you, I have not found among my belongings anything that I might value more or prize so much as the knowledge of the deeds of great men that I have learned from a long experience in modern affairs and a continuous study of antiquity.* Having with great care and for a long time thought about and examined these deeds, and having now set them down in a little book, I am sending them to Your Magnificence. And although I consider this work unworthy of your station, nevertheless I am sure that your humanity will move you to accept it, for there could not be a greater gift from me than to give you the means to be able, in a very short time, to u1:1derstand all that in so many years and with so many hardships and dangers I have come to understand and to appreciate. I have neither decorated nor filled this work with elaborate sentences, with rich and magnificent words, or with any other form of rhetorical or unnecessary ornamentation that many writers normally use in describing and enriching their subject-matter, for I wished that nothing should set my work apart or make it pleasing except the variety of its material and the gravity of its contents.* Neither do I wish that it be thought presumptuous if a man of low and inferior social condition dares to examine and lay down rules for the governance of princes. For just as those who paint landscapes 6 The Prince place themselves in a low position on the plain in order to consider the nature of the mountains and the heights, and place themselves high on top of mountains in order to study the plains, in like manner, to know the nature of the people well one must be a prince, and to know the nature of princes well one must be of the people. Accept, therefore, Your Magnificence, this little gift in the spirit that I send it. If you read and consider it carefully, you will discover in it my most heartfelt desire that you may attain the greatness that Fortune* and all your own qualities promise you. And if Your Magnificence will at some time turn your eyes from the summit of your high position toward these low places, you will realize to what degree I unjustly suffer a great and continuous malignity of Fortune.* The Prince 7 I How many kinds of principalities there are and the ways they are acquired [Quot sint genera principatuum et quihus modis acquirantur] states and all dominions that have had and continue to have power over men have been, and still are, either republics or principalities.* Principalities are either hereditary, in which instance the family of the prince has ruled for generations, or they are new.* The new ones are either completely new, as was Milan for Francesco Sforza,* or they are like appendages added to the hereditary state of the prince who acquires them, as is the Kingdom of Naples for the King of Spain.* Dominions taken in this way are either accustomed to living under a prince or are used to being free; and they are gained either by the arms of others or by one's own, eit~er through Fortune or through virtue.* ALL II Of hereditary principalities [De principatihus hereditariis] I SHALL set aside any discussion of republics, because I have treated them at length elsewhere.* I shall consider solely the principality, weaving together the threads mentioned above as I go, and I· shall discuss how these principalities can be governed and maintained. I say, then, that in hereditary states accustomed to the rule of their prince's family, there are far fewer difficulties in maintaining them than in new states, for it is sufficient simply not to break ancient customs, and then to suit one's actions to unexpected events. In this way, if such a prince is of ordinary ability he will always maintain his state, unless some extraordinary and 8 The Prince inordinate force should deprive him of it, and although it may be taken away from him, he will regain it at the slightest mistake of the usurper. As an example, we have in Italy the Duke of Ferrara,* who , withstood the assaults of the Venetians in 1484 and those of Pope Julius in r 5IO for no other reason than his long-established rule in that dominion. Because a prince by birth has fewer reasons and less need to harm his subjects, it is natural that he should be more loved; and if no unusual vices make him hated, it is reasonable that he should be naturally well liked by them. And through the· great length and continuity of his dominion the memories and causes of innovations die out, because one change always leaves indentations for the construction of another.* III Of mixed principalities [De principatibus mixtis] BuT it is in the new principality that difficulties arise. In the first place, if it is not completely new but is like an added appendage (so that the two parts together may be called mixed), its difficulties derive first from one natural problem inherent in all new principalities: that men gladly change their ruler, thinking to better themselves. This belief causes them to take up arms against their ruler, but they fool themselves in this, since they then see through experience that matters have become worse. This stems from another natural and ordinary necessity, which is that a new prince must always harm his new subjects, both with his soldiers as well as with countless other injuries involved in his new conquest. Thus, you have made enemies of all those you harmed in occupying the principality, and you are unable to maintain as friends those who helped you to rise to power, since you cannot satisfy them in the way that they had supposed. Nor can you use strong medicines* against them, for you are in their debt: this is so because, although someone may have the most powerful of The Prince 9 armies, he always needs the support of the inhabitants to seize a region. For these reasons, Louis XII, King of France, quickly occupied Milan and just as quickly lost it.* The first time, the troops of Ludovico alone were needed to retake it from him, because those citizens who had opened the gates of the city to the King, finding themselves deceived in their beliefs and in that future improvement they had anticipated, could not support the vexations of the new prince. It is indeed true that when lands that have rebelled once are taken a second time it is more difficult to lose them; for the ruler, taking advantage of the rebellion, is less reticent about punishing offenders, ferreting out suspects, and shoring up weak positions. And so, if only a Duke Ludovico* creating a border disturbance sufficed for France to lose Milan the first time, the whole world* had to oppose her and destroy her armies or chase them from Italy to cause her to lose it the second time. This occurred for the reasons mentioned above. Nevertheless, it was taken from her both the first and the second time. The general explanations for the first loss have been discussed. Now it remains to specify those for the second, and to see what remedies the King of France had, and those that someone in the same situation could have, so as to be able to maintain a stronger grip on his conquest than France did. I say, therefore, that those dominions, upon being conquered and added to the long-established state of the one who acquires them, are either of the same region and language or they are not. When they are it is easier to hold them, especially when they are unaccustomed to freedom. To possess them securely it is sufficient only to have wiped out the family line of the prince who ruled them, because so far as other things are concerned, men live peacefully as long as their old way of life is maintained and there is no change in customs. We have seen what happened in the case of Burgundy, Brittany, Gascony, and Normandy,* which have been part of France for such a long time; and although there are some linguistic differences, nevertheless the customs are similar, and they have been able to get along together easily. Anyone who acquires these lands and wishes to hold on to them must keep two IO The Prince things in mind: first, that the family line of the old prince must be wiped out; second, that neither their laws nor their taxes be altered. As a result, in a very short time they will become one body with the old principality. But when dominions are acquired in a region that is not similar in language, customs, and institutions, it is here that difficulties arise; and it is here that one needs much good luck and much diligence to hold on to them. One of the best and most efficacious remedies would be for the person who has taken possession of them to go there to live. This would make that possession more secure and durable; as happened with the Turk in Greece;* for despite all the other methods he employed to retain that dominion, if he had not gone to live there it would have been impossible for him to hold on to it. By being on the spot, troubles are seen at their birth and can be quickly remedied; not being there, they are heard about after they have grown up and there is no longer any remedy. Moreover, the region would not be plundered by your own officers; the subjects would be pleased to have direct recourse to their prince; thus, those wishing to be good subjects have more reason to love him, and those wanting to be otherwise, more reason to fear him. Anyone who might wish to invade that dominion from abroad would be more hesitant; so that living right there, it is only with the greatest difficulty that the prince can lose it. The other and better solution is to send colonies into one or two places, that will act as shackles* on that state; for it is necessary that the prince either do this or maintain a large number of cavalry and infantry. Colonies do not cost much, and with little or no expense a prince can send and maintain them. In so doing he injures only those whose fields and houses have been taken away and given to the new inhabitants, who are only a small part of that dominion. Those he injures, finding themselves scattered and poor, can never be a threat to him; and all the others remain uninjured on the one hand, and because of this they should remain peaceful, and on the other hand are afraid of making a mistake, for fear that what happened to those who were dispossessed might happen to them. I conclude that these colonies are The Prince II not expensive, they are more loyal, they are less injurious, and the offended can do no harm since they are poor and scattered (as l have said). Concerning this, it should be noted that men must be either caressed or wiped out; because they will avenge minor injuries, but cannot do so for grave ones. Any harm done to a man must be of the kind that removes any fear of revenge. But by garrisoning troops there instead of colonies, one spends much more, being obliged to consume all the revenues of the state in standing guard, so that the gain turns into a loss; and far greater injury is committed, since the entire state is harmed by the army - changing quarters from one place to another. Everybody resents this inconvenience, and everyone becomes the ruler's enemy; and these are enemies that can be harmful, sil}.ce, although conquered, they remain in their own homes. And so, in every respect, this form of protection is as useless as the other kind, colonization, is useful. Moreover, anyone who is in a region that is unlike his own in the ways mentioned above should make himself the leader and defender of his less powerful neighbours, and do all he can to weaken those who are more powerful; and he should be careful that, for whatever reason, no foreigner equal to himself in strength should enter there. And it will always happen that the outsider will be brought in by those who are dissatisfied, either because of too much ambition or because of fear, as was once seen when the Aetolians brought the Romans into Greece.