The essential writings of Machiavelli (28 page)

CHAPTER ONE
O
N WHETHER THE EMPIRE THE
R
OMANS ACQUIRED WAS A RESULT OF SKILL OR OF
F
ORTUNE

Many have been of the opinion—among them Plutarch, a writer of great importance—that in acquiring its empire the Roman populace was favored more by Fortune than by skill.
¹⁴⁹
One of Plutarch’s arguments is that the Romans plainly attributed all their victories to Fortune, since they built more temples to Fortune than to any other deity. It seems that Livy was of the same opinion, because he rarely has a Roman speak of skill without adding to it the role that Fortune played. I, however, reject this view entirely, as I do not believe it can be sustained. If no republic was as successful in expanding its territories as Rome, this is because there has never been a republic better organized than Rome to accomplish such expansion. It is the skill of Rome’s armies that enabled it to acquire its empire, while the organization and procedures established by Rome’s founder enabled it to maintain what it acquired, as I shall discuss later in greater detail.

The historians claim that if Rome never fought two major wars at the same time, it was due to Fortune, not to the skill of its populace. The Romans did not fight a war against the Latins before the Romans crushed the Samnites so totally that they then had to wage a war to defend them.
¹⁵⁰
The Romans did not have to fight the Etruscans until they had subjugated the Latins and almost entirely crushed the Samnites. If two of these powers had joined forces when they were whole and strong, one could easily imagine them destroying Rome. Be that as it may, it never came about that the Romans had to fight two major wars at the same time: In fact, it always seemed that when one war began, another ended, and when one war ended, another began. This is clear from the sequence of the wars they fought, because if we set aside the wars before Rome was taken by the Gauls,
¹⁵¹
we see that while the Romans battled the Aequi and the Volsci, no other state waged a war against the Romans while the Aequi and the Volsci were still powerful. It was only after Rome was victorious that the war against the Samnites began,
¹⁵²
and though the Latins rebelled against the new Roman dominion before the Samnite War was over, by the time the rebellion took place the Samnites had already allied themselves with Rome, which then used Samnite soldiers to curb the Latins’ insolence.
¹⁵³
Once the Latins were crushed, the Samnite War resurged,
¹⁵⁴
and after the Samnites were beaten by constant routs, the war against the Etruscans began. When this war was over, the Samnites rose again when King Pyrrhus arrived in Italy
¹⁵⁵
After King Pyrrhus was repulsed and sent back to Greece, the Romans initiated their first war against the Carthaginians, a war that had barely ended when all the Gauls, from both sides of the Alps, conspired against the Romans until they were finally defeated after a great massacre between Popolonia and Pisa, where today the tower of San Vincenti stands.

Once this war was over, for the next twenty years there were wars of minor importance, because the Romans fought only the Ligurians and whatever Gauls were left in Lombardy This period continued until the beginning of the Second Punic War, which kept Italy engaged for sixteen years. When the Punic War ended with supreme glory for Rome, the Macedonian War began, and when that war ended there was another with Antiochus and Asia.
¹⁵⁶
After this victory there was no prince or republic in all the world who could oppose the Roman forces, alone or in joint effort.

Yet even before this last victory, anyone who considers the sequence of these wars and how they were conducted will see great skill and wisdom linked with Fortune. The reason for this good fortune is quite clear, because it is most certain that when a prince or populace reaches such powerful standing that all neighboring princes or populaces are afraid of attacking them individually and of being attacked by them, it is inevitable that no one will assault them unless they are forced to do so. The powerful prince or republic can choose what neighbor to engage in battle while attentively calming the others, who can be assuaged easily enough because of their deference to power and the deceptiveness of the methods used to assuage them. Other states that are more distant and do not have much contact with the powerful prince or republic will regard the matter as far off and of little concern. These distant states will continue in their mistaken view until the blaze of war reaches them. By that time their only means of extinguishing it will be with their own forces, which will no longer be sufficient, as the enemy will have become too powerful.

I would like to pass over how the Samnites stood by and watched the Romans conquer the Volsci and the Aequi, and, in order not to be too long-winded, will begin with the Carthaginians, who, in the days when the Romans were battling the Samnites and the Etruscans, were very powerful and greatly revered, as Carthage already held all of Africa, Sardinia, and Sicily and parts of Spain. Carthage, because of its power and its distance from the provinces of Rome, never sought to attack the Romans or come to the aid of the Samnites or the Etruscans. The Carthaginians, in fact, acted as one does when everything is progressing in one’s favor, even forming alliances with the Romans. Nor did they realize their mistake until the Romans had subjugated all the territories between the Roman provinces and those of Carthage and began fighting Carthage for its possessions in Sicily and Spain. The Carthaginians fell into the same trap as had the Gauls, Philip of Mace-don, and Antiochus, who had all been convinced that the Romans would be vanquished by one of the others, and that they themselves would have ample time to defend themselves from the Romans through either peace or war. Hence I believe that the Romans’ good fortune in this matter is of the kind that any prince would have who proceeds as they did and is as skillful as they were.

