A nation state can either be a Republic or a Principality and either old or new.
An old hereditary state that has been passed down the generations is easy to rule, but
taking control and then holding onto a new state is difficult.
The difficulty is reduced if you personally supervise it.
An old hereditary state such as a monarchy can be taken by destroying the entire royal
family.
This is what Alexander the Great did to conquer and hold onto the Persian empire of Darius
III.
However, states that are used to freedom must be crushed.
For those who are not yet princes, it is possible to rise to become one by carrying out two
steps: follow the example of those in the past who saw their opportunities, and be well-armed.
To keep hold of a new state securely, all resistance must be destroyed by using cruel,
swift and firm methods, but then benefits to the people should be given gradually.
A prince must win the favour of the people and dispel any hostility, but he will only
be truly secure when he can raise his own army to defend against all comers.
Mercenaries cannot be relied on.
Neither can other people’s armies.
To be successful, a prince must read history, study war and know his own land.
He must give the appearance of being good, but also know how to be evil.
He should not be afraid to be thought of as mean, as giving liberally and spending freely
will lead to ruin.
He also shouldn’t worry about being thought of as cruel, as fear is one of the only things
he can control.
A prince should be willing to use cunning if needed and deception if necessary.
He may or may not be loved, but as long as he is not hated, he is secure.
Fortresses are of little use as even though they can be used to defend against outsiders,
they do not stop you being betrayed by your own people.
A prince must be purposeful, determined, and unwavering.
He must clearly follow one path or another.
He should encourage art and craft, commerce and agriculture.
Entertain his people with spectacles and festivities, rewarding those who honour his state.
Only capable servants should be used by a prince and he should keep them under control.
Anybody who flatters, must be avoided.
Machiavelli claimed that the once-powerful princes of Italy lost their power not through
misfortune but by their own inaction and indecisiveness.
Fortune directs half of our actions, but the other half is left for us to direct through
hard-work, cautiousness and virtue.
Fortune needs to be beaten and dominated.
It is often like a torrential river that cannot be stopped, but during periods of calm, preparations
can be made to control and minimise the damage.
Machiavelli concludes by stating that a leader is needed that will follow the advice in the
book to conquer Italy and free her from the barbarians.
In 1453, Mehmed the Conqueror was nearing the end of his conquest to bring an end to
the Eastern Roman Empire.
After a 57 day siege, Constantinople fell to the Ottoman sultan, signalling the end
of the kingdom.
As soon as the triumph was complete, Mehmed settled there and moved the Ottoman capital
from Adrianople to the newly conquered city.
Constantinople was now under the rule of a new empire with a different language, different
religion and different form of government, but Mehmed’s action of settling there made
his position more durable and secure.
In fact in Machiavelli’s eyes, not staying in the city would have resulted in him not
being able to keep the city at all.
In The Prince, Machiavelli declares: “New states that have different languages
and customs from those of the prince are more difficult to maintain.
One of the prince’s most effective options is to take up residence in the new state.
By living there, the prince can address problems quickly and efficiently.
He can prevent the local officials from plundering his territory.
The subjects will be in close contact with the prince.
Therefore, those who are inclined to be good will have more reason to show their allegiance
to the prince and those who are inclined to be bad will have more reason to fear him.
Invaders will think twice before attempting to take over the state.”
A situation where a business or territory is acquired containing differing laws, languages
or customs, will bring with it many difficulties.
What is needed to keep hold of them is considerable energy and a substantial amount of good fortune.
However, being present in the new area is one of the greatest helps to achieve this
aim.
It allows a ruler to regulate, repress and control whatever they feel is necessary.
Machiavelli gives some clear advice that is still beneficial today, especially for either
a politician who may have to deal with state departments, committees and think tanks all
pushing in different directions with varying agendas, or a person in business who has to
deal with various divisions which have different strategic goals or takeovers in a company
which have existing allegiances.
In these situations you need to make your presence known.
Not just once or twice, but constantly.
Get hands-on, so you can deal immediately with any challenges as and when they occur.
Do not risk them increasing in severity by putting them off until later.
“If one is on the spot, disorders are seen as they spring up and one can quickly deal
with them.
