Remember me

Lost Password?

Register now!

Main Menu

Who is Online

17 user(s) are online (5 user(s) are browsing Article)

Members: 2
Guests: 15

nehendeni, CalebLach, more...

Useful Links

Planetary Subversion Stats

PHP File Browser for the Web
JavaScript Tree Menu
Article :: Supporting Evidence

Machiavailli Reconsidered

The Prince

by Nicolo Machiavelli


Concerning Those Who Have Obtained A Principality By Wickedness

ALTHOUGH a prince may rise from a private station in two ways, neither of which can be entirely attributed to fortune or genius, yet it is manifest to me that I must not be silent on them, although one could be more copiously treated when I discuss republics. These methods are when, either by some wicked or nefarious ways, one ascends to the principality, or when by the favour of his fellow-citizens a private person becomes the prince of his country. And speaking of the first method, it will be illustrated by two examples — one ancient, the other modern — and without entering further into the subject, I consider these two examples will suffice those who may be compelled to follow them.

Agathocles, the Sicilian, became King of Syracuse not only from a private but from a low and abject position. This man, the son of a potter, through all the changes in his fortunes always led an infamous life. Nevertheless, he accompanied his infamies with so much ability of mind and body that, having devoted himself to the military profession, he rose through its ranks to be Praetor of Syracuse. Being established in that position, and having deliberately resolved to make himself prince and to seize by violence, without obligation to others, that which had been conceded to him by assent, he came to an understanding for this purpose with Hamilcar, the Carthaginian, who, with his army, was fighting in Sicily. One morning he assembled the people and senate of Syracuse, as if he had to discuss with them things relating to the Republic, and at a given signal the soldiers killed all the senators and the richest of the people; these dead, he seized and held the princedom of that city without any civil commotion. And although he was twice routed by the Carthaginians, and ultimately besieged, yet not only was he able to defend his city, but leaving part of his men for its defence, with the others he attacked Africa, and in a short time raised the siege of Syracuse. The Carthaginians, reduced to extreme necessity, were compelled to come to terms with Agathocles, and, leaving Sicily to him, had to be content with the possession of Africa.

Therefore, he who considers the actions and the genius of this man will see nothing, or little, which can be attributed to fortune, inasmuch as he attained pre-eminence, as is shown above, not by the favour of any one, but step by step in the military profession, which steps were gained with a thousand troubles and perils, and were afterwards boldly held by him with many hazards and dangers. Yet it cannot be called talent to slay fellow-citizens, to deceive friends, to be without faith, without mercy, without religion; such methods may gain empire, but not glory. Still, if the courage of Agathocles in entering into and extricating himself from dangers be considered, together with his greatness of mind in enduring overcoming hardships, it cannot be seen why he should be esteemed less than the most notable captain. Nevertheless, his barbarous cruelty and inhumanity with infinite wickednesses do not permit him to be celebrated among the most excellent men. What he achieved cannot be attributed either to fortune or to genius.[1]

In our times, during the rule of Alexander VI, Oliverotto da Fermo, having been left an orphan many years before, was brought up by his maternal uncle, Giovanni Fogliani, and in the early days of his youth sent to fight under Paolo Vitelli, that, being trained under his discipline, he might attain some high position in the military profession. After Paolo died, he fought under his brother Vitellozzo, and in a very short time, being endowed with wit and a vigorous body and mind, he became the first man in his profession. But it appearing to him a paltry thing to serve under others, he resolved, with the aid of some citizens of Fermo, to whom the slavery of their country was dearer than its liberty, and with the help of the Vitelli, to seize Fermo. So he wrote to Giovanni Fogliani that, having been away from home for many years, he wished to visit him and his city, and in some measure to look into his patrimony; and although he had not laboured to acquire anything except honour, yet, in order that the citizens should see he had not spent his time in vain, he desired to come honourably, so would be accompanied by one hundred horsemen, his friends and retainers; and he entreated Giovanni to arrange that he should be received honourably by the citizens of Fermo, all of which would be not only to his honour, but also to that of Giovanni himself, who had brought him up.

Giovanni, therefore, did not fail in any attentions due to his nephew, and he caused him to be honourably received by the Fermans, and he lodged him in his own house, where, having passed some days, and having arranged what was necessary for his wicked designs, Oliverotto gave a solemn banquet to which he invited Giovanni Fogliani and the chiefs of Fermo. When the viands and all the other entertainments that are usual in such banquets were finished, Oliverotto artfully began certain grave discourses, speaking of the greatness of Pope Alexander and his son Cesare, and of their enterprises, to which discourse Giovanni and others answered; but he rose at once, saying that such matters ought to be discussed in a more private place, and he betook himself to a chamber, whither Giovanni and the rest of the citizens went in after him. No sooner were they seated than soldiers issued from secret places and slaughtered Giovanni and the rest. After these murders Oliverotto, mounted on horseback, rode up and down the town and besieged the chief magistrate in the palace, so that in fear the people were forced to obey him, and to form a government, of which he made himself the prince. He killed all the malcontents who were able to injure him, and strengthened himself with new civil and military ordinances, in such a way that, in the year during which he held the principality, not only was he secure in the city of Fermo, but he had become formidable to all his neighbours. And his destruction would have been as difficult as that of Agathocles if he had not allowed himself to be overreached by Cesare Borgia, who took him with the Orsini and Vitelli at Sinigaglia, as was stated above. Thus one year after he had committed this parricide, he was strangled, together with Vitellozzo, whom he had made his leader in valour and wickedness.[2]

Some may wonder how it can happen that Agathocles, and his like, after infinite treacheries and cruelties, should live for long secure in his country, and defend himself from external enemies, and never be conspired against by his own citizens; seeing that many others, by means of cruelty, have never been able even in peaceful times to hold the state, still less in the doubtful times of war. I believe that this follows from severities being badly or properly used. Those may be called properly used, if of evil it is lawful to speak well, that are applied at one blow and are necessary to one's security, and that are not persisted in afterwards unless they can be turned to the advantage of the subjects. The badly employed are those which, notwithstanding they may be few in the commencement, multiply with time rather than decrease. Those who practise the first system are able, by aid of God or man, to mitigate in some degree their rule, as Agathocles did. It is impossible for those who follow the other to maintain themselves.