* In every other province that the Romans entered, the native inhabitants brought them in. The order of things is such that, as soon as a powerful foreigner enters a region, all who are less powerful cling to him, moved by the envy they have against the ruler who has ruled over them. And so, concerning these weaker powers, the invader has no trouble whatsoever in winning them over, since all of them will immediately and willingly become part of the state he has acquired. He need only be careful that they do not seize too much military power and authority. With his own military power and their support, he can very easily put down those who are powerful, and remain complete arbiter of that region. Anyone who does not follow this procedure will quickly lose what he 12 The Prince has taken, and while he holds it, he will find it full of infinite Jiffa:ullie::s anJ Lruuble::s. In the regions they conquered the Romans followed these rules very carefully. They sent out colonies, had dealings with the less powerful without increasing their strength, put down the powerful, and did not allow powerful foreigners to gain prestige there. I shall cite only the region of Greece as an example: the Romans kept the Achaeans and the Aetolians in check; they put down the Kingdom of Macedon;* Antiochus was driven out.* Nor did they ever permit the Achaeans or the Aetolians to expand their territory, despite their merits. Nor did the persuasion of Philip of Macedon ever convince them to make him their friend without first humbling him. Nor could the power of Antiochus force their consent to his having any dominion whatsoever in that region. For the Romans did in these instances what all wise princes must do: they must be on their guard not only against existing dangers but also against future disturbances, and try diligently to prevent them. Once evils are recognized ahead of time, they may be easily cured; but if you wait for them to come upon you, the medicine will be too late, because the disease will have become incurable. And what physicians say about consumptive illnesses* is applicable here: that at the beginning, such an illness is easy to cure but difficult to diagnose; but as time passes, not having been recognized or treated at the outset, it becomes easy to diagnose but difficult to cure. The same thing occurs in affairs of state; by recognizing evils in advance (a gift granted only to the prudent ruler), they can be cured quickly; but when they are not recognized and are left to grow to such an extent that everyone recognizes them, there is no longer any remedy. Thus, recognizing dangers from afar, the Romans always found remedies for them; and they never allowed them to develop in order to avoid a war, because they knew that war cannot be avoided, but can only be put off to the advantage of others. Therefore, they wanted to go to war with Philip and Antiochus in Greece in order not to have to face them in Italy; and at the time, they could have avoided both the one and the other, but they did not want to do so. Nor did they ever approve of what is always.on The Prince 13 the lips of our wise men today-to reap the benefits of time. Instead, they reaped the benefits of their virtue and prudence; for time brings with it all things, and it can bring with it the good as well as the evil, and the evil as well as the good. · But let us return to France, and observe whether she did any of the things we have just mentioned. I shall speak of Louis and not of Charles;* and therefore about the one whose progress has been observed better, because he held territory in Italy for a longer period. You will see that he did the contrary of those things that must be done in order to hold one's dominion in a region with heterogeneous customs, languages, and institutions. King Louis was brought into Italy because of the ambition of the Venetians,* who wanted by his coming to gain for themselves half of Lombardy. I have no wish to criticize the decision the King made. Wishing to establish a first foothold in Italy, and not having any friends in this region, and furthermore, having all the gates closed to him because of the actions of King Charles,* he was forced to strike up whatever alliances he could. This laudable decision would have succeeded if he had not erred in his other · moves. After having taken Lombardy, then, the King immediately regained the reputation that Charles had lost him: Genoa surrendered;* the Florentines became his allies;* the Marquis of Mantua, the Duke of Ferrara, the Bentivoglios, the Countess of Forli, the rulers of Faenza, Rimini, Pesaro, Camerino, and Piombino, as well as the people of Lucca, Pisa, and Siena, all rushed to become his ally.* At this point the Venetians could understand the recklessness of the decision they had taken. To acquire two towns in Lombardy, they had made the King master of two-thirds of Italy.* Consider now, first, with what little difficulty the King might have maintained his reputation in Italy if he had followed the above-mentioned rules and kept secure and defended all those allies of his who, being numerous but both weak and fearfulsome afraid of the Church, others afraid of the Venetians-were always forced to remain his allies; and with their assistance, he could have easily protected himself against the remaining greater powers. But no sooner was he in Milan than he did the opposite, 14 The Prince providing assistance to Pope Alexander so that he could occupy the Romagna. Nor did he realize that with this decision he had made himself weaker, abandoning his allies and those who had thrown themselves into his lap, and he had made the Church stronger by adding to it so much temporal power, in addition to the spiritual power from which it derives so much authority. Having committed this first error, he was obliged to continue,* so that in order to put an end to the ambition of Alexander and to keep him from becoming the ruler of Tuscany,* the King was forced to invade Italy. It was not enough for him to have made the Church powerful and to have alienated his allies, for since he coveted the Kingdom of Naples, he divided it with the King of Spain. And whereas previously he had been the arbiter of Italy, he now brought in a partner, so that the ambitious and the malcontented of that region had someone else to whom they could turn for help. And whereas he could have left a tributary king to rule that kingdom, Louis replaced him,* establishing one there who could, in turn, drive Louis out. The desire to gain possessions is truly a very natural and normal thing, and when those men gain possessions who are able to do so, they will always be praised and not criticized. But when they are not able to do so, and yet wish to do so at any cost, therein lie the error and the blame. Therefore, if France could have attacked Naples with her own troops, she should have done so. If she could not, she should not have shared it. And if the sharing of Lombardy with the Venetians deserves to be excused, since it allowed Louis to gain a foothold in Italy, this other sharing deserves to be criticized, since it cannot be excused by necessity. Thus, Louis committed these five errors: he wiped out the less powerful rulers; he increased the power of an already powerful ruler in Italy; he brought into that region an extremely powerful foreigner; he did not go there to live; and he did not set up colonies there. In spite of all this, these errors (had he lived) might not have injured him if he had not made a sixth: that of reducing the dominion of the Venetians.* For if he had not made the Church stronger, nor brought Spain into Italy, it would have The Prince. 15 been most reasonable and necessary to put the Venetians down; but, having made those first decisions, he should never have agreed to their ruin, for as long as the Venetians were powerful they would have always kept the others from trying to seize Lombardy, partly because the Venetians would not have allowed this unless they themselves became the rulers of Lombardy, and partly because the others would not have wanted to take it away from France to give it to the Venetians; and they would not have had the nerve to attack both France and Venice. And if someone were to say that King Louis handed over the Romagna to Alexander and the Kingdom of Naples to Spain in order to avoid a war, I would reply with the arguments advanced above: that one should never allow disorder to persist in order to avoid going to war, because one does not avoid a war but, instead, defers it to your disadvantage. And if some others were to bring forward as evidence the promise that the King made the Pope, to undertake that enterprise in return for the annulment of his marriage and the cardinal's hat for the Archbishop of Rouen, * I would reply with what I shall say later about the promises of princes and how they should be observed.* King Louis lost Lombardy, therefore, by not following any of the precepts observed by others who seized territories and wished to retain them. Nor is this in any sense a miracle, but very ordinary and to be expected. I spoke about this at Nantes* with the Cardinal of Rouen, when Valentino (as Cesare Borgia, son of Pope Alexander; was commonly called)* was capturing the Romagna. When the Cardinal of Rouen told me that Italians understood little about warfare, I replied to him that the French understood little about statecraft, for if they had some understanding, they would not have permitted the Church to gain so much power. Experience has shown that the power of both the Church and of Spain in Italy has been caused by France, and that her downfall has been brought about by the Church and by Spain. From this one can derive a general rule which rarely, if ever, fails: that anyone who is the cause of another becoming powerful comes to ruin himself; because that power has been brought about by him either through cunning or by force; and The Prince both of these two qualities are suspect to the one who has become powerful. IV Why the kingdom of Darius, occupied by Alexander, did not rebel against his successors after the death of Alexander [Cur Darii regnum, quod Alexander occupaverat, a successoribus suis post Alexandri mortem non deficit] CONSIDERING the difficulties one has in maintaining a newly acquired territory, one might wonder how it happened that when Alexander the Great died, having become ruler of Asia in a few years and having hardly occupied it, Alexander's successors* nevertheless managed to hold on to it, although it would have seemed reasonable for the whole region to revolt. And in keeping it, they had no other difficulty than that which arose among themselves from their own ambition. Let me reply that all principalities known to us are governed in two different ways: either by a prince with all the others his servants, who as ministers (through his favour and permission) assist in governing that kingdom; or by a prince and by barons, who hold that rank not because of any favour of their master but because of the antiquity of their bloodline. Such barons as these have their own dominions and subjects, who recognize them as masters and have natural affection for them. In those states that are governed· by a prince and his servants, the prince has greater authority, for in all his territories there is no one else recognized as superior to him; and if the people do obey any other persons, it is because they are his ministers and officials; and they harbour a special affection for him. Contemporary examples of these two different kinds of governments are the Turk and the King of France. One ruler governs the entire kingdom of the Turk; the others are his servants; and The Prince 17 dividing his kingdom into sanjaks,* he sends various administrators there, and he moves them and changes them around as he pleases. But the King of France is placed among a group of hereditary nobles who are recognized in that state by their subjects and. who are loved by them; they have their hereditary privileges, which the King cannot take away without endangering himself. Anyone, then, who considers the one and the other of these two states will find that for the Turk the difficulty lies in taking possession of the state, but once it has been conquered it is very simple to hold on to it. And so (on the other hand), you will find that in some respects it is easier to occupy the Kingdom of France, but extremely difficult to hold on to it. The reasons for the difficulty in being able to occupy the kingdom of the Turk are because it is not possible to be summoned there by the princes of that kingdom, or to hope, through the rebellion of those the ruler has around him, to make your enterprise easier. This is because of the reasons mentioned above: since they are all his slaves and bound to him, it is more difficult to corrupt them; and even if they could be corrupted, little profit can be hoped for, since they will not be followed by the people for the reasons already discussed. Therefore, anyone who attacks the Turk must realize that he will find him completely united, and he must rely more on his own forces than on the disunity of his opponent. But once beaten and broken in battle so that he cannot regroup his troops, there is nothing else to be feared than the ruler's family. Once it has been wiped out, there remains no one else to be feared, for the others have no credit with the people. And just as, before the victory, tlie victor could place no hope in them, so afterwards he should not fear them. Th~ opposite occurs in kingdoms governed like that of France, because you can invade them with ease once you have won to your side some barons of the kingdom, since you can always find malcontents and men who desire a change. These people, for the reasons already given, can open the way to .that dominion and facilitate your victory. However, when you wish to hold on to it this is accompanied by endless problems, both with those who have helped you and with those you have suppressed. Nor is it 18 The Prince sufficient for you to wipe out the ruling family, since the nobles who make themselves heads of new insurrections still remain. And since you are neither able to make them happy nor to wipe them out, you lose that dominion whenever the opportunity arises. Now, if you will consider the type of government Darius had, you will find it similar to the kingdom of the Turk; and therefore Alexander had first to overwhelm it totally and defeat it in battle. After this victory, Darius being dead, that state remained securely in Alexander's hands for the reasons discussed above. And had his successors been united they would have enjoyed it at their leisure, for in that kingdom no disorders arose other than those they stirred up themselves. But in states organized like that of France, it is impossible to hold them with such tranquillity. Because of this there arose the frequent rebellions in Spain, France, and Greece against the Romans, all because of the numerous principalities that existed in those regions. So long as the memory of them lasted, Rome was always uncertain of those possessions; but once this memory had been wiped out because of their long and powerful rule, the Romans became sure possessors. Afterwards, when the Romans fought among themselves, each Roman leader was able to draw a following from those regions, according to the authority he enjoyed there, and since the bloodlines of their former rulers had been wiped out, these regions acknowledged only the Romans. Taking all these things into account, therefore, no one should be at all surprised by the ease with which Alexander held on to the region of Asia, or by the problems others encountered in preserving the territory they acquired, such as Pyrrhus and many others. This is not caused by the greater or lesser virtue of the conqueror, but rather by the different characteristics of the conquered territories. The Prince V How cities or principalities should be governed that lived by their own laws before they were occupied [Qµodmodo administrande sunt civitates vel principatus qui ante quam occuparentur suis legibus vivebant] those states that are acquired, as I have said, are accustomed to living under their own laws and in freedom, there are three methods of holding on to them: the first is to destroy them; the second is to go ·there in person to live; the third is to allow them to live with their own laws, forcing them to pay a tribute and creating an oligarchy there that will keep the state friendly toward you.* For since such a government, having been set up by that prince, knows it cannot last without his friendship and power, it must do everything possible to maintain them. A city accustomed to living in freedom is more easily maintained through the means of its own citizens than in any other way, if you decide to preserve it. As examples, there are the Spartans and the Romans. The Spartans held Athens and Thebes by establishing oligarchies there;* yet they lost them both. In order to hold Capua, Carthage, and Numantia, the Romans destroyed them and did not lose them.* They wished to hold Greece in almost the same manner as the Spartans held it, making it free and leaving it under its own laws, and they did not succeed. Thus, they were obliged to destroy many of the cities in that region in order to retain it.* For in fact, there is no secure means of holding on to cities except by destroying them. Anyone who b.ecomes master of a city accustomed to living in liberty and does not destroy it may expect to be destroyed by it, because such a city always has as a refuge in any rebellion the name of liberty and its ancient institutions, neither of which is ever forgotten either because of the passing of time or because of the bestowal of benefits. And it matters very little what one does or foresees, since if one does not separate or scatter the WHEN 20 The Prince inhabitants, they will not forget that name or those institutions. Immediately, and in every instance, they will return to them, just as Pisa did * after one hundred years of being held in servitude by the Florentines. However, when cities or regions are accustomed to living under a prince and his bloodline has been wiped out, being on the one hand accustomed to obedience and, on the other, not having their old prince and not being able to agree upon choosing another one from amongst _themselves-yet not knowing how to live as free men-they are, as a result, hesitant in taking up arms, and a prince can win them over and assure himself of their support with greater ease. But in republics, greater vitality, greater hatred, and greater desire for revenge exist. The memory of ancient liberty does not and cannot allow them to rest, so that the most secure course is either to wipe them out or to go to live there. VI Of new principalities acquired by one's ·own troops and virtue [De principatibus novis qui armis propriis et virtute acquiruntur] No one should wonder if, in speaking of principalities that are completely new as to their ruler and form of government, I cite the greatest examples. Since men almost always follow the paths trod by others, and proceed in their affairs by imitation,* although they are not fully able to stay on the path of others, nor to equal the virtue of those they imitate, a wise man should always enter those paths trodden by great men, and imitate those who have been most excellent, so that if one's own virtue does not match theirs, at least it will have the smell of it. He should do as those prudent archers do* who, aware of the strength of their bow when the target at which they are aiming seems too distant, set their sights much higher than the designated target, not in order to reach such a height with their arrow, but instead to be able, by aiming so high, to strike their target. The Prince 21 I say, therefore, that in completely new principalities, where there is a new prince, greater or lesser difficulty in maintaining them exists according to the greater or lesser virtue of the person who acquires them. Because for a private citizen to. become a prince presupposes virtue or Fortune, it appears that either the one or the other of these two things should partially mitigate many of the problems. Nevertheless, he who relies less upon Fortune has maintained his position best. Matters are also facilitated when the prince, having no other dominions to govern, is constrained to come to live there in person. However, to come to those who have become princes by means of their own virtue and not because of Fortune, I say that the most outstanding are Moses, Cyrus, Romulus, Theseus, and others of their kind.* Although we should not discuss Moses, since he was a mere executor of things he was ordered to do by God, nevertheless he must be admired at least for the grace that made him worthy of speaking with God. Let us then consider Cyrus and the others who have acquired or founded kingdoms. You will find them all admirable; and if their deeds and their particular methods are considered, they will not appear different from those of Moses, who had so great a teacher. In examining their deeds and their lives, one can see that they received nothing from Fortune except opportunity, which gave them the material they could mould into whatever form they liked.* Without that opportunity the strength of their spirit would have been exhausted, and without that strength, their opportunity would have come in vain. It was therefore necessary for Moses to find the people oflsrael slaves in Egypt and oppressed by the Egyptians, in order that they might be disposed to follow him to escape this servitude. It was necessary for Romulus not to stay in Alba, and that he be exposed at birth, so that he might become king of Rome and founder of that nation. It was necessary for Cyrus to find the Persians unhappy about the rule of the Medes, and the Medes rendered soft and effeminate after a lengthy peace. Theseus could not have demonstrated his ability if he had not found the Athenians dispersed. These opportunities, therefore, made these 22 The Prince men successful, and their outstanding virtue enabled them to recognize that opportunity,* whereby their nation was ennobled and became extremely happy. Those who, like these men, become princes through their virtue acquire the principality with difficulty, bunhey hold on to it easily. The difficulties they encounter in acquiring the principality grow, in part, out of the new institutions and methods* they are forced to introduce in order to establish their state and their security. One should bear in mind that there is nothing more difficult to execute, nor more dubious of success, nor more dangerous to administer, than to introduce new political orders. For the one who introduces them has as his enemies all those who profit from the old order, and he has only lukewarm defenders in all those who might profit from the new order. This lukewarmness partly arises from fear of the adversaries who have the law on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not truly believe in new things unless they have actually had personal experience of them. Therefore, it happens that whenever those who are enemies have the chance to attack, they do so with partisan zeal, whereas those others defend hesitantly, so that they, together with the prince, run the risk of grave danger. However, if we desire to examine this argument thoroughly, it is necessary to consider whether these innovators act on their own or are dependent on others: that is, if they are forced to beg for help or are able to employ force in conducting their affairs. In the first case, they always come to a bad end and never accomplish anything. But when they depend on their own resources and can use force, then only seldom do they run the risk of grave danger. From this comes the fact that all armed prophets were victorious and the unarmed came to ruin. For, besides what has been said, people are fickle by nature: it is easy to convince them of something, but difficult to hold them in that conviction. Therefore, affairs should be managed in such a way that when they no longer believe, they can be made to believe by force. Moses, Cyrus, Theseus, and Romulus could not have made their institutions respected for long if they had been unarmed; as in our times happened to Brother Girolamo Savonarola,* who was ruined in The Prince 23 his new institutions when the populace began to believe in them no longer, since he had no way of holding steady those who had believed, nor of making the unbelievers believe. Therefore, such men encounter serious problems in conducting their affairs, and meet all their dangers as they proceed, and must overcome them with their. virtue. However, once they have overcome them and have begun to be venerated, having wiped out all those who were envious of their accomplishments, they -remain powerful, secure, honoured, and successful. To such lofty examples I should like to add a lesser one; but it will have some relation ~o the others, and I should like it to suffice for all similar cases: and this is Hiero of Syracuse. From a private citizen, this man became the ruler of Syracuse. He received nothing from Fortune but the opportunity, for as the citizens of Syracuse were oppressed, they elected him as their captain, and from that rank he proved himself worthy of becoming their prince. He had so much virtue while still a private citizen that someone who wrote about him said: 'quod nihil illi deerat ad regnandum praeter regnum' ['that he lacked nothing to reign but a kingdom'].