finished_summaries/shmoop/The Prince/section_3_part_0.txt
The Prince.chapter 3
chapter 3
{"name": "Chapter 3", "url": "https://web.archive.org/web/20210420060055/https://www.shmoop.com/study-guides/literature/prince-machiavelli/summary/chapter-3", "summary": "New monarchies are hard to deal with, even the sort of new ones that are just adding a territory onto an old monarchy. Machiavelli calls these mixed monarchies. What's the problem? The conquered will rebel at the first sign of a better situation, which is good if you want to take over but bad once you've conquered them. As elected officials find out, you can never give people all the things they expected, so they'll hate you for a while. Here's the thing: you need them to not hate you because your army can't control the new land by themselves and need the people on their side. Machiavelli gives the example of when the king of France, Louis XII, tried to take Milan. Everyone thought that Louis was going to be this awesome king, so they helped him kick out their ruler, Duke Ludovico. The thing is, Louis XII was awful, so they ran back to Ludovico. Even though it was easy to take over Milan the first time, after that, the Milanese wised up and it took \"the whole world\" to push their way in the second time . But then Louis was kicked out again. Why did he lose the second time? Let's take a look: If the land you are adding to your kingdom shares the same language as the rest of the kingdom, great. All you have to do is kill the old rulers and you're set. Leave everything else alone. Seriously. It'll all work out. Do that and you're golden. \"But what if my new territory speaks a different language,\" we hear you bloodthirsty princes and princesses asking. That's just a wee bit more difficult. In that case, you should go live there. You wanted a new summer home didn't you? Then, if anyone tries to rebel, you can shut them down personally. Also, then you don't have to trust that officials are taking care of your new pet country instead of stealing all of its riches. Plus, people are more likely to like you if they see you as one of them, and most people would think twice about attacking your new crib. Basically, this is the best way to go. Don't want to move? Then you can make colonies instead. This is great because it doesn't require lots of military and it's super cheap. Just take land from the natives and give it to your colonialists. The only downside is that the people whose land you took will be angry. But that doesn't matter because they are poor and have no land. Win-win. By the way, you should only deal with people in two ways: crush them or pamper them to death. If you are going to hit, you need to hit so hard that they can't stand up again. Are you thinking about armies? Stop it. Armies will cause widespread but uneven damage, leaving more than enough people left who can hit back and are looking for you. Bad idea. Okay, next thing you have to do is become the guardian angel for the weaker nations around your new land. Or at least look like it. What you are really doing is making sure a strong foreign power doesn't swoop in and start cramping your style. People have this silly tendency to ask foreign nations to come in and save them from their horrible rulers. That's how the Roman Empire got so huge--people invited them in. You want to make sure that no foreigners come in and that everyone is on your side. So play nice with the neighbors. Machiavelli has the perfect example: the Romans. They had colonies, they made friends with the neighbors, they made strong neighbors weaker, and they didn't let any stronger people move into the neighborhood. Perfect. They were preparing for trouble that might come in the future, which is the easiest and best way to deal with problems. They didn't try to procrastinate, which only makes things worse. They hit their problems head on. Anyway, back to Louis and Milan. Why was he so terrible again? Oh yeah, he did the opposite of everything he was supposed to do. He didn't play nice with his neighbors and he actually helped two stronger powers move in to the neighborhood. He helped Pope Alexander invade Romagna and basically carried the King of Spain's moving boxes into Naples so they could split the Kingdom and be roomies. Yikes, no wonder he got kicked out. Machiavelli gets that Louis wanted more land, but it's best not to get too greedy. It doesn't make sense to get more land if you can't do it on your own. Help comes with too many strings attached. So in total, Louis was stupid in six ways:He got rid of his weaker buddies. He made the pope stronger.He brought a stronger king into his neighborhood.He didn't live in his new land.He didn't establish colonies. And the worst offense: he took power away from Venice, which allowed another strong state to muscle its way in. He got rid of his weaker buddies. He made the pope stronger. He brought a stronger king into his neighborhood. He didn't live in his new land. He didn't establish colonies. And the worst offense: he took power away from Venice, which allowed another strong state to muscle its way in. According to Machiavelli, it's no surprise that he lost his land. He did everything wrong, after all.", "analysis": ""}

But the difficulties occur in a new principality. And firstly, if it be
not entirely new, but is, as it were, a member of a state which, taken
collectively, may be called composite, the changes arise chiefly from
an inherent difficulty which there is in all new principalities; for
men change their rulers willingly, hoping to better themselves, and this
hope induces them to take up arms against him who rules: wherein they
are deceived, because they afterwards find by experience they have
gone from bad to worse. This follows also on another natural and common
necessity, which always causes a new prince to burden those who have
submitted to him with his soldiery and with infinite other hardships
which he must put upon his new acquisition.