But if one is not at hand they are heard of only when they have become serious and by
then it is too late.”
In today’s world, being physically present is not always possible.
If you have national or international responsibilities, you can’t be in more than one place at once.
Being present today means being engaged and informed.
To lead, you must make yourself available and be prepared to show the way for others.
Many high-flying CEOs are up early sending emails and working late into the night; answering
questions and offering their observations.
Failure to be engaged according to Machiavelli, spells doom.
It is easy to get excited about the possibilities of the future but the main priority should
be to manage the here and now.
If today is not managed well, the visions and dreams of tomorrow will never become reality.
Machiavelli urges you to live for today - for the present - rather than for tomorrow:
“How one lives is so far distant from how one ought to live, that he who neglects what
is done for what ought to be done, sooner effects his ruin than his preservation.”
Louis XII of France made several mistakes according to Machiavelli, when attempting
to occupy Milan and other Italian land.
Not being present in territory with largely different customs and language was just one
of them.
King Louis entered into Italy at the request of the Venetians, who were campaigning against
Lombardy and wanted an ally.
By conquering Lombardy, Louis gained the friendship of many surrounding small states.
However, instead of allying with them Louis decided to partner with Pope Alexander VI,
who was far more powerful.
He decided to crush the small powers rather than large ones, which led him to be alienated
and weakened his position.
As a politician and leader, the Pope had vastly expanded the power and territory of his Catholic
church and Louis XII had helped him do that.
Machiavelli points out that by making others more powerful, you weaken your own position.
“Whoever is responsible for another's becoming powerful ruins himself.”
By bringing in a foreign power instead of guarding against them, Louis XII made another
mistake.
Many residents of Milan that were not happy with King Louis were drawn to the Pope, simply
as a result of the hatred they felt against their current ruler.
As he did not live in Italy, he could not quickly deal with these issues and as he did
not establish any colonies there, wasn’t able to increase his influence in the area.
Eventually, he ended up losing all his Italian territories.
When the King of France, Louis XII was threatening to retake Milan from the Swiss, Machiavelli
was asked by his friend what advice would he give to the Pope at the time.
Should he side with the French, the Swiss or stay neutral?
Machiavelli answered that he should support the French.
In his view, staying neutral when two others are fighting would lead to defeat for the
neutral party, as they have left themselves in a position to be hated by both sides.
If one side has performed favours for the uncommitted party or they are old friends
(as Louis XII was with Pope Alexander VI), then they may feel that they are obliged to
side with them and failure to do so could result in hatred.
The other side will also feel contempt for the neutral party as they will be seen as
timid, indecisive and not an enemy to be feared.
As he explains in The Prince, by not throwing your hat in the ring and declaring which side
you’re on, you will be at the mercy of the conqueror and will also earn the scorn of
the loser: “A prince is also much respected but he
is either a true friend or a downright enemy.
In other words, when he declares himself without any reservation in favour of one party against
the other.
This will always be more favourable than remaining neutral.”
It’s fair to say that Machiavelli was not a fan of neutrality as a policy as it often
leads to weakness.
He identifies indecision as a destructive vice in a leader.
There is an obvious risk associated with picking a side, but to not pick a side is indecisive,
unforgivable and eventually fatal in his eyes.
Action is often preferable to inaction, even if it leads to eventual defeat.
“Princes who are irresolute usually follow the path of neutrality in order to escape
immediate danger, and usually come to grief.”
That’s not to say you should just pick any old side.
It matters who you choose as friends and as enemies too.
But in the event of your side losing, people will still recognise that you took a firm
stand on the issue.
By being hesitant, dithering or just preferring to wait and see what happens in a situation
both the winners and losers of a conflict will regularly come to dislike you.
“It will always be more advantageous for you to declare yourself and to wage a vigorous
war.
If you do not declare yourself, you will invariably fall prey to the winner, which will be to
the pleasure and satisfaction of the loser, and you will have nothing nor anyone to protect
or to shelter you.”
If an issue needs dealing with, a decision has to be made, regardless of how uncomfortable
or controversial it may be.
You have to take a stand, otherwise both the victor and loser of the situation will lose
respect for you.