* He did away with the old army and established a new one; he abandoned old alliances and forged new ones; since he possessed allies and soldiers of his own, he was able to construct whatever he desired on such a foundation; so that it cost him great effort to acquire, but little to maintain. VII Of new principalities acquired with the arms of others and by Fortune [De principatibus novis qui alienis armis etfortuna acquiruntur] THOSE private citizens who become princes through Fortune alone do so with little effort, but to maintain their position they need a great deal. They encounter no obstacles along their way, since they fly there, but all their problems arise once they have The Prince arrived. And these are the men who have been granted a state either because they have money, or because they enjoy the favour of him who grants it. This occurred to many in Greece, in the cities of Ionia and the Hellespont, where Darius set up rulers in order to hold these cities for his own security and glory. The same thing happened to those emperors who came to power from being private citizens by corrupting the soldiers. Such men depend solely upon two very uncertain and \Instable things: the will and the Fortune of him who granted them the state. But they do not know how, and are unable, to maintain their position. They do not know how to hold their state, since if men are not of great intelligence and virtue, it is not reasonable that they should know how to command, having always lived as private citizens. They are unable to do so, since they do not have forces that are faithful and loyal to them. Besides, states that arise quickly, just like all the other natural things that are born and grow rapidly, cannot have roots and branches and will be wiped out by the first adverse weather. This occurs unless the men who have suddenly become princes (as I have noted) possess such virtue that they know how to prepare themselves rapidly to preserve what Fortune has dropped into their laps, and to construct afterwards those foundations others have laid before becoming princes. Regarding the two methods just mentioned for becoming a prince, by virtue or by Fortune, I should like to offer two examples from recent memory: Francesco Sforza and Cesare Borgia. Francesco became Duke of Milan from his station as a private citizen through appropriate methods and a great deal of virtue; and what he acquired with a thousand hardships he maintained with little effort. On the other hand, Cesare Borgia, called by the people Duke Valentino, acquired the state through the Fortune of his father, and when this was lost, he lost it; despite the fact that he did everything and used every method that a prudent and virtuous man ought to employ in order to root himself securely in those states that the arms and Fortune of others had granted him. For (as was stated above), anyone who does not lay his foundations beforehand can do so later only with the greatest The Prince 25 of virtue, although this is done with difficulty for the architect and danger to the building. If, therefore, we consider all the Duke's achievements, we shall see that he laid sturdy foundations for his future power. And I do not think it useless to discuss them, since I would not know of any better precepts to give to a new prince than the example of his deeds. If he did not profit from his methods it was not his fault, but this arose from an extraordinary and extreme instance of contrary Fortune. In his attempts to advance his son the Duke, Alexander VI encountered many problems, both present and future. First, he saw no means of making him master of any state that was not a state of the Church. And when he decided to seize something belonging to the Church, he knew that the Duke of Milan and the Venetians would not permit this, because Faenza and Rimini were already under the protection of the Venetians. Moreover, he saw that the Italian military forces, particularly those he would have to use, were controlled by those who had reason to fear the Pope's greatness. Therefore, he could not count on them, since they all belonged to the Orsini and Colonna famiiies or were their accomplices. It was, then, necessary to disturb the political balance of Italy and throw the Italian states into turmoil so that he could safely make himself the master of a part of them. This was easy for him· to do, for he discovered that the Venetians, moved by other motives, had turned to bringing the French back into Italy. Not only did Alexander not oppose this, but he also rendered it easier by annulling King Louis's previous marriage. The King, therefore, entered Italy with the aid of the Venetians and the consent of Alexander. No sooner was he in Milan than the Pope obtained troops from him for the Romagna campaign, and this was made possible for him because of the King's prestige. Then, having conquered the Romagna* and beaten down the Colonna,* wishing to maintain the Romagna and to advance further, the Duke was held back by two things: first, his troops, who seemed disloyal to him; and second, the will of France. That is to say, the troops of the Orsini family he had been using might let him down, and not only keep him from acquiring more territory but even take away what he had already conquered. The 26 The Prince King might well do the same thing. He had one experience like this with the Orsini soldiers, when he attacked Bologna after the seizure of Faenza and saw them go reluctantly into that battle. As for the King, the Duke learned his intentions when the Duke invaded Tuscany* after the capture of the Duchy of Urbino:* the King forced him to abandon that campaign. As a result, the Duke decided to depend no longer upon the troops and Fortune of others. His first step was to weaken the Orsini and Colonna factions in Rome. He won over all their followers who were noblemen, making them his own noblemen and giving them huge subsidies; and he honoured them, according to their rank, with military commands and civil appointments. As a result, in a few months the affection for their factions was wiped out from their hearts, and all of this affection turned towards the Duke. After this, he waited for the opportunity to wipe out the Orsini leaders, having already put to flight those of the Colonna family. A good opportunity arose, and the use he put it to was even better. For when the Orsini realized, only too late, that the greatness of the Duke and of the Church spelled their ruin, they called a meeting at Magione* in the territory of Perugia. From this resulted the rebellion of Urbino, the insurrections in tl:w Romagna, and countless dangers for the Duke,* all of which he overcame with the assistance of the French. And when his reputation had been regained, placing no trust either in France or in other forces not his own, in order not to have to test their strength, he turned to treacherous deception. He knew how to dissimulate his intentions so well that the Orsini themselves, through Lord Paulo, reconciled themselves with him.* The Duke did not fail to employ every kind of gracious act to reassure Paulo, giving him money, garments, and horses, so that the stupidity of the Orsini brought them to Senigallia and into his clutches.* Having wiped out these leaders,* and having reduced their partisans to his allies, the Duke had laid very good foundations for his power, possessing all of the Romagna along with the Duchy of Urbino. More important, it appeared that he had befriended the Romagna and had won the support of all of its The Prince 27 populace once the people began to taste the beneficial results of his rule. Because this matter is worth noting and being imitated by others, I do not want to pass over it. After the Duke had taken the Romagna and had found it governed by powerless rulersmore anxious to plunder their subjects than to correct them, and who had given them reason for disunity rather than unity, so that the entire territory was full of thefts, quarrels, and every other kind of insolence-he decided that if he wanted to make the region peaceful and obedient to his regal power, it would be necessary to give it good government. Therefore, he gave a cruel and unscrupulous man, Messer Remirro de Oreo, the fullest authority there. In no time at all Remirro reduced the territory to a peaceful and united state, and in so doing, the Duke greatly increased his prestige. Afterwards, the Duke judged that such excessive authority was no longer required, since he feared that it might become odious, and in the middle of the territory he set up a civil tribunal with a very distinguished president,* in which each city had its own advocate. Because he realized that the rigorous measures of the past had generated a certain amount of hatred, in order to purge the minds of the people and to win them completely over to his side he wanted to show that, if any form of cruelty had occurred, it did not originate from him but from the violent nature of his minister. Having found the occasion to do so, one morning at Cesena he had Messer Remirro's body laid out in two pieces on the piazza, with a block of wood and a bloody sword beside it. The ferocity of such spectacle left that population satisfied and stupefied at the same time.* But let us return to the point we digressed from. I say that the Duke, finding himself very powerful and partially secured from present dangers, having armed himself in the way he desired, and having in large measure destroyed those forces nearby that might have harmed him, still had (if he wished to continue his conquests) to take into account the King of France; for he realized that the King, who had become aware of his error only too late, would not put up with any further conquest. Because of this, he began to seek out new allies and to vacillate with France during the campaign the French undertook in the Kingdom of Naples a 28 The Prince against the Spaniards besieging Gaeta.* His intent was to make himself secure against the French, and he would have immediately succeeded in this if Alexander had lived. These were his arrangements concerning present matters. But as for future events, he had first to fear that a new successor in control of the Church might not be his ally, and might try to take away what Alexander had given him. Against this possibility, he thought to secure himself in four ways: first, by wiping out all the bloodlines of those rulers he had despoiled in order to deprive the Pope of that opportunity; second, by gaining the friendship of all the noblemen of Rome (as mentioned already), in order to hold the Pope in check by this means; third, by making the College of Cardinals as much his own as he could; fourth, by acquiring such a large territory before the Pope died that he would be able to resist an initial attack on his own. Of these four things, he had realized three by the time of Alexander's death. The fourth he had almost realized, for he killed as many of the despoiled noblemen as he could capture, and very few saved themselves;* he had won over the Roman noblemen; he had a large faction in the College of Cardinals;* and as for the acquisition of new territory, he had plans to become ruler of Tuscany and was already in possession of Perugia and Piombino* and had taken Pisa under his protection.