The Prince - 05

oppressing them, whilst the Church was favouring them so as to gain
authority in temporal power: in many others their citizens became
princes. From this it came to pass that Italy fell partly into the
hands of the Church and of republics, and, the Church consisting of
priests and the republic of citizens unaccustomed to arms, both
commenced to enlist foreigners.
The first who gave renown to this soldiery was Alberigo da Conio,[8]
the Romagnian. From the school of this man sprang, among others,
Braccio and Sforza, who in their time were the arbiters of Italy. After
these came all the other captains who till now have directed the arms
of Italy; and the end of all their valour has been, that she has been
overrun by Charles, robbed by Louis, ravaged by Ferdinand, and insulted
by the Switzers. The principle that has guided them has been, first, to
lower the credit of infantry so that they might increase their own.
They did this because, subsisting on their pay and without territory,
they were unable to support many soldiers, and a few infantry did not
give them any authority; so they were led to employ cavalry, with a
moderate force of which they were maintained and honoured; and affairs
were brought to such a pass that, in an army of twenty thousand
soldiers, there were not to be found two thousand foot soldiers. They
had, besides this, used every art to lessen fatigue and danger to
themselves and their soldiers, not killing in the fray, but taking
prisoners and liberating without ransom. They did not attack towns at
night, nor did the garrisons of the towns attack encampments at night;
they did not surround the camp either with stockade or ditch, nor did
they campaign in the winter. All these things were permitted by their
military rules, and devised by them to avoid, as I have said, both
fatigue and dangers; thus they have brought Italy to slavery and
contempt.
[8] Alberigo da Conio. Alberico da Barbiano, Count of Cunio in
Romagna. He was the leader of the famous “Company of St George,”
composed entirely of Italian soldiers. He died in 1409.


