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.