Hence it is to be remarked that, in seizing a state, the usurper ought to examine closely into all those injuries which it is necessary for him to inflict, and to do them all at one stroke so as not to have to repeat them daily; and thus by not unsettling men he will be able to reassure them, and win them to himself by benefits. He who does otherwise, either from timidity or evil advice, is always compelled to keep the knife in his hand; neither can he rely on his subjects, nor can they attach themselves to him, owing to their continued and repeated wrongs. For injuries ought to be done all at one time, so that, being tasted less, they offend less; benefits ought to be given little by little, so that the flavour of them may last longer. [3]

And above all things, a prince ought to live amongst his people in such a way that no unexpected circumstances, whether of good or evil, shall make him change; because if the necessity for this comes in troubled times, you are too late for harsh measures; and mild ones will not help you, for they will be considered as forced from you, and no one will be under any obligation to you for them.[4]

  • A person may also be elevated to prince by nefarious means or by acclimation among power holders, which Machiavailli claims is due to neither fortune nor genious. [C8, P1]
  • A private citizen may, by ability and ruler service rise to the top ranks of profession, trust and esteem. He may then use this position of trust and opportunity (self-created fortune) to entrap and slaughter all competing power holders, siezing rule for himself. [C8, P2-5]
  • If cruelty is used by a ruler, it must be used properly, in the following manner, with the following consequences:
    • If a new ruler carefully considers the harm that must be done to destroy potential opposition, destroy existing power holders and consolidate power, then applies cruelty all at once, then ceases cruelty, the people will forget. [C8, 6,7]
    • If a ruler applies cruelty, on an ongoing basis, this will be considered odious, inflaming hate and anger of the people destroying the ruler. [C8, 6,7]
    • Cruelty will be tolerated more readily if it is perceived to be of benefit to subjects. Not stated: The targets of cruelty should be cast as "enemies of the people", subhuman. [C8, 6]
    • In general, the lash (stick) should be applied generously, all at once, and not repeated unless neccessary. Benefits (carrots), should be administored often, in small doses, that the memory may remain fresh. [C8, 7]
  • Above all, a ruler must present the perception of infallability, unchanging in the face of changing circumstance. The perception of adapting to change is concluded as unprepared, weak. Neither harsh nor strong measures will generate public support for adversity. People don't like losers and, by being unprepared and needing public support, you have been judged as unfit, especially since, in all probability, the adversity has been created by your own greed or other follies. [C8, P8]

[1] Agathocles, the Sicilian exhibited skill and genious in rising to "top dog" in military ranks, earning trust of his political masters, whom he betrayed and slaughtered taking their power and becoming ruler. His genious created the opportunity of "being in the right place at the right time", armed with misplaced trust, fortune of a sort. Machiavailli was incorrect, genious and fortune were the factors leading to Agathocles becoming ruler. Although Machiavailli may have wanted to believe that rulers (whom he sought employ with) have any saving graces such as honor, that belief is of the same class of irrationality that Machiavailli cautions against. Rulers enslave period. Is that not evil enough? Having moral qualms about Agathocles particularly evil methodology, to achieve a position of "master evildoer" is absurd.

[2] It is unclear why Machiavailli would consider the actions of Agathocles and Giovanni wicked. They operated in the moral domain of all rulers, using force and fraud. Earning trust (skill) and then betraying his employers / supporters and exterminating the ruling class is following Machiavailli's advice exactly: exterminate the ruling class of principalities, leave a people adapted to servitude no option but to accept the "new boss". Clearly, there is some cognitive dissonence here. If "a little evil is necessary", why not go all the way? Agathocles is also a prime example of why rulers consider organized force with it's own conception of self interest to be so dangerous to rulers. The final sacking of Rome occurred when the legions were allowed to cross the Rubicon. The final sacking of the US is far more probable if the US military is ever allowed to return home. Far better to sacrifice them, or abandon them in place when their "utility" is over or, inevitable economic collapse makes them and the entire Military Industrial Complex unaffordable / unappeaseable.

[3] Once again, crush all actual and potential opposition all at once, leaving them no recourse for retaliation. The people will note, but soon adapt and forget this, especially if they are not harmed and their "comfort zone" can be maintained. Conversly, repeated, ongoing aggressions against the people, such as escalating trubute for social adventures, military, or otherwise cannot be ignored and will eventually destroy the people's "comfort zone" and cause loss of tolerance, loss of support and rebellion.

[4] People value security of stability of their "comfort zones" above all else. If change is required, do it all at once, providing similar, stable "comfort zones". Fail at this and face rebellion as people are forced to defy you and create their own "comfort zones".

« 1 ... 7 8 9 10 (11) 12 13 14 15 ... 29 »
<< Rise and Fall of Society
  • URL: https://www.nazisociopaths.org/modules/article/view.article.php/c7/45
  • Trackback: https://www.nazisociopaths.org/modules/article/trackback.php/45
Copyright© rossb & NaziSocioPaths.org
The comments are owned by the author. We aren't responsible for their content.