Machiavelli's - "The Prince"

Machiavelli's Italy was caught in the middle of a conflict between France and Spain over control of Naples. When King Charles VIII of France set out, around the 1490's, to claim the southern Italian Kingdom, he found assistance, not resistance, from Lodovico Sforza, then Duke of Milan. The leader in Florence, Piero Medici, set out to confront the French invasion, but upon realization of the might of his opposition, he "panicked [and] rode out to meet Charles and presented him with keys to…the important fortresses in Florentine territory" (Muhlberger 1). With such leadership, it is no surprise that Italy was nothing more than a collection of weak city-states. The condition of Italy, with its fragmented populace and effeminate leaders, was a far cry from the glory and might of the Roman Empire.

Around the turn of the 16th century, the state of Florence was in turmoil; the Medici leadership was deposed and the government was in flux. Machiavelli entered the political scene around 1498-99 as Secretary to the Second Chancery of the Republic of Florence, under the rule of Piero Soderini. It is here that Niccolo would gain invaluable experience in foreign and military policy, as he rode the "political roller-coaster ride" of the times (Muhlberger 4). This, coupled with his numerous diplomatic missions with influential leaders, and his keen eye for historical interpretation, provided for the heady brew that would become the textbook of political study for centuries to come.

Machiavelli observed the state of affairs in Florence and, indeed, all of Italy and was not pleased. He longed for unity throughout Italy. He sought the pride and power Italy had known under The Roman Empire. To "Liberate Italy from the Barbarians" was his cry to his countrymen (Machiavelli 124). But there would need to be changes in the philosophy of the leadership before any change in condition could occur. For one, the army of Florence, and much of Italy, was composed of mercenary troops. To Machiavelli, an army as such was "useless and dangerous" because mercenaries were "faithless, bold amongst friends [and] cowardly against enemies" (72). We can easily find support for his stand by looking back in time to the last time Italy was united. Toward the end of the Roman Empire (476 C.E.), The Roman army had a high Barbarian content.

Niccolo also recognized the value of Roman jurisprudence. In chapter three, he succinctly lays down the factors that allowed the Romans to expand the empire as successfully as they did. In summary, he states that a successful Prince will take full control of a possession, but not alter the lives of the inhabitants more than necessary. The "Prince" must be omnipresent, but not intrusive. He maintains that, if the Prince will not occupy the conquered land, installing watchdog "colonies" will be more effective, politically and economically, than maintaining an occupying militia. Further, the utilization of "colonies will cost the Prince little…he only injures those whose lands…are taken…and all the others are…not injured and therefore easily pacified [and] fearful" (Machiavelli 37-38).

Much has been made of Machiavelli's sinister precepts, but the reader who delves deeper into the work will realize that his advice is sound, if not kind. Muhlberger concurs, as he states that "the successful Prince or Republic was not good, it was strong and pragmatic…as circumstances and advantage, not morality, demanded" (4). We all like to take the delusional walk up the altruistic road from time to time, but we should all recognize the necessity of this paradigm. As this precept relates to self preservation, a strong and pragmatic leader could not stand by and "[watch] it's neighbor become too strong", and so "preventative wars were undertaken" to secure a ruler's claim (Gauss 27).

But far from suggesting continual conquest, Machiavelli cites the Roman tactic of being the "defender of…less powerful neighbors" to ensure support in times of conflict, which will always present itself. Another Roman quality he proscribed was foresight; A Prince should "consider not only present, but also future discords…which at the beginning are easy to cure but difficult to recognize" while failing to do so creates a situation that is "easy to recognize, but difficult to cure" (39). Thus, a strong and effective Prince will enjoy success. Omniscience, coupled with a strong arm, serves to assure the power of the Prince.

Aside from conquest and manipulation, perhaps the most important premise of the Prince is that a leader should seek to win the favor of the populace, for a Prince who holds the favor of the people will find himself supported in times of peace as well as conflict. It is easier for the Prince to "satisfy" the "mass of people" as opposed to His nobility, "for the aim of the people is more honest than that of the nobility, the latter desiring to oppress, and the former merely to avoid oppression" (63-64). The Emperors of the Roman Empire followed this rule very well, keeping the population entertained with 'bread and circuses'. Machiavelli, as I have shown, does not attempt to hide his admiration for the Empire, and such is his chagrin that the Italians, who he believes to be "the direct descendants of the Romans", are lacking in every way from the examples of their ancestors. (Gauss 18).

Machiavelli's The Prince has endured throughout the centuries as a practical guide to political success. The methods presented may indeed be harsh, and perhaps most of his ideas may be antiquated in our modern times. But a strong leader who is versed in the philosophy of this brilliant man will be better off for the effort. A leader must take control of his constituency and nation, for "there is no inherent purpose in the state" without the guidance of the prince (Gauss 16).

During his time in service to Piero Soderini, Machiavelli found his place in government and politics. He was a true statesman who wanted success and prosperity for his country. He believed an organized Italy could recapture past glory. When the Medici returned however, he was exiled and it was during this time that he wrote The Prince. His motivation was two-fold: to offer what he believed to be the best advice for Italy, and to impress the Medici, in hopes that he could again be involved in the government. Sadly the latter never happed and Italy would remain fragmented until the 19th century.