A prince is respected most when he reveals himself to be either a true friend or a real
enemy.
“The winner does not want doubtful friends who would not aid him when he was in difficulty;
and the loser will not harbour you because you did not willingly come to his aid with
your sword in hand.”
Postponing a decision should only be done if it provides you with a strategic advantage.
Overusing this tactic however, will soon show you as indecisive.
Machiavelli recommends bold action as when all is said and done and the dust has settled,
indecisiveness may lead to finding yourself without any friends.
So when following Machiavelli’s general rule on avoiding neutrality in your affairs,
which side should you choose?
If you are able to avoid it, he states you should not ally with a side more powerful
than your own.
The reason being that, if they win, you may then be in their power.
However, there have been scenarios since Machiavelli’s death that have questioned his judgement,
as he may have overlooked the value of showing discretion as a leader.
There is a difference between staying neutral due to a lack of courage and staying detached
by being cautious.
In World War II, two fascist dictators made a decision on which side they should ally
with.
Italy’s Mussolini (who read and studied Machiavelli) joined Hitler but Spain’s Franco
decided to adopt an official policy to stay neutral in the war.
Mussolini’s decisive decision was a Machiavellian move but it ultimately meant that he lost
the war which in turn led to his death.
Franco on the other hand, survived the war and ruled his country for another thirty years.
His discretion when making his decision helped enable a continuation of his reign of power.
When you have made your choice, whether your ally wins or not, if they survive they will
be appreciative of you siding with them.
If your chosen partner is victorious, they become indebted to you.
If defeated, they may protect you until you can rise again and the bond of friendship
between you will grow stronger.
Despite generally taking a negative view of human behaviour, Machiavelli does see a positive
reaction in this situation, observing that men carry enough honour and gratefulness to
not immediately turn on their allies.
In Greek mythology, many ancient Princes including the three heroes Asclepius, Achilles, and
Hercules, were nurtured and educated by a teacher that was half man, half beast.
This creature went by the name of Chiron and was known as the wisest of all the centaurs.
Chiron taught the heroes how to act like men by using a keen mind, but also how to behave
like a beast with a strong will to survive.
Machiavelli used the metaphor of Chiron to illustrate his view that Princes should use
a combination of cunning and brute force.
Failure to use both these sides of nature would result in a failure to survive.
“You must know there are two ways of contending: the one by law, the other by force.
The first method is natural to man the second to beasts, but because the first is frequently
insufficient it is essential to have recourse to the second.
Therefore it is necessary for a prince to understand how to take advantage of the beast
and the man.”
A good leader must love peace but also be well aware of how to wage war.
Civilised people use the law to settle differences and disputes.
Fighting by law is natural to men and involves using rational thinking and discussion, but
the law does not always work in our favour and therefore often proves inadequate.
In such situations, Machiavelli declares it wise to behave in a more forceful manner to
intimidate and frighten, enabling you to get your way.
It's all well and good to rule compassionately but sometimes this proves insufficient and
arms are needed to secure your position.
To stay in power, when circumstances demand it you need to act differently.
It therefore may be necessary to resort to an animalistic show of force.
“So it is necessary for a prince to know how to make use of both natures, and that
one without the other is not durable.”
When a Prince is channeling the nature of the beast, Machiavelli states that there are
two different animal instincts that he should master and mimic.
He should attempt to be both a lion and a fox.
A lion is mighty and brave, so strong that he often doesn’t even need to fight, as
his size and reputation can keep opponents (and his own people) at bay.
However, it is an error to rely only on the lion as it is not particularly crafty or shrewd,
unlike the wily fox.
What the fox lacks in strength, it makes up for in cunning, easily being able to spot
deceptions and escape traps.
This is especially important in issues of diplomacy to avoid any potential pitfalls.
“A prince, therefore, who is forced to act like beast, ought to learn from the fox and
the lion; because the lion cannot defend himself against traps, and the fox cannot defend himself
against wolves.”
To gain power and thrive, a combination of cunning and strength is required.
When civilised debate does not provide you with victory in the argument, arm-twisting
may be necessary.
However, too much force will see you viewed as a bully.