CHAPTER XIII.
CONCERNING AUXILIARIES, MIXED SOLDIERY, AND ONE’S OWN

Auxiliaries, which are the other useless arm, are employed when a
prince is called in with his forces to aid and defend, as was done by
Pope Julius in the most recent times; for he, having, in the enterprise
against Ferrara, had poor proof of his mercenaries, turned to
auxiliaries, and stipulated with Ferdinand, King of Spain,[1] for his
assistance with men and arms. These arms may be useful and good in
themselves, but for him who calls them in they are always
disadvantageous; for losing, one is undone, and winning, one is their
captive.
[1] Ferdinand V (F. II of Aragon and Sicily, F. III of Naples),
surnamed “The Catholic,” born 1452, died 1516.
And although ancient histories may be full of examples, I do not wish
to leave this recent one of Pope Julius the Second, the peril of which
cannot fail to be perceived; for he, wishing to get Ferrara, threw
himself entirely into the hands of the foreigner. But his good fortune
brought about a third event, so that he did not reap the fruit of his
rash choice; because, having his auxiliaries routed at Ravenna, and the
Switzers having risen and driven out the conquerors (against all
expectation, both his and others), it so came to pass that he did not
become prisoner to his enemies, they having fled, nor to his
auxiliaries, he having conquered by other arms than theirs.
The Florentines, being entirely without arms, sent ten thousand
Frenchmen to take Pisa, whereby they ran more danger than at any other
time of their troubles.
The Emperor of Constantinople,[2] to oppose his neighbours, sent ten
thousand Turks into Greece, who, on the war being finished, were not
willing to quit; this was the beginning of the servitude of Greece to
the infidels.
[2] Joannes Cantacuzenus, born 1300, died 1383.
Therefore, let him who has no desire to conquer make use of these arms,
for they are much more hazardous than mercenaries, because with them
the ruin is ready made; they are all united, all yield obedience to
others; but with mercenaries, when they have conquered, more time and
better opportunities are needed to injure you; they are not all of one
community, they are found and paid by you, and a third party, which you
have made their head, is not able all at once to assume enough
authority to injure you. In conclusion, in mercenaries dastardy is most
dangerous; in auxiliaries, valour. The wise prince, therefore, has
always avoided these arms and turned to his own; and has been willing
rather to lose with them than to conquer with the others, not deeming
that a real victory which is gained with the arms of others.
I shall never hesitate to cite Cesare Borgia and his actions. This duke
entered the Romagna with auxiliaries, taking there only French
soldiers, and with them he captured Imola and Forli; but afterwards,
such forces not appearing to him reliable, he turned to mercenaries,
discerning less danger in them, and enlisted the Orsini and Vitelli;
whom presently, on handling and finding them doubtful, unfaithful, and
dangerous, he destroyed and turned to his own men. And the difference
between one and the other of these forces can easily be seen when one
considers the difference there was in the reputation of the duke, when
he had the French, when he had the Orsini and Vitelli, and when he
relied on his own soldiers, on whose fidelity he could always count and
found it ever increasing; he was never esteemed more highly than when
every one saw that he was complete master of his own forces.
I was not intending to go beyond Italian and recent examples, but I am
unwilling to leave out Hiero, the Syracusan, he being one of those I
have named above. This man, as I have said, made head of the army by
the Syracusans, soon found out that a mercenary soldiery, constituted
like our Italian condottieri, was of no use; and it appearing to him
that he could neither keep them nor let them go, he had them all cut to
pieces, and afterwards made war with his own forces and not with
aliens.
I wish also to recall to memory an instance from the Old Testament
applicable to this subject. David offered himself to Saul to fight with
Goliath, the Philistine champion, and, to give him courage, Saul armed
him with his own weapons; which David rejected as soon as he had them
on his back, saying he could make no use of them, and that he wished to
meet the enemy with his sling and his knife. In conclusion, the arms of
others either fall from your back, or they weigh you down, or they bind
you fast.
Charles the Seventh,[3] the father of King Louis the Eleventh,[4]
having by good fortune and valour liberated France from the English,
recognized the necessity of being armed with forces of his own, and he
established in his kingdom ordinances concerning men-at-arms and
infantry. Afterwards his son, King Louis, abolished the infantry and
began to enlist the Switzers, which mistake, followed by others, is, as
is now seen, a source of peril to that kingdom; because, having raised
the reputation of the Switzers, he has entirely diminished the value of
his own arms, for he has destroyed the infantry altogether; and his
men-at-arms he has subordinated to others, for, being as they are so
accustomed to fight along with Switzers, it does not appear that they
can now conquer without them. Hence it arises that the French cannot
stand against the Switzers, and without the Switzers they do not come
off well against others. The armies of the French have thus become
mixed, partly mercenary and partly national, both of which arms
together are much better than mercenaries alone or auxiliaries alone,
but much inferior to one’s own forces. And this example proves it, for
the kingdom of France would be unconquerable if the ordinance of
Charles had been enlarged or maintained.
[3] Charles VII of France, surnamed “The Victorious,” born 1403, died
1461.
[4] Louis XI, son of the above, born 1423, died 1483.
But the scanty wisdom of man, on entering into an affair which looks
well at first, cannot discern the poison that is hidden in it, as I
have said above of hectic fevers. Therefore, if he who rules a
principality cannot recognize evils until they are upon him, he is not
truly wise; and this insight is given to few. And if the first disaster
to the Roman Empire[5] should be examined, it will be found to have
commenced only with the enlisting of the Goths; because from that time
the vigour of the Roman Empire began to decline, and all that valour
which had raised it passed away to others.
[5] “Many speakers to the House the other night in the debate on the
reduction of armaments seemed to show a most lamentable ignorance of
the conditions under which the British Empire maintains its existence.
When Mr Balfour replied to the allegations that the Roman Empire sank
under the weight of its military obligations, he said that this was
‘wholly unhistorical.’ He might well have added that the Roman power
was at its zenith when every citizen acknowledged his liability to
fight for the State, but that it began to decline as soon as this
obligation was no longer recognised.”—_Pall Mall Gazette_, 15th May
1906.
I conclude, therefore, that no principality is secure without having
its own forces; on the contrary, it is entirely dependent on good
fortune, not having the valour which in adversity would defend it. And
it has always been the opinion and judgment of wise men that nothing
can be so uncertain or unstable as fame or power not founded on its own
strength. And one’s own forces are those which are composed either of
subjects, citizens, or dependents; all others are mercenaries or
auxiliaries. And the way to make ready one’s own forces will be easily
found if the rules suggested by me shall be reflected upon, and if one
will consider how Philip, the father of Alexander the Great, and many
republics and princes have armed and organized themselves, to which
rules I entirely commit myself.