* As soon as he no longer needed to respect the wishes of France (for he no longer had to, since the French had already been deprived of the Kingdom of Naples by the Spaniards, forcing both of them to purchase his friendship), he would attack Pisa .. After this, Lucca and Siena would have immediately surrendered, partly to spite the Florentines and partly out of fear, and the Florentines would have had no means of preventing it. If he had carried out these designs (and he would have brought them to fruition during the same year that Alexander died), he would have gathered together so many military forces and such reputation that he would have been able to stand alone and would no longer have had to rely upon the Fortune and military forces of others, but instead .on his own power and virtue. But Alexander died* five years after Cesare Borgia had drawn The Prince 29 his sword, Alexander left his son gravely ill, with only the state of the Romagna secured and with all the others up in the air,* situated between two very powerful enemy armies.* But the Duke possessed so much ferocity and so much virtue, and so well did he understand how men can be won over or lost, and so sound were the foundations that he had laid in such a short time, that if he had not had those armies on his back or if he had been healthy, he would have surmounted every difficulty. That h1s foundations were sound is witnessed by the fact that the Romagna waited more than a month for him;* in Rome, although only half alive, he was safe;* and although the Baglioni, Vitelli, and Orsini families came to Rome, they found none of their allies opposed to him. If he could not set up a pope he wanted, at least he could act to ensure that it would not be someone he did not want. If he had been healthy.at the time of Alexander's demise, everything would have been simple. On the day when Julius II was made pope, he himself said to me* that he had thought about what might happen on his father's death, and had found a remedy for everything, except that he had never dreamed that at the time of his father's death he, too, would be at death's door. Therefore, having summarized all the Duke's actions, I would not know how to reproach him. On the contrary, I believe I am correct in proposing that he be imitated by all those who have risen to power through the Fortune and with the troops of others. Possessing great courage and high goals, he could not have conducted himself in any other manner, and his plans were frustrated solely by the brevity of Alexander's life and by his .own illness. Anyone, therefore, who considers it necessary in his newly acquired principality to protect himself from his enemies, to win allies, to conquer either by force or by deceit, to make himself loved and feared by the people, to be followed and revered by his soldiers, to wipe out those who can or may do you harm, to renovate ancient institutions with new ones, to be both severe and kind, magnanimous and generous, to wipe out disloyal troops and create new ones, to maintain alliances with kings and princes in such a way that they must either gladly help you or injure you The Prince 30 with caution-that person cannot find more recent examples than this man's deeds. One can only reproach him for creating Julius pope, for in this he made a bad choice. For (as I said before), not being able to create a pope to suit him, he should have prevented the papacy from going to someone he did not like.* He should never have agreed to raise to the papacy any cardinal he might have injured or who, upon becoming pope, might have. cause to fear him. For men do harm either out of fear or out of hatred. Those he had injured were, among others, the Cardinal of St Peter's in Chains, Cardinal Colonna, the Cardinal of San Giorgio, and Cardinal Ascanio.* Upon becoming pope, any of the others would have to fear him, except for the Cardinal of Rauen and the Spaniardsthe latter because they were related to him and were in his debt, the former because of his power, since he was connected to the Kingdom of France. Therefore, above all else, the Duke should have created a Spanish pope. Failing that, he should have agreed to the election of the Cardinal of Rauen and not to that of the Cardinal of St Peter's in Chains. Anyone who believes that new benefits make men of high station forget old injuries deceives himsel( The Duke, then, erred in this election, and it was the cause of his ultimate ruin.* VIII Of those who have become princes through wickedness [De his qui per scelera ad principatum pervenere] there still remain two additional methods for an ordinary citizen to become a prince that cannot be attributed completely to either Fortune or virtue, I believe they should not be omitted, although one of them will be discussed at greater length in a treatise on republics.* These two methods are when one becomes prince through some wicked and nefarious means; or when a private citizen becomes prince of his native city* through BECAUSE The Prince 31 the favour of his fellow citizens. In discussing the first way, I shall cite two examples, one from ancient times and the other from modern times, without otherwise entering into the merits of this method, since I consider them sufficient for anyone who finds it necessary to imitate them. Agathocles the Sicilian, who became King of Syracuse, was not only an ordinary citizen but also of the lowest and most abject condition. A potter's son, this man lived a wicked life at every stage of his career. Yet he joined to his wickedness such strength of mind and body, that when he entered upon a military career, he rose through the ranks to become praetor of Syracuse. Once placed in such a position, having decided to become prince and to hold with violence and without any obligations to others what had been conferred upon him by universal consent, and having informed Hamilcar the Carthaginian (who was waging war with his armies in. Sicily), one morning he called together the people and the senate of Syracuse as if he were going to discuss some · matters concerning the republic. At a prearranged signal he had his troops kill all the senators and the richest citizens; and when they were dead he seized and held the rule of the city without any opposition from the citizenry. Although he was twice defeated by the Carthaginians and finally besieged, not only was he able to defend his city, but, leaving part of his troops for the defence of · the siege, with his other forces he attacked Africa, and in a short time he freed Syracuse from the siege and forced the Carthaginians into dire straits. They were obliged to make peace with him and to be content with dominion over Africa, leaving Sicily to Agathocles. * Anyone, therefore, who examines the deeds and the life of this man will observe nothing (or very little) that can be attributed to Fortune. Not with the assistance of others (as was mentioned before), but by rising through the ranks, which involved a thousand hardships and dangers, did he come to rule the principality that he then maintained by many brave and dangerous actions. Still, it cannot be called virtue to kill one's fellow citizens, to betray allies, to be without faith, without pity, without religion; ' by these means one can acquire power, but not glory.* If one were 32 The Prince to consider Agathocles' virtue in getting into and out of dangers, and his greatness of spirit in bearing up under and overcoming adversities, one can see no reason why he should be judged inferior to any most excellent commander. Nevertheless, his vicious cruelty and inhumanity, along with numerous wicked deeds, do not permit us to honour him among the most excellent of men. One cannot, therefore, attribute either to Fortune or to virtue what he accomplished without either the one or the other. In our own days (during the reign of Alexander VI), Oliverotto of Fermo, who many years before had been left as a little child without a father, was brought up by his maternal uncle named Giovanni Fogliani. In the early days of his youth he was sent to serve as a soldier under Paulo Vitelli, so that, once he was versed in that discipline, he might attain some outstanding _military rank. Then, after Paulo died,* he soldiered under Paulo's brother Vitellozzo. In a very short time, because of his skill and his boldness of body and mind, he became the first man of Vitellozzo's troops. However, since he felt it was demeaning to serve under others, he decided, with Vitellozzo's help and with the assistance of some of its citizens (those who preferred servitude to the liberty of their native city), to take over Fermo. He wrote to Giovanni Fogliani that, since he had been away from home for so long, he wanted both to come to see him and his city and to check his inheritance. Since he had exerted himself for no other reason than_ to acquire honour, he wanted to arrive in honourable fashion, accompanied by an escort of a hundred horsemen from among his friends and servants, so that his fellow citizens might see that he had not spent his time in vain. In addition, he begged his uncle to arrange for an honourable reception from the people of Fermo, one that might bring honour not only to Giovanni but also to himself as his pupil. Therefore, Giovanni in no way failed in his duty toward his nephew: he had him received in honourable fashion by the people of Fermo, and he gave him rooms in his own dwellings. After a few days had passed and he had secretly made the preparations necessary for his forthcoming wickedness, Oliverotto gave a magnificent solemn banquet,* to which he invited Giovanni The Prince 33 Fogliani·and all of the first citizens of Fermo. When the meal and all the other entertainments customary at such banquets were completed, Oliverotto artfully began to discuss serious matters, speaking of the greatness of Pope Alexander and his son Cesare, and of their undertakings. After Giovanni and the others had replied to his arguments, he suddenly arose, declaring that these were matters to be discussed in a more secluded place, and withdrew into another room. Giovanni and all the other citizens followed him. No sooner were they seated than, from secret places in the room, soldiers emerged who killed Giovanni and all the others.* After this murder Oliverotto mounted his horse, paraded through the town, and besieged the chief officials in the government palace. They were forced to obey him out offear, and to constitute a government of which he made himself prince. After he killed all those who might have harmed him because they were unhappy with the situation, he strengthened his power by instituting new civil and military institutions. As a result, in the space of the year that he held the principality, not only was he secure in the city of Fermo, but he had become feared by all its neighbours. His expulsion would have been as difficult as that of Agathocles, if he had not let himself be tricked by Cesare Borgia (as was noted above), when the Duke captured the Orsini and the Vitelli at Senigallia. There Oliverotto too was captured, a year after he committed his parricide,* and together with Vittellozzo, who had been his teacher in his virtues and wickedness, he was strangled. One might well wonder how, after so many betrayals and cruelties, Agathocles and others like him could live for such a long time secure in their native cities and defend themselves from foreign enemies without being plotted against by their own citizens. Many others, employing cruel means, were unable to hold on to their state even in peaceful times, not to speak of the uncertain times of war. I believe that this depends on whether cruelty be badly or well used.