Mix your strength with craftiness, cultivate them both and use either when appropriate
to overcome any number of challenges.
This combined skill set of both beasts will make any leader a formidable opponent, as
the differing weaknesses of each beast are overcome by the other’s talents.
In The Prince, Machiavelli appreciates that rulers need to behave differently depending
on the circumstances.
Be cautious when caution is necessary and be courageous when courage is required.
Adaptability is important.
The idea of taking context into account when evaluating an act ethically is key.
Machiavelli did not advocate blindly following an ideology, nor judging behaviour according
to absolute moral standards.
Machiavelli states that Princes can come into power by various different methods: by skill,
by luck, or through being elected by their fellow citizens.
But Princes can also gain power through criminal means and in The Prince he tells stories of
two men who successfully achieved power by using wickedness.
Agathocles (361BC-289BC) was a poor, common man, born to the son of a potter.
He joined the military and through a combination of wickedness, determination and ability rose
through the ranks to the position of Praetor of Syracuse.
Not satisfied with this, he decided he wanted to become a Prince and called a supposedly
crucial meeting of the Syracusan senate.
Once everyone had assembled, he gave the signal to his soldiers, who executed all the senators
and rich men of the state.
This act of cunning and deception enabled Agathocles not only to become King of Syracuse,
but to control the state without any serious threat to his absolute power.
He even managed to withstand a Carthaginian siege on his city.
A more recent illustration of grabbing power by evil means is the case of Oliverotto da
Fermo (1475-1502).
Made an orphan as a child, he was raised by his uncle, before being sent to military school.
He was intelligent, strong and fearless, which helped him become a prominent soldier.
However, he too decided he wanted to be a commander, rather than being commanded and
arranged with his allies to take over the city of Fermo.
Writing to his uncle telling him he wanted to visit, Oliverotto returned to Fermo bringing
with him his loyal soldiers.
As part of his homecoming, he arranged a banquet inviting many important nobles and local politicians
in the town.
After the banquet, Oliverotto spoke in praise of the ruler Pope Alexander VI and his son,
but mid-conversation his soldiers came out of secret hiding places and killed all the
guests, including his uncle.
After the slaughter Oliverotto went on to besiege Fermo and seize power.
He scared the people into forming a new government in which he was the Prince and continued to
terrorise the city into obedience.
Anybody that rebelled against him was killed.
It was only thanks to the superior political skill of the Pope’s son, Cesare Borgia,
that Oliverotto lost hold of his power and Borgia later had him executed.
These two infamous rulers enhanced their power through the use of brutal, cruel and inhumane
behaviour.
Agathocles’ courage and ability made him a prince (and commendable in Machiavelli’s
eyes), but his behaviour was not virtuous and his methods lacked honour.
In other words, he got the power but not the glory and therefore didn’t get Machiavelli’s
true respect and full admiration.
Machiavelli neither praises nor condemns the method of grabbing power through wickedness.
He simply states that this tactic is criminal and dishonest, but ultimately works.
Ignoring morality and only concerned about efficiency, Machiavelli believed there are
good and bad ways to be cruel and sometimes force or violence is needed to secure your
position as a Prince.
However, once that has been achieved you must stop and let the situation heal.
A good act of cruelty has to be done all at once and then immediately end, without the
need for any further crime.
A bad cruelty is one that becomes a messy business by requiring repeated criminal behaviour.
By continuing to inflict pain and suffering on the people, they will never support you.
“So it should be noted that when he seizes a state the new ruler must determine all the
injuries that he will need to inflict.
He must inflict them once for all, and not have to renew then every day, and in that
way he will be able to set men's minds at rest and win them over to him when he confreres
benefits.
Whoever acts otherwise, either through timidity or bad advice, is always forced to have a
knife ready to his hand and he can never depend on his subject because they, suffering fresh
and continuous violence, can never feel secure with regard to him.”
The long-term success and security of the state was Machiavelli’s main concern.
For this reason, despite using a similar method to gain power, he believed Agathocles’ use
of violence may have been justified, whereas Oliverotto’s was not.
Agathocles ended his use of force soon after he took control, once he had established order
and secured the state.