In this way you have enemies in all those whom you have injured in
seizing that principality, and you are not able to keep those friends
who put you there because of your not being able to satisfy them in the
way they expected, and you cannot take strong measures against them,
feeling bound to them. For, although one may be very strong in armed
forces, yet in entering a province one has always need of the goodwill
of the natives.

For these reasons Louis the Twelfth, King of France, quickly occupied
Milan, and as quickly lost it; and to turn him out the first time it
only needed Lodovico's own forces; because those who had opened the
gates to him, finding themselves deceived in their hopes of future
benefit, would not endure the ill-treatment of the new prince. It is
very true that, after acquiring rebellious provinces a second time,
they are not so lightly lost afterwards, because the prince, with
little reluctance, takes the opportunity of the rebellion to punish the
delinquents, to clear out the suspects, and to strengthen himself in the
weakest places. Thus to cause France to lose Milan the first time it was
enough for the Duke Lodovico(*) to raise insurrections on the borders;
but to cause him to lose it a second time it was necessary to bring
the whole world against him, and that his armies should be defeated and
driven out of Italy; which followed from the causes above mentioned.

     (*) Duke Lodovico was Lodovico Moro, a son of Francesco
     Sforza, who married Beatrice d'Este. He ruled over Milan
     from 1494 to 1500, and died in 1510.

Nevertheless Milan was taken from France both the first and the second
time. The general reasons for the first have been discussed; it remains
to name those for the second, and to see what resources he had, and what
any one in his situation would have had for maintaining himself more
securely in his acquisition than did the King of France.

Now I say that those dominions which, when acquired, are added to an
ancient state by him who acquires them, are either of the same country
and language, or they are not. When they are, it is easier to hold them,
especially when they have not been accustomed to self-government; and
to hold them securely it is enough to have destroyed the family of the
prince who was ruling them; because the two peoples, preserving in other
things the old conditions, and not being unlike in customs, will live
quietly together, as one has seen in Brittany, Burgundy, Gascony, and
Normandy, which have been bound to France for so long a time: and,
although there may be some difference in language, nevertheless the
customs are alike, and the people will easily be able to get on amongst
themselves. He who has annexed them, if he wishes to hold them, has only
to bear in mind two considerations: the one, that the family of their
former lord is extinguished; the other, that neither their laws nor
their taxes are altered, so that in a very short time they will become
entirely one body with the old principality.

But when states are acquired in a country differing in language,
customs, or laws, there are difficulties, and good fortune and great
energy are needed to hold them, and one of the greatest and most real
helps would be that he who has acquired them should go and reside there.
This would make his position more secure and durable, as it has made
that of the Turk in Greece, who, notwithstanding all the other measures
taken by him for holding that state, if he had not settled there, would
not have been able to keep it. Because, if one is on the spot, disorders
are seen as they spring up, and one can quickly remedy them; but if one
is not at hand, they are heard of only when they are great, and then one
can no longer remedy them. Besides this, the country is not pillaged
by your officials; the subjects are satisfied by prompt recourse to the
prince; thus, wishing to be good, they have more cause to love him, and
wishing to be otherwise, to fear him. He who would attack that state
from the outside must have the utmost caution; as long as the prince
resides there it can only be wrested from him with the greatest
difficulty.

The other and better course is to send colonies to one or two places,
which may be as keys to that state, for it is necessary either to do
this or else to keep there a great number of cavalry and infantry. A
prince does not spend much on colonies, for with little or no expense he
can send them out and keep them there, and he offends a minority only of
the citizens from whom he takes lands and houses to give them to the new
inhabitants; and those whom he offends, remaining poor and scattered,
are never able to injure him; whilst the rest being uninjured are easily
kept quiet, and at the same time are anxious not to err for fear it
should happen to them as it has to those who have been despoiled. In
conclusion, I say that these colonies are not costly, they are more
faithful, they injure less, and the injured, as has been said, being
poor and scattered, cannot hurt. Upon this, one has to remark that men
ought either to be well treated or crushed, because they can avenge
themselves of lighter injuries, of more serious ones they cannot;
therefore the injury that is to be done to a man ought to be of such a
kind that one does not stand in fear of revenge.

But in maintaining armed men there in place of colonies one spends much
more, having to consume on the garrison all the income from the
state, so that the acquisition turns into a loss, and many more are
exasperated, because the whole state is injured; through the shifting
of the garrison up and down all become acquainted with hardship, and
all become hostile, and they are enemies who, whilst beaten on their
own ground, are yet able to do hurt. For every reason, therefore, such
guards are as useless as a colony is useful.

Again, the prince who holds a country differing in the above respects
ought to make himself the head and defender of his less powerful
neighbours, and to weaken the more powerful amongst them, taking care
that no foreigner as powerful as himself shall, by any accident, get
a footing there; for it will always happen that such a one will be
introduced by those who are discontented, either through excess of
ambition or through fear, as one has seen already. The Romans were
brought into Greece by the Aetolians; and in every other country where
they obtained a footing they were brought in by the inhabitants. And the
usual course of affairs is that, as soon as a powerful foreigner enters
a country, all the subject states are drawn to him, moved by the hatred
which they feel against the ruling power. So that in respect to those
subject states he has not to take any trouble to gain them over to
himself, for the whole of them quickly rally to the state which he has
acquired there. He has only to take care that they do not get hold of
too much power and too much authority, and then with his own forces, and
with their goodwill, he can easily keep down the more powerful of them,
so as to remain entirely master in the country. And he who does not
properly manage this business will soon lose what he has acquired, and
whilst he does hold it he will have endless difficulties and troubles.

The Romans, in the countries which they annexed, observed closely these
measures; they sent colonies and maintained friendly relations with(*)
the minor powers, without increasing their strength; they kept down the
greater, and did not allow any strong foreign powers to gain authority.
Greece appears to me sufficient for an example. The Achaeans and
Aetolians were kept friendly by them, the kingdom of Macedonia was
humbled, Antiochus was driven out; yet the merits of the Achaeans and
Aetolians never secured for them permission to increase their power, nor
did the persuasions of Philip ever induce the Romans to be his friends
without first humbling him, nor did the influence of Antiochus make them
agree that he should retain any lordship over the country. Because the
Romans did in these instances what all prudent princes ought to do,
who have to regard not only present troubles, but also future ones, for
which they must prepare with every energy, because, when foreseen, it is
easy to remedy them; but if you wait until they approach, the medicine
is no longer in time because the malady has become incurable; for it
happens in this, as the physicians say it happens in hectic fever,
that in the beginning of the malady it is easy to cure but difficult to
detect, but in the course of time, not having been either detected or
treated in the beginning, it becomes easy to detect but difficult to
cure. Thus it happens in affairs of state, for when the evils that arise
have been foreseen (which it is only given to a wise man to see), they
can be quickly redressed, but when, through not having been foreseen,
they have been permitted to grow in a way that every one can see them,
there is no longer a remedy. Therefore, the Romans, foreseeing troubles,
dealt with them at once, and, even to avoid a war, would not let them
come to a head, for they knew that war is not to be avoided, but is only
to be put off to the advantage of others; moreover they wished to fight
with Philip and Antiochus in Greece so as not to have to do it in Italy;
they could have avoided both, but this they did not wish; nor did that
ever please them which is forever in the mouths of the wise ones of our
time:--Let us enjoy the benefits of the time--but rather the benefits of
their own valour and prudence, for time drives everything before it, and
is able to bring with it good as well as evil, and evil as well as good.

     (*) See remark in the introduction on the word
     "intrattenere."

But let us turn to France and inquire whether she has done any of the
things mentioned. I will speak of Louis(*) (and not of Charles)(+) as
the one whose conduct is the better to be observed, he having held
possession of Italy for the longest period; and you will see that he
has done the opposite to those things which ought to be done to retain a
state composed of divers elements.

     (*) Louis XII, King of France, "The Father of the People,"
     born 1462, died 1515.

     (+) Charles VIII, King of France, born 1470, died 1498.

King Louis was brought into Italy by the ambition of the Venetians, who
desired to obtain half the state of Lombardy by his intervention. I
will not blame the course taken by the king, because, wishing to get a
foothold in Italy, and having no friends there--seeing rather that every
door was shut to him owing to the conduct of Charles--he was forced to
accept those friendships which he could get, and he would have succeeded
very quickly in his design if in other matters he had not made some
mistakes. The king, however, having acquired Lombardy, regained at once
the authority which Charles had lost: Genoa yielded; the Florentines
became his friends; the Marquess of Mantua, the Duke of Ferrara, the
Bentivogli, my lady of Forli, the Lords of Faenza, of Pesaro, of
Rimini, of Camerino, of Piombino, the Lucchese, the Pisans, the
Sienese--everybody made advances to him to become his friend. Then could
the Venetians realize the rashness of the course taken by them, which,
in order that they might secure two towns in Lombardy, had made the king
master of two-thirds of Italy.