* Those cruelties are well used (ifit is permitted to speak well of evil) that are carried out in a single stroke, done out of necessity to protect oneself, and then are not continued, but are instead converted into the greatest possible 34 The Prince benefits for the subjects. Those cruelties are badly used that, although few at the outset, increase with the passing of time instead of disappearing. Those who follow the first method can remedy their standing, both with God and with men, as Agathocles did; the others cannot possibly maintain their positions. Hence it should be noted that, in conquering a state, its conqueror should weigh all the injurious things he must do and commit them all at once, so as not to have to repeat them every day. By not repeating them, he will be able to make men feel secure and win them over with the benefits he bestows upon them. Anyone who does otherwise, either out of timidity or because of bad advice, is always obliged to keep his knife in his hand. Nor can he ever count upon his subjects, who, because of their recent and continuous injuries, cannot feel secure with him. Therefore, injuries should be inflicted all at once, for the less they are tasted, the less harm they do. However, benefits should be distributed a little at a time, so that they may be fully savoured. Above all, a prince should live with his subjects in such a way that no unforeseen event, either bad or good, may cause him to alter his course; for when difficulties arise in adverse conditions, you do not have time to resort to cruelty, and the good that you do will help you very little, since it will be judged a forced measure, and you will earn from it no gratitude whatsoever. IX Of the civil principality [De principatu civili] BuT let us come to the second instance, when a private citizen becomes prince of his native city not through wickedness or any other intolerable violence, but with the favour of his fellow citizens. This can be called a civil principality, the acquisition of which neither depends completely upon virtue nor upon Fortune, but instead upon a fortunate astuteness. I maintain that The Prince 35 one reaches this princedom either with the favour of the common people or with that of the nobility, since these two different humours* are found in every body politic. They arise from the fact that the people do not wish to be commanded or oppressed by the nobles, while the nobles do desire to command and to oppress the people. From these two opposed appetites, there arises in cities one of three effects: a principality, liberty, or licence. A principality is brought about either by the common people or by the nobility, depending on which of the two parties has the opportunity. When the nobles see that they cannot resist the populace, they begin to support someone from among themselves, and make him prince in order to be able to satisfy their appetites under his protection. The common people as well, seeing that they cannot resist the nobility, give their support to one man so as to be defended by his authority. He who attains the principality with the help of the nobility maintains it with more difficulty than he who becomes prince with the help of the common people, for he finds himself a prince amidst many who feel themselves to be his equals, and because of this he can neither govern nor manage them as he wishes. But he who attains the principality through popular favour finds himself alone, and has around him either no one or very few who are not ready to obey him. Besides this, one cannot honestly satisfy the nobles without harming others, but the common people can certainly be satisfied. Their desire is more just than that of the nobles-the former want not to be oppressed, while the latter want to oppress. In addition, a prince can never make himself secure when the people are his enemy, because there are so many of them; he can make himself secure against the nobles, because they are so few. The worst that a prince can expect from a hostile people is to be abandoned by them; but with a hostile nobility, not only does he have to fear being abandoned, but also that they will oppose him. Since the nobles are more perceptive and cunning, they always have time to save themselves, seeking the favours of the side they believe will prevail. Furthermore, a prince must always live with the same common people, but he can easily do without the same nobles, having the power every The Prince day to make and unmake them, or to take away and restore their power as he sees fit. In order better to clarify this point, let me say that the nobles should be considered chiefly in two ways: either they conduct themselves in such a way that they commit themselves completely to your cause, or they do not. Those who commit themselves and are not rapacious should be honoured and loved. Those who do not commit themselves can be evaluated in two ways. If they act in this manner out of pusillanimity ?,nd a natural lack of courage, you should make use of them, especially those who are wise advisers, since in prosperous times they will gain you honour, and in adverse times you need not fear them. But when, cunningly and influenced by ambition, they refrain from committing themselves to you, this is a sign that they think more of themselves than of you. The prince should be on guard against them and fear them as if they were declared enemies, because they will always help to bring about his downfall in adverse times. Therefore, one who becomes prince with the support of the common people must keep them well disposed. This is easy for him, since the only thing they ask of him is not to be oppressed. But one who becomes prince with the help of the nobility against the will·of the common people must, before all else, seek to win the people's support, which should be easy ifhe takes them under his protection. Because men who are well treated by those from whom they expected harm are more obliged to their benefactor, the common people quickly become better disposed toward him than if he had become prince with their support. A prince can gain their favour in various ways, but because these, vary according to the situation, no fixed rules can be given for them, and therefore I shall not discuss them. I shall conclude by saying only that a prince must have the friendship of the common people. Otherwise, he will have no support in times of adversity. Nabis, Prince of the Spartans, withstood a siege by all of Greece and by one of Rome's most victorious armies, and he defended his native city and his own state against them. When danger suddenly approached, he needed only to protect himself from a few of his The Prince 37 subjects, but ifhe had had the common people hostile, this would not have been sufficient. Let no one contradict my opinion by citing that trite proverb, claiming he.who builds upon the people builds upon mud; for that is true when a private citizen makes them his foundation, and allows himself to believe that the common people will free him if he is oppressed by enemies or by the public officials. In such a case, a man might often find himself deceived, as were the Gracchi in Rome or as Messer Giorgio Scali was in Florence. When the prince who builds his foundations on the people is a man able to command and of spirit, is not bewildered by adversities, does not fail to make other preparations, and is a leader who keeps up the spirits of the populace through his courage and his jnstitutions, he will never find himself deceived by the common people, and he will discover that he has laid his foundations well. Principalities of this type are usually endangered when they are about to change from a civil government into an absolute form of government. For these princes rule either by themselves or by means of public magistrates. In the latter case, their status is weaker and more dangerous, since they depend entirely upon the will of those citizens who are appointed as magistrates·. These men can very easily (especially in adverse times) seize the state, either by abandoning him or by opposing him. And in such periods of danger the prince has no time for seizing absolute authority, since the citizens and subjects* who are used to receiving their orders from the magistrates are not willing to obey his orders in these crises. And in doubtful times he will always find a scarcity of men in whom he can trust. Such a prince cannot rely upon what he sees during periods of calm when the citizens need his rule, because then everyone comes running, everyone makes promises, and each person is willing to die for him, since death is remote. But in times of adversity, when the state needs its citizens, then few are to be found. Arid this experiment is all the more dangerous since it can be tried but once. Therefore, a wise prince must think of a method by which his citizens will need the state and himself at all times and in every circumstance. Then they will always be loyal to him. The Prince X How the strength of all principalities should be measured [Quomodo omnium principatuum viresperpendi debeant] IN examining the qualities of these principalities, another consideration arises: that is, whether the prince has so much power that he can (if necessary) stand up on his own, or whether he always needs the protection of others. In order to clarify this matter, let me say that I judge those princes self-sufficient who, either through abundance of troops or of money, are capable of gathering together a suitable army and of fighting a battle against whoever might attack them. I consider men who always need the protection of others to be those who cannot meet their enemy in the field, but must seek refuge behind their city walls and defend them. The first case has already been treated,* and later on I shall say whatever else is necessary on the subject. Nothing more can be added to the second case than to encourage such princes to fortify and provision their own cities, and not to concern themselves with the surrounding countryside. Anyone who has fortified his city well, and has managed his affairs well with his subjects in the manner I discussed above and discuss below, will be attacked only with great hesitation, for men are always enemies of undertakings in which they foresee difficulties, and it cannot seem easy to attack someone whose city is well fortified and who is not hated by his people. The cities of Germany are completely independent, they control little surrounding territory, they obey the emperor when they please, and they fear neither him nor any other nearby power. For they are fortified in such a manner that everyone considers their capture to be a tedious and difficult affair. They all have appropriate moats and walls; they have enough artillery; they always store in their public warehouses enough drink, food, and fuel for a year. Besides all this, in order to be able to keep the The Prince 39 lower classes fed without loss of public funds, they always keep in reserve a year's supply of raw materials sufficient to give these people work at those trades that are the nerves and lifeblood of that city and of the industries from which the people earn their living. Moreover, they hold the military arts in high regard, and they have many regulations for maintaining them. Therefore, a prince who has a city organized in this fashion and who does not make himself hated cannot be attacked. Even if he were to be attacked, the enemy would have to retreat in shame, for the affairs of this world are so changeable that it is almost impossible for anyone to sustain a siege for a year with his troops idle. And if it is objected that when the people have their possessions outside the city, and see them destroyed, they will lose patience, and that the long siege and self-interest wi~l cause them to forget their love for their prince, let rile reply that a prudent and spirited prince will always overcome all such difficulties, inspiring his subjects now with hope that the evil will not last long, now with fear of the enemy's cruelty, now by protecting himself with clever manoeuvres against those who seem too outspoken. Besides this, the enemy will in all likelihood burn and lay waste to the surrounding country upon their arrival, just when the spirits of the defenders are stiHardent and determined on the city's defence. And thus the prince has so much the less to fear, because after a few days, when their spirits have cooled down somewhat, the damage has already been inflicted and the evils suffered, and there is no longer any remedy for them. Now the people will rally around their prince even more, for it would appear that he is bound to them by obligations, since their homes were burned and their possessions destroyed in his defence. The nature of men is such that they find themselves obligated as much for the benefits they confer as for those they receive .. Thus, if everything is taken into consideration, it will not be difficult for a prudent prince to keep the spirits of his citizens firm during the siege before and after this destruction, so long as he does not lack sufficient food and weapons for his defence. 