As a result, the local population supported him and they helped save the state against
attackers.
Agathocles’ evil acts saved the state and ultimately benefited the people.
Therefore, for Machiavelli, the ends could justify the means.
Oliverotto on the other hand, continued to behave in a cruel and wicked manner.
Because of this, the people of Fermo did not support him and did not defend the city against
opposition.
By being unable to save the state, Oliverotto’s behaviour was not justified and the ends could
not justify the means.
The ultimate goal for Agathocles was the greater good of the state.
Oliverotto’s only goal was to better himself.
Villains are able to hold power successfully, by exploiting their crimes well.
Failure to act swiftly and decisively will mean you’ll always have to be on your guard
as someone can be plotting against you.
Machiavelli’s lesson for a Prince is this: commit all your cruelties at once.
That way less overall offence is taken by the victims, as each separate crime or injury
is felt less.
A swift, decisive strike is less painful than a thousand small cuts.
Conversely, distribute benefits to people over time and in small amounts, ensuring they’re
appreciated more.
By giving out too much at once, people will expect more later.
“Violence must be inflicted once for all; people will then forget what it tastes like
and so be less resentful.
Benefits must be conferred gradually; and in that way they will taste better.”
Modern politics contains many figures that came to power in ways that echo Machiavelli’s
examples.
Many past and current national leaders have exploited people, committed atrocities and
maintain their power through deception and killings.
In today’s world, cruelty and politics still often go hand in hand.
Machiavelli’s teachings can help you better evaluate today’s politicians by analysing
their cruel behaviour.
However, Machiavelli could not foresee modern technology and its influence on a totalitarian
state.
Cruelties can now be committed in the same way that Oliverotto did - continuously - using
technology to easily control and repress the people, allowing tyrants to reign for a generation
or more.
So how should a Prince conquer a new state?
According to Machiavelli, he should eliminate the entire old ruling family.
This will remove the greatest threat to power.
In the Russian revolution of 1917, the Bolsheviks, led by Lenin not only executed the Emperor
of Russia, Nicholas II, but also executed Machiavelli’s tactics by murdering his entire
family.
If you inflict small or non-lethal injuries on your rivals, you run the risk of angering
them but not removing the problem, which in turn could encourage and allow them to seek
revenge.
A prime example of this was the battle in China between the nationalists and the communists.
The nationalists had the smaller Red Army on the back foot.
The Red Army began a military retreat known as The Long March (1934-35) to get away.
They walked over mountains and tough terrain, with the majority of the men dying as a result.
After the Long March, the survivors set up a base and regrouped.
Mao Zedong acted as a leader on the retreat and rose to power, plotting and planning revenge
for the next decade.
It ultimately led to the Chinese communist revolution of 1949 where Mao and his army
took power and eliminated the nationalists completely, forcing them to withdraw to Taiwan.
“One has to mention that men should either be well treated or crushed because although
they can avenge themselves of lighter injuries of more serious ones they cannot.
Therefore the harm that is done to a man should be so serious that one does not stand in fear
of revenge.”
This is ruthless advice from Machiavelli.
It uses logical reasoning but lacks any consideration of ethics.
His binary choice for leaders of treating people well or destroying them is cynical
realism, as anything in between could create strong enemies.
However, I don’t think it is always the correct course of action, even when taking
into account the fact that his advice is specifically for leaders.
Consider the Mytilenian Debate during the Peloponnesian War (427 BC).
The Mytilenians were part of a group of Greek city-states led by Athens but they revolted
against the Athenian empire, hoping to be supported by the Spartans.
The help from Sparta did not arrive in time and the Mytilenians soon surrendered after
being put under siege by the Athenians.
When considering how to handle the rebellious state, two prominent arguments were put forward
in Athens in the Mytilenian Debate.
Cleon, the general, was in favour of killing all the men from Mytilene and enslaving the
women and children, a ruthless, Machiavellian-esque tactic.
Diodotus argued not to kill the men but to impose penalties and take money from the Mytilenians,
as this was in the best interest of Athens.
The votes were eventually cast in favour of Diodotus’ view and their lives were spared.
Athens imposed democracy on the rebellious land and gained financially from their decision.
