The Prince - 1 - Different Types of Principalities and How to Rule Them
Part 1 (Chapters 1 - 4)
Quote
Men must be either caressed or wiped out; because they will avenge minor injuries, but cannot do so for grave ones.
Notes
🔥 Machiavelli opens with a dedicatory letter to the Medici whom the book is for (with a bit of irony since the Medici imprisoned Machiavelli after they took over). He explains that it's customary to send gifts to a new ruler, and the most valuable gift that he (Machiavelli) has is his knowledge about how politics works, which he's set down in this book. There's no flowery language in it, he says, just short and to-the-point descriptions.
🔥 Machiavelli says that all states that have power are either republics or principalities (ie monarchies), but he'll be focusing on principalities for this book (hence, The Prince). Principalities can be older where the ruling family has been around for a long time, or they can be newer if they just took over. Where it's newer, the people in those states are either used to living under a prince or they're used to being free. In either case, power is won "either through Fortune or through virtue," and also with an army.
🔥 In states where the people are used to a prince, it's a lot easier to maintain power. Just don't "break ancient customs." It's more likely that people will like a prince who gets power by birth as long as he has "no unusual vices." Through the length of his rule, "the innovations and causes of innovations die out." People go about their business mostly undisturbed, and they don't try anything funny to disrupt the prince's rule.
🔥 It's much harder for a new prince who's just taken over. They are much more prone to violent uprisings because they have to use violence to take power, which creates many enemies and leaves people who "think they can better themselves." Even if you have a powerful army, you still need the support of the inhabitants to seize a region.
🔥 Dealing with a rebellion early on requires some restraint. But dealing with a second rebellion is easier because the prince is less reticent about "punishing offenders and ferreting out suspects." Though it is still possible to lose for a second time.
🔥 When you're conquering a place to add to your dominion, it's easier if the people there speak the same language and have similar customs as you, and if they're "unaccustomed to freedom." In that case, you can just wipe out the ruling family and make sure you don't change any of the people's old customs.
🔥 In cases where the people don't have the same language, one of the best strategies is for the prince to go and live in the conquered region himself. That way the prince can spot trouble early, rather than only hear about later after it's had time to grow and get worse. The subjects will also be happier having more direct recourse to the prince.
🔥 Another idea is to send your own people to live in the new colonies and dispossess the inhabitants. The dispossessed won't be a threat because they'll be scattered and poor. The rest will be peaceful out of fear of what happened to the dispossessed. Having to maintain troops in a new colony is too expensive and creates resentment with people, too.
🔥 The prince also has to make sure no foreign leader equal to himself is allowed in the new colony. Otherwise, all the people, "moved by the envy they have against the ruler", will rally around the foreign leader. He uses an example with King Louis in France who made the mistake of empowering the Pope and the Catholic Church.
🔥 He adds this a little later on that same point: "From this one can derive a general rule which rarely, if ever, fails: that anyone who is the cause of another becoming powerful comes to ruin himself; because that power has been brought about by him either through cunning or by force; and both of these qualities are suspect to the one who has become powerful."
🔥 It is important to deal with troubles quickly, and not delay in order to avoid war or conflict. As Machiavelli explains, "Once evils are recognized ahead of time, they may be easily cured; but if you wait for them to come upon you, the medicine will be too late."
🔥 Also, war cannot be avoided. It's better to confront it head on rather that delay or defer it. "One should never allow disorder to persist in order to avoid war. You can't avoid war, only defer it." The Romans knew this, he says.
🔥 There are two ways that principalities are governed. One is by the prince and his servants, people who are loyal to him and who serve through his favour and permission. Second is by the prince and the barons. Barons have their positions because of their bloodlines, not out of loyalty or service to the prince. These states may be easier to infiltrate since there's always someone who's unhappy with the current way of things, but they're harder to hold because barons act in their own interest. Machiavelli cites examples with Alexander in Persia, the king of France, and the Turks.
Thoughts
It's interesting to see the different motivations for studying history, or the different values people look for when studying it. There have been a few cases where historians want to highlight great men so that they can serve as examples or as inspiration for future generations. I would say that Bede and Herodotus fit that description.
The Prince, so far, is very different. Though it's not purely an historical work — it's more a political work — it still takes a view of history and uses history in making its arguments. But the view Machiavelli takes is pretty unique so far. He is still interested in learning from the mistakes or successes of others in history, but it's purely in terms of whatever it takes to gain and maintain power. It's not about what is moral. It is about whatever works at getting you power, however ruthless, cruel, cunning, or deceiving you have to be.
Machiavelli is very empirical in how he studies history. What works? What doesn't work? What are the effects of different actions you can take? Which ones, when looking at the evidence, will be the most effective at getting or keeping power? These are the questions he cares about, and the things he looks to history to find evidence and answers for.
I kind of wonder how Machiavelli came to be this way. If he was like that before he was kicked out of power, or only from his experience after.