40 The Prince XI Of ecclesiastical principalities [De principatibus ecclesiasticis] ecclesiastical principalities now remain to be discussed. Concerning these, all the problems occur before they are acquired, since they are acquired. either through virtue or through Fortune, and are maintained without one or the other. They are sustained by the ancient institutions of religion, which are so powerful and of such a quality that they keep their princes in power no matter how they act and live their lives. These princes alone have states and do not defend them; have subjects and do not govern them; and their states, though undefended, are never taken away from them; and their subjects, being ungoverned, show no concern, and do not think about severing their ties with them, nor are they able to. These principalities, then, are the only secure and successful ones. However, since they are protected by higher causes, that the human mind is unable to fathom, I shall not discuss them: being exalted and maintained by God, it would be the act of a presumptuous and foolhardy man to do so.* Nevertheless, someone might ask me why it is that the Church, in temporal matters, has arrived at such power when, until the time of Alexander, the Italian powers-not just those who were the established rulers, but every baron and lord, no matter how weak-considered her temporal power as insignificant, and now a King of France trembles before it, and it has been able to throw him out of Italy and to ruin the Venetians. Although this situation may already be known, it does not seem superfluous to me to recall it in some detail. Before Charles, King of France, invaded Italy, this province was under the power of the Pope, the Venetians, the King of Naples, the Duke of Milan, and the Florentines. These rulers had two major concerns: first, .that a foreigner might enter Italy with his armies; second, that no one of them should seize more ONLY The Prince 41 territory.* Those whom they needed to watch most closely were the Pope and the Venetians. To restrain the Venetians, the alliance of all the rest was necessary, as was the case in the defence of Ferrara.* To keep the Pope in check, they made use of the Roman barons, who-divided into two factions (the Orsini and the Colonna)-always had a reason for squabbling amongst themselves. They kept the papacy weak and unstable, standing with their weapons in hand right under the eyes of the Pope. And although from time to time there arose a courageous pope like Pope Sixtus,* neither Fortune nor his wisdom could ever free him from these difficulties. The brevity of the reigns of the popes was the cause. In ten years (their average life expectancy), a p~pe might put down one of the factions with difficulty. If, for example, one pope almost wiped out the Colonna, a new pope who was the enemy of the Orsini would emerge, enabling the Colonna to grow powerful again, and yet he would not have sufficient time to destroy the Orsini. As a consequence, the temporal powers of the Pope were little respected in Italy. Then Alexander VI came to power, and he, more than any of the popes who ever reigned, demonstrated how well a pope could succeed with money and his own troops. With Duke Valentino as his instrument and the French invasion as his opportunity, he achieved all those things that I discussed earlier in describing the actions of the Duke. And although his intention was to make the Duke and not the Church great, nevertheless, what he did resulted in the increase of the power of the Church, which after his death, and once the Duke was ruined, became the heir to his labours. Then came Pope Julius, and he found the Church powerful, possessing all of the Romagna, having destroyed the Roman barons, and having annihilated their factions by Alexander's blows. He also found the way open for the accumulation of wealth by a method never before used by Alexander or his predecessors.* These· practices Julius not only continued but also increased, and he planned to capture Bologna, to wipe out the Venetians, and to drive the French out of Italy.· He succeeded in all these undertakings, and he is worthy of even more praise, since he did 42 The Prince everything in order to increase the power of the Church, and not for any private individual. He also managed to keep the Orsini and the Colonna factions in the same condition in which he found them. Although there were some leaders among them who wanted to make changes, there were two things which held them back: first, the power of the Church, which frightened them; and second, not having any of their own family as cardinals, for these men were the source of the conflicts among them. These factions will never be at peace as long as they have cardinals, since such men foster factions (both in Rome and outside the city), and those barons are compelled to defend them. And thus, from the ambitions of the priests are born the disorders and the quarrels among the barons. Therefore, His Holiness Pope Leo* has found the papacy extremely powerful. It is to be hoped that, if his predecessors made it great by feats of arms, he will make it extremely great and venerable through his natural goodness and his countless virtues.* XII Of the various kinds of troops and mercenary soldiers [Quot sunt genera militiae et de mercenaries militibus] HAVING treated in detail all the characteristics of those principalities that I proposed to discuss at the beginning, and having considered, to some extent, the reasons for their success or failure, and having demonstrated the methods by which many have tried to acquire them and to maintain them, it remains for me now to speak in general terms of the kinds of offence and defence that can be adopted by each of the previously mentioned principalities. We have said above that a prince must have laid fii:m foundations; otherwise he will necessarily come to ruin. And the principal foundations of all states, the new as well as the old or the mixed, are good laws and good armies. Since good laws cannot The Prince 43 exist where there are no good armies, and where good armies exist there must be good laws, I shall leave aside the arguments about laws and shall discuss the armed forces. I say, then, that the armies with which a prince defends his state are made up of his own troops, or mercenaries, or auxiliaries, or of mixed troops. Mercenaries and auxiliaries _are useless and dangerous. If a prince holds on to his state by means of mercenary armies, he will never be stable or secure. Mercenaries are disunited, ambitious, undisciplined,.and disloyal. They are brave with their friends; with their enemies, . they are cowards. They have no fear of God, and they keep no faith with men. Their ruin is deferred only so long as an attack is deferred. In peacetime you are plundered by them, in war by your enemies. The reason for this is that they have no other love nor other motive to keep them in the field than a meagre salary, which is not enough to make them want to die for you. They love being your soldiers when you are not waging war, but when war comes, they either flee or desert. This would require little effort to demonstrate, since the present ruin of Italy is caused by nothing other than its having relied on mercenary troops for a period of many years. These forces did, on occasion, help some to get ahead, and they appeared courageous in combat with other mercenaries. But when the invasion of the foreigner came,* they showed themselves for what they were, and thus Charles, King of France, was permitted to take Italy with a piece of chalk.* The man who said that our sins were the cause of this disaster spoke the truth;* but they were not at all those sins he had in mind, but rather these I have recounted; and because they were the sins of princes, the princes in turn have suffered the punishment for them. I wish to demonstrate more fully the failure of such armies. Mercenary captains are either excellent men or they are not. If they .are, you cannot trust them, since they will always aspire to their own greatness, either by oppressing you, who are their masters, or by oppressing others against your intent; but if the captain is without ability, he usually ruins you. If someone were to reply that anyone who bears arms will act in this manner, mercenary or not, I would answer that armies have to be The Prince 44 command.ed either by a prince or by a republic. The prince must go in person and perform the office of captain himself. A republic must send its own citizens, and when it sends one who does not .turn out to be an able man, it must replace him. If he is capable, the republic must restrain him with laws so that he does not exceed his authority. We see from experience that only princes and republics armed with their own troops make very great progress, and that mercenaries cause nothing but damage. A republic armed with _its own citizens is less likely to come under the rule of one of its citizens than a city armed with foreign soldiers. Rome and Sparta for many centuries stood armed and free. The Swiss are extremely well armed and are very free. An example from antiquity of the use of mercenary troops is the Carthaginians. They were almost overcome by their own mercenary soldiers after the first war with the Romans, even though the Carthaginians had their own citizens as officers. Philip of Macedon was made captain of their army by the Thebans after the death of Epaminondas, and after the victory he took their liberty away from them. After the death of Duke Filippo, the Milanese employed Francesco Sforza to wage .war against the Venetians; having defeated the enemy at Caravaggio,* he joined with them to oppress the Milanese, his employers. Sforza, his father,* being in the employ of Queen Giovanna of Naples, all at once left her without defences. Because of this, so as not to lose her kingdom, she was forced to throw herself into the lap of the King of Aragon. And if the Venetians and the Florentines have in the past increased their dominion with such soldiers, and their captains have not yet made themselves princes but have, instead, defended them, I answer that the Florentines have been favoured in this matter by luck. Among their able captains whom they could have had reason to fear, some did not win, others met with opposition, and others turned their ambition elsewhere. The one who did not win was John Hawkwood, whose loyalty will never be known since he did not win. But anyone will admit that, had he succeeded, the Florentines would have been at his mercy. Sforza always had Braccio's soldiers as enemies, so that each checked the The Prince 45 other. Francesco turned his ambition to T,ombardy, Braccio against the Church and the Kingdom of Naples. But let us come to what has occurred just recently. The Florentines made Paulo Vitelli their captain, a very able man and one who rose from being a private citizen to achieve great prestige. If he had captured Pisa, no one would deny that the Florentines would have had to become his ally. Ifhe had become employed by their enemies, they would have had no defence, and if they had kept him on, they would have been obliged to obey him. As for the Venetians, if we examine the course they followed, we see that they operated securely and gloriously as long as they fought with their own troops (this was before they began to fight on the mainland); with their nobles and their common people armed, they fought courageously [at sea]. But when they began to fight on land, they abandoned this successful strategy and followed the usuai practices of waging war in Italy. As they first began to expand their territory on the mainland, since they did not have much to control there and enjoyed great prestige, they had little to fear from their captains. When their territory increased, which happened under Carmagnola, the Venetians had a taste of this mistake. Having found him very able (since under his command they had defeated the Duke of Milan), and knowing, on the other hand, that he had cooled off in waging war, they judged that they could no longer conquer under him, for he had no wish to do so. Yet they could not dismiss him, for fear of losing what they had acquired. So, in order to secure themselves against him, they were forced to execute him. Then they had as their captains Bar.tolomeo da Bergamo, Roberto da San Severino, the Count of Pitigliano, and the like. With men such as these they had to fear their losses, not their acquisitions, as occurred later at Vaila, * where, in a single day,* they lost what had cost them eight hundred years of exhausting effort to acquire.