Here I would have liked to discuss the ways the Romans had of entering the territories of others, had I not discussed this at great length in my treatise on principalities.
¹⁵⁷
So I will say only that in new territories, the Romans always did their best to have allies who could serve as a door or ladder enabling them to enter and retain these territories. We see that the Romans entered Samnium with the help of the Campanians, and Etruria with the help of the Camertines; the Mamertines helped them enter Sicily, the Saguntines Spain, the Massinissa Africa, the Aetolians Greece; Eumenes and other princes helped Rome enter Asia, and the Massilienses and the Aedui helped them enter Gaul. The Romans never lacked this kind of support, which facilitated their campaigns and helped them acquire and keep new provinces. States that follow the Roman example will find they need Fortune less than states that do not. To clarify how skill more than Fortune can lead a state to such an empire, we will discuss in the following chapter the character of the peoples whom the Romans engaged in battle, and how determined these peoples were in defending their liberty.

149.
Plutarch writes in
De fortuna Romanorum
, chapter 11: “The smooth course of events, and Rome’s swift expansion and progress to supreme power, proves to all who weigh this matter that Rome’s rule did not arise from the toils and tactics of man but was sped on by divine escort and the winds of Fortune.”

150.
The Samnites were a group of tribes of the southern Apennines who united to repel Roman expansion.

151.
The Gauls sacked Rome in 390
BCE
. The Aequi, an Italic people hostile to Rome, were repulsed by the Romans in 431, but not entirely subdued until the end of the Second Samnite War (304
BCE
).

152.
The First Samnite War was fought from 343 to 341
BCE
.

153.
The Romans and the Samnites fought the Latins between 340 and 338
BCE
.

154.
The Second Samnite War (326–304
BCE
).

155.
In 281
BCE
the Samnites asked Pyrrhus, King of Epirus, for assistance against Rome. He crossed to Italy with some twenty-five thousand men, and won a series of costly victories against the Romans. In 275, however, he suffered heavy losses in the Battle of Beneventum and returned to Epirus.

156.
The Second Macedonian War, 200–196
BCE
, and the war against Antiochus the Great of the Hellenistic Syrian Empire.

157.
Machiavelli is referring to
The Prince
, chapters 3 and 5.

CHAPTER TWO
O
N THE PEOPLES THE
R
OMANS HAD TO FIGHT, AND HOW THOSE PEOPLES RESOLUTELY DEFENDED THEIR LIBERTY

For the Romans, nothing presented a greater obstacle in their drive to conquer the peoples surrounding them, as well as those in more distant lands, than these peoples’ love for liberty. In fact, they defended their liberty so resolutely that they would never have been subjugated had not the Romans been exceptionally skillful. There are many examples of the dangers to which these peoples exposed themselves in order to keep their liberty or regain it, and of their acts of vengeance against those who had occupied them. We also know from reading the histories how these people and cities suffered on account of their servitude to Rome. In our times there is only one land where there are states one can call free,
¹⁵⁸
while in ancient times all lands had peoples living in freedom. It is clear that in Italy, in those ancient times we are now discussing, from the mountains that divide present-day Tuscany and Lombardy to the southern tip of Italy, all the peoples were free: the Etruscans, Romans, Samnites, and many others that populated the rest of Italy. Nor is it ever argued that there were any kings, other than those of Rome or the Etruscan king Porsena, of whom history does not tell us how their lineage was extinguished. But we can see that during the era when Rome besieged Veii, the Etruscan lands were free and passionate about their freedom, hating the word “king” so much that when the people of Veii appointed a king for their defense against the Romans, and then called upon the Etruscans for help, the Etruscans, after much deliberation, decided against helping a people that lived under a king. The Etruscans decided that they would not come to the defense of a people that had already allowed itself to be subjugated by a ruler.
¹⁵⁹

It is easy enough to understand how a people’s love of freedom arises, because we have seen from experience that states have grown in land and wealth only if they are free: The greatness that Athens achieved within a century of liberating itself from the tyranny of Pisistratus
¹⁶⁰
is astonishing, and even more astonishing the greatness that Rome achieved after it freed itself from its kings. The reason these cities flourished is easy to understand, because it is the pursuit of the public interest, not private interest, that will make a city great. Without doubt, the pursuit of the public interest is seen as crucial only in a republic, because everything vital to the republic is carried out. During this process harm is done to this or that private individual, but there are so many who benefit from the common good that the majority sees to it that it is carried out despite the resistance of the few who are harmed. The opposite occurs when there is a prince, because more often than not what he does in his own interest will harm the city, and what he does for the city will harm his interests. Consequently, the moment a tyranny replaces freedom, the least harm that can be expected for that state is that it no longer progresses, and stops growing in power and wealth. But in most cases—in fact, always—these states begin to regress. Even if by chance the tyrant proves capable, expanding his dominions through courage and military skill, it will not result in any benefit to the state but only to him. He will not be able to honor any of the good and valorous citizens under his yoke, as he does not want to have to be suspicious of them. Nor can he subjugate the states he conquers into offering tribute to the state of which he is tyrant, because cause it is not to his advantage to make his own state powerful. It is in fact to his advantage to keep the territories under his control divided, each recognizing him alone. As a result it is the tyrant who benefits from his new dominions, not his state. Anyone who wishes to confirm this opinion can find many examples in Xenophon’s treatise
On Tyranny
.
⁶¹

Hence it is not surprising that the ancients, in their desire to live in freedom, persecuted tyrants with such vigor, and held the word “liberty” in such high esteem. An example is when Hieronymus, Hiero’s grandson, was assassinated in Syracuse.
¹⁶²
As soon as the news of his death reached his army, which was not far from Syracuse, the soldiers took up arms against his assassins, but when they heard all Syracuse shouting the word “liberty,” they relented, enthralled by that word. Hieronymus’s army put aside their anger against the tyrannicides and began to consider how a free government might be set up in that city.

Nor is it surprising that populaces have been known to undertake extraordinary feats of revenge against those who deprived them of their liberty. I could cite many examples, but will limit myself to one that occurred during the Peloponnesian War in Corcyra, a Greek city. Greece was divided, some of the states supporting the Athenians, others the Spartans. One result was that opposing classes within many Greek cities sought support from Sparta or Athens to further their cause. In Corcyra the noble faction prevailed, and deprived the populace of its freedom. But the populace, with the help of the Athenians, regained power, rounded up the nobles, and locked them in a prison large enough to hold them all. From there they brought out nine or ten men at a time under the guise of sending them into exile to different places, but instead slaughtered them in many cruel ways.
¹⁶³
When the remaining nobles realized what was awaiting them, they decided to avoid an ignominious death and armed themselves as best they could. They repulsed all who tried to enter the prison. They defended the gate until the populace, roused by the clamor, came running and knocked down the roof of the prison, crushing the nobles beneath the ruins. There were many other such terrible and notable cases in Greece, which shows that man will seek greater vengeance for liberty that is taken from him than for liberty that someone intends to take from him.

If one reflects on why in those ancient times men were greater lovers of liberty than in our times, one will conclude that it is for the same reason that men today are less strong. The reason is, I believe, the difference between our upbringing and that of ancient times, which is caused by the difference between our religion and that of the ancients. Though our religion has revealed the truth to us and the true path, it has made us value worldly honor less, while the pagans valued it greatly, considering it to be the highest good, and consequently were fiercer in action. This is evident in many of their customs, beginning with the magnificence of their sacrifices in comparison to the humbleness of ours, whose ceremonies are subdued rather than magnificent and have no action that is fierce or bold. The ceremonies of the ancients, on the other hand, had great pomp and magnificence, and also had sacrifices filled with blood and ferocity, countless animals slaughtered, a terrible sight that made men ferocious. Furthermore, ancient religion beatified only men who were filled with worldly glory, such as generals and princes, while our religion glorifies men who are humble and contemplative rather than men of action. Our religion also places the highest value on humility, debasement, and disdain for worldly matters, while ancient religion placed the highest value on greatness of spirit, strength of body, and on everything that makes men strong. If our religion does demand that you be strong, it is so that you will be able to bear suffering rather than carry out feats of strength. It is this way of life that seems to have rendered the world weak, delivering it to wicked men to be ransacked. And these men have no trouble in doing so, since mankind, its eyes set on paradise, strives to endure pain rather than avenge it. If the world seems to have become effeminate, and heaven disarmed, this doubtless arises more from the cowardice of men who have interpreted our religion through the prism of indolence, and not through that of skill and valor. Were they to consider how our religion permits the exaltation and defense of one’s native land, they would see how it also wants us to love and honor it, and to prepare ourselves to be the kind of men who can defend it. Our upbringing and the false interpretation of our religion has resulted in there no longer being as many republics in the world today as there were in ancient times, nor do we consequently see as great a love for liberty. Another compelling reason for this, however, is that with its arms and grandeur the Roman Empire destroyed all the republics and free states it occupied. Even though the Roman Empire later collapsed, very few of its provinces have been able to regroup or reorganize themselves into free states. Be this as it may, in every corner of the earth the Romans had encountered alliances between states which were heavily armed and fought doggedly to defend their liberty. This demonstrates that the Romans would never have been able to overcome them without their own exceptional skill.

As an example of a state within such an alliance I would like to limit myself to the Samnites. It is amazing, and Livy himself admits this, that they were so powerful, and their army so effective, that they were able to resist the Romans until the days when Papirius Cursor, the son of Papirius the Elder, was consul—a period of forty-six years—despite the routs and the devastation of their lands and all the carnage in their territories.
¹⁶⁴
It seems all the more amazing that today the former Samnite lands, where there were so many cities and such great populations, are almost uninhabited, whereas in ancient times there was so much order and power that Samnium would have been unconquerable had it not been assaulted by Roman skill. It is easy to understand where such order came from and where such disorder: It all came from their having first lived freely and then in slavery. All lands and countries that live freely, as I said above, prosper. In them one finds thriving populations, with marriage easier and more desirable because any man will gladly procreate sons when he believes he can feed them, without worrying that their patrimony will be seized, and knowing that they will not only be born free and not slaves, but that they can, through their own skill, become rulers. Riches are seen to multiply more swiftly, both from agriculture and from crafts. Everyone gladly works to increase these things, seeking to obtain the goods he believes he can enjoy once he has acquired them. As a result, men will vie to think about private and public benefit, with the result that both grow quite miraculously.

The opposite happens in the states that live in slavery. The more they recede from the good to which they were accustomed, the harsher their slavery becomes. And of all harsh servitude, the harshest is to be subjugated by a republic: first, because it is more lasting and one cannot hope to escape; second, the aim of a republic is to enervate and weaken all the bodies around it so that its own body will grow. A prince who subjugates you, on the other hand, will not enervate and weaken you, unless he is a barbarian prince and a destroyer of lands and civilizations, as oriental princes are. But if the prince has an ordinary and humane disposition, more often than not he will love his subject states as his own and leave their crafts and almost all their old institutions intact, so that even if these states cannot grow as they would if they were free, they will not come to ruin as if they were slaves: By this I mean the slavery the states fall into when they are subjected to a foreign prince, as I have already discussed those which had one of their own citizens as prince.

Anyone who weighs all the things I have said will not be surprised at the power the Samnites had when they were free, and the weakness into which they declined once they were enslaved. Livy testifies to this on many occasions, most of all when he discusses Hannibal’s war, when the Samnites, oppressed by a Roman legion stationed in Nola, sent emissaries to Hannibal pleading with him to rescue them.
¹⁶⁵
These emissaries proclaimed in their speeches that the Samnites had fought the Romans for a hundred years with their own soldiers and generals, often withstanding two consular armies and two consuls, but that they had now fallen so low that they could barely defend themselves against a small Roman legion stationed in Nola.

158.
Machiavelli is referring to Germany.

159.
Livy (Book V, chapter 1), however, writes: “The Etruscans were offended, as they hated kingship as much as they did the new king himself. They found him odious for his wealth and pride. He had once sacrilegiously broken up the games of a solemn religious festival in fury that another man had been preferred to himself as priest.”

160.
Pisistratus and his sons ruled Athens from 546 to 510
BCE
, after which Athens entered its Golden Age, which lasted until it was defeated by Sparta in the Peloponnesian War in 404
BCE
.

161.
In Xenophon’s treatise
On Tyranny
, also known in English as
Hieron
, the tyrant Hiero of Syracuse and the poet Simonides argue over the benefits and disadvantages of exercising tyranny.

162.
Hieronymus was assassinated in 215
BCE
, “stabbed many times before help could be called” (Livy Book XXIV, chapter 7).

163.
Machiavelli follows Thucydides’s dexcription in
The Peloponnesian War
, Book IV, chapters 46–48.