CHAPTER XIV.
THAT WHICH CONCERNS A PRINCE ON THE SUBJECT OF THE ART OF WAR

A prince ought to have no other aim or thought, nor select anything
else for his study, than war and its rules and discipline; for this is
the sole art that belongs to him who rules, and it is of such force
that it not only upholds those who are born princes, but it often
enables men to rise from a private station to that rank. And, on the
contrary, it is seen that when princes have thought more of ease than
of arms they have lost their states. And the first cause of your losing
it is to neglect this art; and what enables you to acquire a state is
to be master of the art. Francesco Sforza, through being martial, from
a private person became Duke of Milan; and the sons, through avoiding
the hardships and troubles of arms, from dukes became private persons.
For among other evils which being unarmed brings you, it causes you to
be despised, and this is one of those ignominies against which a prince
ought to guard himself, as is shown later on. Because there is nothing
proportionate between the armed and the unarmed; and it is not
reasonable that he who is armed should yield obedience willingly to him
who is unarmed, or that the unarmed man should be secure among armed
servants. Because, there being in the one disdain and in the other
suspicion, it is not possible for them to work well together. And
therefore a prince who does not understand the art of war, over and
above the other misfortunes already mentioned, cannot be respected by
his soldiers, nor can he rely on them. He ought never, therefore, to
have out of his thoughts this subject of war, and in peace he should
addict himself more to its exercise than in war; this he can do in two
ways, the one by action, the other by study.
As regards action, he ought above all things to keep his men well
organized and drilled, to follow incessantly the chase, by which he
accustoms his body to hardships, and learns something of the nature of
localities, and gets to find out how the mountains rise, how the
valleys open out, how the plains lie, and to understand the nature of
rivers and marshes, and in all this to take the greatest care. Which
knowledge is useful in two ways. Firstly, he learns to know his
country, and is better able to undertake its defence; afterwards, by
means of the knowledge and observation of that locality, he understands
with ease any other which it may be necessary for him to study
hereafter; because the hills, valleys, and plains, and rivers and
marshes that are, for instance, in Tuscany, have a certain resemblance
to those of other countries, so that with a knowledge of the aspect of
one country one can easily arrive at a knowledge of others. And the
prince that lacks this skill lacks the essential which it is desirable
that a captain should possess, for it teaches him to surprise his
enemy, to select quarters, to lead armies, to array the battle, to
besiege towns to advantage.
Philopoemen,[1] Prince of the Achaeans, among other praises which
writers have bestowed on him, is commended because in time of peace he
never had anything in his mind but the rules of war; and when he was in
the country with friends, he often stopped and reasoned with them: “If
the enemy should be upon that hill, and we should find ourselves here
with our army, with whom would be the advantage? How should one best
advance to meet him, keeping the ranks? If we should wish to retreat,
how ought we to pursue?” And he would set forth to them, as he went,
all the chances that could befall an army; he would listen to their
opinion and state his, confirming it with reasons, so that by these
continual discussions there could never arise, in time of war, any
unexpected circumstances that he could not deal with.
[1] Philopoemen, “the last of the Greeks,” born 252 B.C., died 183
B.C.
But to exercise the intellect the prince should read histories, and
study there the actions of illustrious men, to see how they have borne
themselves in war, to examine the causes of their victories and defeat,
so as to avoid the latter and imitate the former; and above all do as
an illustrious man did, who took as an exemplar one who had been
praised and famous before him, and whose achievements and deeds he
always kept in his mind, as it is said Alexander the Great imitated
Achilles, Caesar Alexander, Scipio Cyrus. And whoever reads the life of
Cyrus, written by Xenophon, will recognize afterwards in the life of
Scipio how that imitation was his glory, and how in chastity,
affability, humanity, and liberality Scipio conformed to those things
which have been written of Cyrus by Xenophon. A wise prince ought to
observe some such rules, and never in peaceful times stand idle, but
increase his resources with industry in such a way that they may be
available to him in adversity, so that if fortune chances it may find
him prepared to resist her blows.