* From these kinds of soldiers, therefore, come only slow, tardy, and weak conquests but sudden and astonishing losses. And since with these examples I have begun to treat of Italy, which for many years has been ruled by mercenary soldiers, I should like to discuss them in greater depth, so that once their The Prince origins and developments are uncovered they can be more easily corrected. You must, then, understand how in recent times, when the Empire began to be driven out ofltaly and the Pope began to win more prestige in temporal affairs, Italy was divided into many states. Many of the large cities took up arms against their nobles, who (at first backed by the Emperor) had kept them under their control. The Church supported these cities to increase its temporal power; in many other cities, citizens became princes. Hence, after Italy came almost entirely into the hands of the Church and of several republics, those priests and other citizens who were not accustomed to bearing arms began to hire foreigners. The first to give prestige to such troops was Alberigo of Conio from the Romagna. From this man's training emerged, among .others, Braccio and Sforza, who in their day were the arbiters of Italy. After them came all the others who have commanded these soldiers until the present day. The result of their skills has been that Italy has been overrun by Charles, plundered by Louis, violated by Ferdinand, and insulted by the Swiss. Their method was, first, to increase the prestige of their own soldiers by taking away the prestige of the infantry. They did so because they were men without a state of their own, who lived by their profession; a small number of foot-soldiers could not give them prestige, and they could not afford to hire a large number of them. So they relied completely upon cavalry, since for possessing only a reasonable number of horsemen they were provided for and honoured. They reduced matters to such a state that in an army of twenty thousand troops, one could hardly find two __thousand footsoldiers. Besides this, they had used every means to spare themselves and their soldiers fear and hardship, not killing each other in their scuffies, but instead taking each other prisoner without demanding ransom. They would not attack cities at night. Those in the cities would not attack the tents of the besiegers. They built neither stockades nor trenches around their camps. They did not campaign in the winter. And all these things were permitted by their military institutions and gave them a means of escaping hardships and dangers, as was mentioned. As a result, these condottieri have conducted Italy into slavery and disgrace.* The Prince 47 XIII Of auxiliary, mixed, and citizen soldiers [De militibus auxiliariis, mixtis et propriis] THE other kind of worthless army, auxiliary troops, are those that arrive when you call a powerful prince to bring his forces to your aid and defence, as was done in recent times by Pope Julius, who, having witnessed the sad showing of his mercenary soldiers in the · campaign of Ferrara, turned to auxiliary soldiers and made an agreement with Ferdinand, King of Spain, that he should assist him with his soldiers and his armies.* These soldiers can be useful and good in themselves, but for the man who summons them they are almost always harmful. If they lose, you are destroyed; if they win, you end up their prisoner. And although ancient histories are full of such examples, nevertheless I do not wish to leave unexamined this recent example of Pope Julius, whose policy could not have been more poorly considered; for he threw himself completely into the hands of a foreigner in his desire to take Ferrara. But his good luck caused a third development, so that he did not reap the fruits of his ill-advised decision. After his auxiliaries were routed at Ravenna,* the Swiss rose up and chased out the victors, to the surprise of Pope Julius as well as everyone else. Thus, he was neither taken prisoner by his enemies, who had fled, nor by his auxiliaries, since he triumphed with troops other than theirs. Completely unarmed, the Florentines engaged ten thousand French soldiers to take Pisa:* such a plan endangered them more than any of their previous predicaments. In order to oppose his neighbours, the Emperor of Constantinople* brought ten thousand Turkish troops into Greece: when the war was over they did not want to leave, and this was the beginning of Greek servitude under the infidel. Anyone, therefore, who wishes to be unable to win should make use of these soldiers, for they are much more dangerous than mercenary troops. With them ruin is assured, for they are The Prince completely united and completely under the command of others. Whereas, after they have been victorious mercenaries require more time and a better opportunity if they are to injure you, for they are not a single body of men and they have been brought together and paid by you. Any third party whom you might make their commander cannot immediately seize enough authority to harm you. In short, with mercenaries the greatest danger is their reluctance to fight; with auxiliaries, their military virtue. A wise prince has always avoided these soldiers and has turned to his own troops. He has preferred to lose with his own troops rather than to win with those of others, judging that to be no true victory which has been gained by means of foreign troops. I shall never hesitate to cite Cesare Borgia and his actions. This Duke entered the Romagna with auxiliary troops, leading an army composed entirely of Frenchmen; and with them he captured Imola and Forli. * But not considering such troops reliable, he turned to mercenary forces, judging them to be less dangerous, and he hired the Orsini and the Vitelli. When he found, in managing them, that they were unreliable, disloyal, and dangerous, he got rid of them and turned to his own men. And it is easy to see the difference between these two sorts of troops, if we consider the difference between the Duke's reputation when he had only French troops or when he had the Orsini and the Vitelli, as opposed to when he was left with his own troops and depending on himself. We find that his prestige always grew. Never was he esteemed more highly than when everyone saw that he was completely in command of his own troops. I did not wish to depart from citing recent Italian examples, yet I do not want to omit Hiero of Syracuse, one of those I mentioned above. This man, as I said, having been named by the Syracusans commander of their armies, immediately realized that mercenary forces were useless, since their condottieri were men like our Italian condottieri. It seemed to him that he could neither keep them on nor dismiss them, so he had them all cut to pieces. Afterwards he waged war with his own troops, and not with those belonging to others. The Prince 49 I should also like to call to mind a figure from the Old Testament* that suits this topic. David offered himself to Saul to fight Goliath, the Philistine challenger. In order to give him courage, Saul armed him with his own armour, which David cast off after putting it on, declaring that with it he could not test his true worth. He therefore wished to meet the enemy with his own sling and his own knife. In short, the weapons of others slide off your back, weigh you down, or tie you up. Having freed France from the English* by means of his Fortune and his virtue, Charles VII, father of King Louis XI, recognized the necessity of arming himself with his own men, and he set up an ordinance to procure cavalry and infantry in his kingdom.* Later, his son King Louis abolished the ordinance of the infantry and began to hire Swiss troops.* This error, followed by others, as we can now observe from events, is the cause of the threats to that kingdom. By giving prestige to the Swiss, he discredited his own troops, for he did away entirely with his footsoldiers and obliged his cavalry to depend upon the abilities of others. Being accustomed to fighting with the aid of the Swiss, the French cavalry felt they could not win without them. From this, it came about that the French were not strong enough to match the Swiss, and without the Swiss they did not test their chances. The armies of France, therefore, have been mixed, partly mercenaries and partly her own troops. Armies combined together in such a fashion are much better than a purely auxiliary force or a purely mercenary army, but are greatly inferior to one's own troops. And the example just cited should suffice, for the Kingdom of France would be invincible if Charles's military institutions had been developed or preserved. But the poor judgement of men will begin something that seems good at the outset without noticing the poison concealed underneath, as I said earlier in connection with consumptive fevers. And thus anyone who does not diagnose the ills when they arise in a principality is not really wise, and this talent is given to few men. If one looks for the first signs of the downfall of the Roman Empire it will be found to have begun with the hiring of the Goths as mercenaries.* From that beginning the armed forces of the 50 The Prince Roman Empire began to be weakened, and all the virtue taken away from it was given over to the Goths. I conclude, therefore, that without having one's own soldiers, no principality is safe. On the contrary, it is completely subject to Fortune, not having the virtue that defends it faithfully in adverse times. It was always the opinion and conviction of wise men, 'quod nihil sit tam infirmum aut instabile quam fama potentie non sua vi nixa'* ['that nothing is so unhealthy or unstable as the reputation for power that is not based upon one's .own forces']. One's own soldiers are those composed either of subjects or of citizens or your own dependants; ali others are either mercenaries or auxiliaries. The means of ordering one's own arms are easily discovered, if the methods followed by those four men* I have cited above are examined, and if one observes how Philip, father of Alexander the Great,* and many republics and princes have armed and organized themselves. I take my stand entirely on such methods. XIV A prince's duty concerning military matters [Quod principem deeeat circa militiam] A PRINCE, therefore, must not have any other object nor any other thought, nor must he adopt anything as his art but war, its institutions, and its discipline; because that is the only art* befitting one who commands. This discipline is of such efficacy that not only does it ma...
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

please check on the uploaded file and let me know your feedback. Thank you for your patience.

Running head: SUMMARY AND APPLICATIONS OF THE PRINCE

Summary and Applications of the Prince
Student Name
Institutional Affiliation
Course
Date

1

SUMMARY AND APPLICATIONS OF THE PRINCE

2

Summary
The end justifies the means. This line represents Machiavelli’s ideology in his political
book, The Prince. The book acts as a practical guide for the rulers and other leaders despite its
controversies and being considered as the perfect way not to rule. In the initial chapters of the
book, Machiavelli’s concern was on autocratic rather than republican regimes. The book begins
by defining different kinds of states. He argues that all countries are principalities or republics.
Principalities are further categorized into hereditary, mixed, new, and ecclesiastical principalities.
Hereditary principalities are those that a ruler inherits while mixed principalities exist in annexed
territories. Ecclesiastical principalities were the Papal states that belonged to the Roman Catholic
church (Machiavelli, 2008). In contrast, new principalities consisted of acquired territories through
a ruler’s power, will of the people, or other cruel means. Occupying a new state requires the prince
to dominate its neighbors and ensure th...


Anonymous
Great study resource, helped me a lot.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags