The Prince

In this essay, I will be discussing some of the arguments that Machiavelli poses in his book about the "right" and "wrong" way to rule over people whom a prince has already conquered. I will also provide evidence to support these arguments and show the difference between successful and unsuccessful means of ruling over these conquered peoples. By the end of this paper, you will see how princes over the course of time ruled their people and how some of their ways made them stronger rulers and how some of them made them fall from kingship. Being a prince isn't all that it seems to be if you don't know much of the history of these leaders. One might assume that it's simply ruling over people, however, it is a much greater task. When being a prince you are either blamed or praised.

Starting off with the "wrong" way to rule over people, you will see how some princes made big mistakes during their rule and later you will see how some were quite successful. King Louis XII made five errors during his rule (Machiavelli, P.49): First, he eliminated the lesser powers; second, he enhanced the power of someone who was powerful in Italy; third, he brought into Italy an outsider who was very powerful; fourth, he did not come to live there; lastly, he did not put colonies there. Machiavelli states towards the end of chapter 3 that a general rule when in this position of power is that if you give someone enough power, you are ultimately making yourself weaker. It is said that King Louis lost Lombardy because he did not observe any of those rules that have been observed by others who have taken provinces and have wanted to keep them. (Machiavelli, P.50) Being less specific, Machiavelli explains some things that prince's do that can make their rule more difficult or even impossible. On the subject of civil principality, a prince who comes to principality with the help of others whom are great maintains himself with more difficulty than that of a prince whom, with the help of the people, will find himself with many who think that they are his equals and as a result, the prince can no longer command nor manage these people. However, I'm not saying that having the people like you when being a prince is bad, because according to Machiavelli, it is very important when in times of trouble to have the people on your side. (Machiavelli, P.71) There were also those who achieved principalities through wicked deeds or other wrong doings. Agathocles the Sicilian was a good example that was used by Machiavelli. This man, once he was established in rank, decided to become prince and hold violence without obligation. (Machiavelli, P.65) He had arranged that all of his soldiers kill all of the senators and richest people of the city and when they were dead; he occupied and held the principate of that city without any internal opposition. Agathocles was defeated twice by the Carthaginians and besieged. "Not only was he able to defend his city, but having left part of his troops in defense against the siege, with the rest he attacked Africa and in short time he freed Syracuse from the siege and brought the Carthaginians to extreme deprivation. (Machiavelli, P.65) Overall, Agathocles got his power from military rank and killed his fellow citizens, betrayed friends and so on. Machiavelli suggests that these actions he performed may acquire rule but it will not acquire one with glory and his evil ways and wicked deeds "should not be celebrated among the most excellent of men". (Machiavelli, P.66)

Moving on, Machiavelli suggests in chapter 12 that a prince has a choice to rely on his own military forces or to rely on mercenaries. Relying on mercenaries for protection is ineffective because of the fact that they don't have any loyalty to the prince. It was also known for some of these mercenaries, if not all, were usually in it for their own recognition and not at all for the prince. It was because of these mercenary armies that Italy was now defenseless when the Spanish, Swiss and French troops attacked. Machiavelli also stated (in Chapter 13) that the use of auxiliary forces, which were usually an army that we borrowed from an ally, were just as useless as mercenaries. "For between an armed and an unarmed man there is no harmony whatsoever, and it is not reasonable that a man who is armed should willingly obey a man who is unarmed, and that the unarmed should be secure among servants who are armed, because since there is disdain in the armed man and suspicion in the unarmed man, it is not possible for them to work well together." (Machiavelli P.85) This quote is very important because it shows evidence that people in this time and even still to this day believes that as long as they are armed that they have control. The outcome of this, of course, is war.

On a positive note, Machiavelli also explains what princes can do successfully in their rule to become strong, powerful and trustworthy. "Thus a prince who has a strong city and does not make himself hated cannot be attacked. And even if there were someone who attacked him, the attacker would depart in shame, since the things of the world are so changeable that it is almost impossible that someone could stand idle with his armies for a year to besiege him." (Machiavelli, P.72-73) A little later in the book, Machiavelli suggests that princes should be able to keep their word. "You should know, therefore, that there are two kinds of combat: one with laws, the other with force. The first one is proper to man, the second is proper to beasts." (Machiavelli P.93) In this chapter (18) he explains how it is necessary for a prince to know how to fight like a beast