Louis XII invaded Italy in an attempt to get a foothold in the country.
Italy at the time was not a united land and was made up of several city states.
Louis first conquered Milan, before continuing forward into Florence and Rome.
Wishing to then conquer Naples, Louis allied and received help from the Spanish and divided
the kingdom of Naples with the King of Spain.
However, the agreement did not take long to fall apart.
The next few years saw the Spanish fight against the French and successfully take Naples from
the French King.
Ferdinand II said of Louis: “The King of France complains that I have
twice deceived him.
He lies, the fool; I have deceived him ten times and more.”
Machiavelli believed that the attempt to take the Kingdom of Naples was a mistake by Louis
XII.
If France could have attacked Naples with their own force then they should have done
so, but if that was not possible then they should not have divided the kingdom.
Louis should not have conquered lands that could not be kept.
Machiavelli believed it is natural for us to acquire power and the riches and admiration
that come with it.
No criticism should be aimed at leaders for that.
But when you attempt to acquire something and fail to do so, criticism and blame is
fully deserved.
Machiavelli shows his cynical realism by stating that success is generally socially approved,
regardless of the means used to achieve it (even if the means are immoral and cruel).
Conversely, failure is generally socially disapproved, even if it is as a result of
your good qualities.
In today’s world, the press and media dedicate far more time to failures than any kind of
moderate success.
This is because it is more interesting to the general public, leading to more articles
read and more viewers engaged, which ultimately results in more money for the media organisations.
It is therefore very important to know your own limits: pursuing higher targets and failing,
could result in disapproval.
“The wish to acquire is in truth very natural and common and men always do so when they
can and for this they will be praised not blamed.
But when they cannot do so yet wish to do so by any means then there is folly and blame.”
Since most would-be princes cannot rely on inheriting their power and position, they
must acquire it.
Machiavelli answers the question of “how to acquire” by explaining a prince must
not depend on others and instead rely on his own arms.
This means that his forces should consist of his own subjects or citizens, not mercenaries
or soldiers borrowed from a more powerful state.
Using armies from other states puts a prince in a no-win situation as even if a battle
is won, victory is owed to the power of a different state and the troops first loyalty
is to another leader, which presents a dangerous threat.
Hiero the Syracusan was a man who followed Machiavelli’s proverb to use “one’s
own arms”.
His rise to power was not down to fortune but because of his own exceptional leadership
qualities.
Having begun life as an ordinary citizen, he was made head of the army by the Syracusans
who were persecuted at the time and was later rewarded by being made a prince.
Hiero was a tyrant and not afraid to use cruelty.
He replaced his old army with his own soldiers.
He realised that mercenaries were of no use and as he could not keep them, or risk letting
them go, he had them all killed.
By relying on himself and his own troops, once he had acquired his kingdom, he had no
trouble in keeping it.
The Roman’s move into Greece and their subsequent treatment of the Greek city states was a prime
example of how Machiavelli thought power should be acquired and maintained.
They were brought into Greece by the Aetolians.
As Machiavelli stated, when a powerful foreign party enters a country, people that have an
existing hatred or grievance with the ruling power are naturally drawn towards this new
external challenger.
Despite conquering large amounts of territory, the Romans attempted to appease the majority
of the local people and keep down any potential challengers to their power.
Several measures were taken by the Romans to ensure that they successfully added the
land of several countries to their own region.
Firstly, the Roman senate set up colonies and maintained friendly relations with weaker
powers, such as the minor Greek states of the Achaeans and Aetolians, while at the same
time ensuring they did not allow any increase in strength of these smaller states.
Secondly, they ignored requests of friendship from the stronger Kingdom of Macedonia and
when the Aetolians asked the Romans to help them fight against Philip V of Macedon, they
accepted and defeated him, significantly weakening his powerful Kingdom.
Finally, they did not allow any other strong foreign parties to gain authority.
A few years after defeating Philip V of Macedon, the Aetolians were allied with Antiochus III
of Syria.
The Romans did not agree to letting the foreign challenger Antiochus hold any state in Greece
and turned on the Aetolians, defeating them and Antiochus, significantly reducing their
overall strength too.
The Romans ensured that they did not increase the power of anyone but themselves.
They conquered neighbouring provinces and kept hold of them by following these policies
Machiavelli highlighted: indulge the lesser powers without increasing
their power put down the powerful
do not allow foreign powers to establish a reputation.
This combination of acts would leave the Romans with more power than they had before, and
every other group with less power, or no more power, than they previously had.
“He who is the cause of another becoming powerful is ruined; because that predominancy
has been brought about either by astuteness or else by force, and both are distrusted
by him who has been raised to power.”
So Machiavelli encourages Princes to establish alliances but warns not to make those allies
too strong as they can and will turn on you at some point.
When trying to establish himself in Italy, King Louis XII made the mistake of increasing
the strength of one of the greatest powers there, by coming to the aid of Pope Alexander
and the powerful Church.
Louis surrendered much of his power through treaties and the Church eventually turned
against him.
The King had already destroyed many smaller states who could have been valuable allies
against the Pope and therefore failed to keep his territories.
Machiavelli depicts power as a scarce resource.
By acting in a way that solidifies your own power, you simultaneously weaken others.
Conversely, by making others powerful is to weaken yourself.
This is important not only in diplomacy, but also in war.
Conflict is inevitable according to Machiavelli.
Political life is constant warfare and the acquisition of power is a zero-sum game.
Attempting to avoid conflict by appeasing another person and elevating their position
is a mistake.
Your “ally” will see it as a sign of weakness and turn on you using the power that you surrendered
to them.
If you have to fight, do it and get it over with.
When discussing whether it is better to be feared or loved, Machiavelli talks of two
great military leaders: the Roman General Scipio Africanus and the Carthaginian General
Hannibal.
Scipio was seen as a great commander and was held in high esteem by his men, but even though
they respected him, they did not fear him.
Machiavelli said that one of the implications of having such a reputation was that Scipio
was limited in the range of actions available to him.
Some military and political strategies and tactics he could not use as it would damage
his reputation, which was seen as spotless among his soldiers and the wider population.
While he was in Spain, the troops under Scipio’s command, rebelled.
This mutiny occured because of the discipline being too slack, rather than too tough.
Scipio was not willing to punish them for their behaviour.
At the time, when Rome was a republic, kindness, generosity and showing mercy were seen as
virtues rather than faults.
Scipio was forced to be merciful in this situation to keep himself popular as a leader.
This led to his army not fearing him as much and as a result, they were more prone to mutiny.
By enforcing some forceful discipline and instilling some fear into his men, he could
have brought them under control, but he didn’t, and Machiavelli criticises him for it.
“No prince should mind being called cruel for keeping his subjects peaceful and loyal.”
Hannibal was described as a cruel leader by Machiavelli, who believed this character trait
was an asset in his position.
The general’s army was far more diverse than Scipio’s and they travelled a further
distance to foreign lands.
To avoid internal conflicts and mutinies amongst the troops, a feared but respected leader
like Hannibal was needed.
In The Prince, Machiavelli argued that it was better to be feared than loved, and in
this regard Hannibal had a strong advantage over Scipio.
His ability to instill fear into his men and followers helped him to command a huge army
and an expansive empire.
“Among the wonderful deeds of Hannibal this one is enumerated: that having led an enormous
army, composed of many various races of men, to fight in foreign lands, no dissensions
arose either among them or against the prince, whether in his bad or in his good fortune.
This arose from nothing else than his inhuman cruelty, which, with his boundless valour,
made him revered and terrible in the sight of his soldiers, but without that cruelty,
his other virtues were not sufficient to produce this effect.”
Being brave or good at your job as a leader or boss is not enough to secure the loyalty
of your workers.
Strength and discipline is required to keep them under control.
Good leaders are admired, but strong leaders are obeyed and respected.
Being over-compassionate enables unrest and disorder.
This theory from Machiavelli has been used throughout history, from the likes of Genghis
Khan to your typical modern-day drill instructor.
Fear and intimidation has often been an effective means of motivation.
In Machiavelli’s era, Cesare Borgia inspired fear by committing several cruel acts, but
the eventual result was order and peace in a state that was powerful and united.
Machiavelli points out that every Prince would prefer to be thought of as merciful, but he
believed a Prince should not mind being thought of as cruel.
Borgia’s wicked behaviour was, in fact, actually merciful, as through his acts of
cruelty he spared his people the even worse fate of political chaos.
A prince such as Hannibal who enacts cruel punishment is not cruel if his behaviour helps
to create stability.
A prince such as Scipio who shows mercy is not really merciful if it allows turmoil and
disorder to flourish, which hurts everyone.
A limited number of severe punishments will affect a small amount of individuals, whereas
being excessively merciful can cause disorder which damages an entire community.
“On this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than
loved?
It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite
them in one person, it is much safer to be feared than loved if you cannot be both.
Because this is to be asserted in general of men, that they are ungrateful, fickle,
false, cowardly, covetous, and as long as you succeed they are yours entirely; they
will shed blood for you, risk their property, life, and children, when the danger is removed,
but when it approaches they turn against you.
And that prince who, relying entirely on their promises, takes no other precautions, is ruined;
because friendships that are bought rather than achieved by greatness or nobility of
mind, may indeed be earned, but they are not long-lasting, and in time of crisis cannot
be relied upon; and men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than one who
is feared, for love is preserved by a bond which due to the failings of men is broken
at every opportunity to their advantage, but fear is strengthened by the dread of punishment
which is always effective.”
That was arguably the most famous statement Machiavelli made.
It is also often one of the most misunderstood.
Firstly, in an ideal world, Machiavelli said that it is best to be feared and loved, but
his realism points out that the two do not coincide very often.
Many take his argument that it is better to be feared than loved at face value and out
of context, giving the impression that it is simply encouraging tyrannical and dictatorial
behaviour.
This has led to centuries of abuse by bullies throughout history.
However, when taken in the context of what Machiavelli advocates as a Prince’s ultimate
goal - to maintain the state - we can see that this goal requires the people to be compliant,
which fear helps to achieve.
Machiavelli does not support using cruelty for its own sake, only to benefit the Prince
in preserving the state.
By using his power to protect his citizens and by not interfering too much in their lives,
a prince can be feared but not hated.
It is important for a prince to avoid being hated at all costs as Machiavelli believed
it is deadly for a leader, because hatred could result in them being overthrown by their
subjects.
Alternatively, if the people fear their prince, the fear acts as a more powerful commitment
of support.
This is due to the people’s fear of what a lack of support could lead to.
To achieve fear but not hatred, a prince must only be cruel when absolutely necessary and
should not injure his people, nor should he confiscate their property.
The threat of punishment should be made clear though, as a leader that does so has a far
easier time of keeping control of his own subjects.
The people are more likely to comply so long as the prince does not affect their lives
or their land.
If he must impose discipline, then there must be clear and obvious cause and proper justification
if lives are to be taken.
Machiavelli advises against the taking of people’s property, as he had the dark view
of human nature that people would forgive the death of somebody they loved more quickly
than they would the stealing of their assets.
“Men more quickly forget the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony.”
Girolamo Savonarola was a friar who became extremely popular in Florence.
While he was in power, he was greatly loved by his followers.
However, once his grip on power weakened, he was abandoned by his people.
Machiavelli thought that humans are largely selfish and generally in it for themselves.
They will only support a prince if it provides a benefit to them.
They will support someone they love a lot of the time, but once the prince’s power
declines, the people can soon forget about their affection.
In other words, when the going gets tough, the people will abandon him.
“If Moses, Cyrus, Theseus, and Romulus had been unarmed they could not have enforced
their constitutions for long - as happened in our time to Fra Girolamo Savonarola, who
was ruined with his new order of things immediately the multitude believed in him no longer, and
he had no means of keeping steadfast those who believed or of making the unbelievers
to believe.”
The fear of punishment for people is a constant.
The feeling of affection is unreliable.
Therefore, when ordering rulers by their strength: The weakest depends only on love
A stronger commander inspires fear in his people
The strongest prince instills both fear and love (or at least is not hated).
So it is important as a prince to behave in a strong and decisive manner (which may even
involve being cruel), but not to a point so that people hate you for it.