CHAPTER XV.
CONCERNING THINGS FOR WHICH MEN, AND ESPECIALLY PRINCES, ARE PRAISED OR
BLAMED

It remains now to see what ought to be the rules of conduct for a
prince towards subject and friends. And as I know that many have
written on this point, I expect I shall be considered presumptuous in
mentioning it again, especially as in discussing it I shall depart from
the methods of other people. But, it being my intention to write a
thing which shall be useful to him who apprehends it, it appears to me
more appropriate to follow up the real truth of the matter than the
imagination of it; for many have pictured republics and principalities
which in fact have never been known or seen, because 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; for a man who wishes to act entirely up to his
professions of virtue soon meets with what destroys him among so much
that is evil.
Hence it is necessary for a prince wishing to hold his own to know how
to do wrong, and to make use of it or not according to necessity.
Therefore, putting on one side imaginary things concerning a prince,
and discussing those which are real, I say that all men when they are
spoken of, and chiefly princes for being more highly placed, are
remarkable for some of those qualities which bring them either blame or
praise; and thus it is that one is reputed liberal, another miserly,
using a Tuscan term (because an avaricious person in our language is
still he who desires to possess by robbery, whilst we call one miserly
who deprives himself too much of the use of his own); one is reputed
generous, one rapacious; one cruel, one compassionate; one faithless,
another faithful; one effeminate and cowardly, another bold and brave;
one affable, another haughty; one lascivious, another chaste; one
sincere, another cunning; one hard, another easy; one grave, another
frivolous; one religious, another unbelieving, and the like. And I know
that every one will confess that it would be most praiseworthy in a
prince to exhibit all the above qualities that are considered good; but
because they can neither be entirely possessed nor observed, for human
conditions do not permit it, it is necessary for him to be sufficiently
prudent that he may know how to avoid the reproach of those vices which
would lose him his state; and also to keep himself, if it be possible,
from those which would not lose him it; but this not being possible, he
may with less hesitation abandon himself to them. And again, he need
not make himself uneasy at incurring a reproach for those vices without
which the state can only be saved with difficulty, for if everything is
considered carefully, it will be found that something which looks like
virtue, if followed, would be his ruin; whilst something else, which
looks like vice, yet followed brings him security and prosperity.


CHAPTER XVI.
CONCERNING LIBERALITY AND MEANNESS

Commencing then with the first of the above-named characteristics, I
say that it would be well to be reputed liberal. Nevertheless,
liberality exercised in a way that does not bring you the reputation
for it, injures you; for if one exercises it honestly and as it should
be exercised, it may not become known, and you will not avoid the
reproach of its opposite. Therefore, any one wishing to maintain among
men the name of liberal is obliged to avoid no attribute of
magnificence; so that a prince thus inclined will consume in such acts
all his property, and will be compelled in the end, if he wish to
maintain the name of liberal, to unduly weigh down his people, and tax
them, and do everything he can to get money. This will soon make him
odious to his subjects, and becoming poor he will be little valued by
any one; thus, with his liberality, having offended many and rewarded
few, he is affected by the very first trouble and imperilled by
whatever may be the first danger; recognizing this himself, and wishing
to draw back from it, he runs at once into the reproach of being
miserly.
Therefore, a prince, not being able to exercise this virtue of
liberality in such a way that it is recognized, except to his cost, if
he is wise he ought not to fear the reputation of being mean, for in
time he will come to be more considered than if liberal, seeing that
with his economy his revenues are enough, that he can defend himself
against all attacks, and is able to engage in enterprises without
burdening his people; thus it comes to pass that he exercises
liberality towards all from whom he does not take, who are numberless,
and meanness towards those to whom he does not give, who are few.
We have not seen great things done in our time except by those who have
been considered mean; the rest have failed. Pope Julius the Second was
assisted in reaching the papacy by a reputation for liberality, yet he
did not strive afterwards to keep it up, when he made war on the King
of France; and he made many wars without imposing any extraordinary tax
on his subjects, for he supplied his additional expenses out of his
long thriftiness. The present King of Spain would not have undertaken
or conquered in so many enterprises if he had been reputed liberal. A
prince, therefore, provided that he has not to rob his subjects, that
he can defend himself, that he does not become poor and abject, that he
is not forced to become rapacious, ought to hold of little account a
reputation for being mean, for it is one of those vices which will
enable him to govern.
And if any one should say: Caesar obtained empire by liberality, and
many others have reached the highest positions by having been liberal,
and by being considered so, I answer: Either you are a prince in fact,
or in a way to become one. In the first case this liberality is
dangerous, in the second it is very necessary to be considered liberal;
and Caesar was one of those who wished to become pre-eminent in Rome;
but if he had survived after becoming so, and had not moderated his
expenses, he would have destroyed his government. And if any one should
reply: Many have been princes, and have done great things with armies,
who have been considered very liberal, I reply: Either a prince spends
that which is his own or his subjects’ or else that of others. In the
first case he ought to be sparing, in the second he ought not to
neglect any opportunity for liberality. And to the prince who goes
forth with his army, supporting it by pillage, sack, and extortion,
handling that which belongs to others, this liberality is necessary,
otherwise he would not be followed by soldiers. And of that which is
neither yours nor your subjects’ you can be a ready giver, as were
Cyrus, Caesar, and Alexander; because it does not take away your
reputation if you squander that of others, but adds to it; it is only
squandering your own that injures you.
And there is nothing wastes so rapidly as liberality, for even whilst
you exercise it you lose the power to do so, and so become either poor
or despised, or else, in avoiding poverty, rapacious and hated. And a
prince should guard himself, above all things, against being despised
and hated; and liberality leads you to both. Therefore it is wiser to
have a reputation for meanness which brings reproach without hatred,
than to be compelled through seeking a reputation for liberality to
incur a name for rapacity which begets reproach with hatred.


CHAPTER XVII.
CONCERNING CRUELTY AND CLEMENCY, AND WHETHER IT IS BETTER TO BE LOVED
THAN FEARED

Coming now to the other qualities mentioned above, I say that every
prince ought to desire to be considered clement and not cruel.
Nevertheless he ought to take care not to misuse this clemency. Cesare
Borgia was considered cruel; notwithstanding, his cruelty reconciled
the Romagna, unified it, and restored it to peace and loyalty. And if
this be rightly considered, he will be seen to have been much more
merciful than the Florentine people, who, to avoid a reputation for
cruelty, permitted Pistoia to be destroyed.[1] Therefore a prince, so
long as he keeps his subjects united and loyal, ought not to mind the
reproach of cruelty; because with a few examples he will be more
merciful than those who, through too much mercy, allow disorders to
arise, from which follow murders or robberies; for these are wont to
injure the whole people, whilst those executions which originate with a
prince offend the individual only.
[1] During the rioting between the Cancellieri and Panciatichi
factions in 1502 and 1503.
And of all princes, it is impossible for the new prince to avoid the
imputation of cruelty, owing to new states being full of dangers. Hence
Virgil, through the mouth of Dido, excuses the inhumanity of her reign
owing to its being new, saying:
“Res dura, et regni novitas me talia cogunt
Moliri, et late fines custode tueri.”[2]
Nevertheless he ought to be slow to believe and to act, nor should he
himself show fear, but proceed in a temperate manner with prudence and
humanity, so that too much confidence may not make him incautious and
too much distrust render him intolerable.
[2] . . . against my will, my fate
A throne unsettled, and an infant state,
Bid me defend my realms with all my pow’rs,
And guard with these severities my shores.
Christopher Pitt.
Upon 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, when, of the two, either must be
dispensed with. 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 offer you their blood,
property, life, and children, as is said above, when the need is far
distant; but when it approaches they turn against you. And that prince
who, relying entirely on their promises, has neglected other
precautions, is ruined; because friendships that are obtained by
payments, and not by greatness or nobility of mind, may indeed be
earned, but they are not secured, and in time of need 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 the link of obligation
which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for
their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which
never fails.
Nevertheless a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he
does not win love, he avoids hatred; because he can endure very well
being feared whilst he is not hated, which will always be as long as he
abstains from the property of his citizens and subjects and from their
women. But when it is necessary for him to proceed against the life of
someone, he must do it on proper justification and for manifest cause,
but above all things he must keep his hands off the property of others,
because men more quickly forget the death of their father than the loss
of their patrimony. Besides, pretexts for taking away the property are
never wanting; for he who has once begun to live by robbery will always
find pretexts for seizing what belongs to others; but reasons for
taking life, on the contrary, are more difficult to find and sooner
lapse. But when a prince is with his army, and has under control a
multitude of soldiers, then it is quite necessary for him to disregard
the reputation of cruelty, for without it he would never hold his army
united or disposed to its duties.
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. And short-sighted writers admire his
deeds from one point of view and from another condemn the principal
cause of them. That it is true his other virtues would not have been
sufficient for him may be proved by the case of Scipio, that most
excellent man, not only of his own times but within the memory of man,
against whom, nevertheless, his army rebelled in Spain; this arose from
nothing but his too great forbearance, which gave his soldiers more
license than is consistent with military discipline. For this he was
upbraided in the Senate by Fabius Maximus, and called the corrupter of
the Roman soldiery. The Locrians were laid waste by a legate of Scipio,
yet they were not avenged by him, nor was the insolence of the legate
punished, owing entirely to his easy nature. Insomuch that someone in