Let any one now consider with what little difficulty the king could have
maintained his position in Italy had he observed the rules above laid
down, and kept all his friends secure and protected; for although they
were numerous they were both weak and timid, some afraid of the Church,
some of the Venetians, and thus they would always have been forced to
stand in with him, and by their means he could easily have made himself
secure against those who remained powerful. But he was no sooner in
Milan than he did the contrary by assisting Pope Alexander to occupy the
Romagna. It never occurred to him that by this action he was weakening
himself, depriving himself of friends and of those who had thrown
themselves into his lap, whilst he aggrandized the Church by adding much
temporal power to the spiritual, thus giving it greater authority. And
having committed this prime error, he was obliged to follow it up, so
much so that, to put an end to the ambition of Alexander, and to prevent
his becoming the master of Tuscany, he was himself forced to come into
Italy.

And as if it were not enough to have aggrandized the Church, and
deprived himself of friends, he, wishing to have the kingdom of Naples,
divided it with the King of Spain, and where he was the prime arbiter in
Italy he takes an associate, so that the ambitious of that country and
the malcontents of his own should have somewhere to shelter; and whereas
he could have left in the kingdom his own pensioner as king, he drove
him out, to put one there who was able to drive him, Louis, out in turn.

The wish to acquire is in truth very natural and common, and men always
do so when they can, and for this they will be praised not blamed; but
when they cannot do so, yet wish to do so by any means, then there is
folly and blame. Therefore, if France could have attacked Naples with
her own forces she ought to have done so; if she could not, then she
ought not to have divided it. And if the partition which she made with
the Venetians in Lombardy was justified by the excuse that by it she got
a foothold in Italy, this other partition merited blame, for it had not
the excuse of that necessity.

Therefore Louis made these five errors: he destroyed the minor powers,
he increased the strength of one of the greater powers in Italy, he
brought in a foreign power, he did not settle in the country, he did not
send colonies. Which errors, had he lived, were not enough to injure
him had he not made a sixth by taking away their dominions from the
Venetians; because, had he not aggrandized the Church, nor brought Spain
into Italy, it would have been very reasonable and necessary to humble
them; but having first taken these steps, he ought never to have
consented to their ruin, for they, being powerful, would always have
kept off others from designs on Lombardy, to which the Venetians would
never have consented except to become masters themselves there; also
because the others would not wish to take Lombardy from France in order
to give it to the Venetians, and to run counter to both they would not
have had the courage.

And if any one should say: "King Louis yielded the Romagna to Alexander
and the kingdom to Spain to avoid war," I answer for the reasons given
above that a blunder ought never to be perpetrated to avoid war, because
it is not to be avoided, but is only deferred to your disadvantage. And
if another should allege the pledge which the king had given to the
Pope that he would assist him in the enterprise, in exchange for the
dissolution of his marriage(*) and for the cap to Rouen,(+) to that I
reply what I shall write later on concerning the faith of princes, and
how it ought to be kept.

     (*) Louis XII divorced his wife, Jeanne, daughter of Louis
     XI, and married in 1499 Anne of Brittany, widow of Charles
     VIII, in order to retain the Duchy of Brittany for the
     crown.

     (+) The Archbishop of Rouen. He was Georges d'Amboise,
     created a cardinal by Alexander VI. Born 1460, died 1510.

Thus King Louis lost Lombardy by not having followed any of the
conditions observed by those who have taken possession of countries and
wished to retain them. Nor is there any miracle in this, but much that
is reasonable and quite natural. And on these matters I spoke at Nantes
with Rouen, when Valentino, as Cesare Borgia, the son of Pope Alexander,
was usually called, occupied the Romagna, and on Cardinal Rouen
observing to me that the Italians did not understand war, I replied
to him that the French did not understand statecraft, meaning that
otherwise they would not have allowed the Church to reach such
greatness. And in fact it has been seen that the greatness of the Church
and of Spain in Italy has been caused by France, and her ruin may be
attributed to them. From this a general rule is drawn which never or
rarely fails: that he who is the cause of another becoming powerful
is ruined; because that predominancy has been brought about either by
astuteness or else by force, and both are distrusted by him who has been
raised to power.




Chapter 3
New monarchies are hard to deal with, even the sort of new ones that are just adding a territory onto an old monarchy. Machiavelli calls these mixed monarchies. What's the problem? The conquered will rebel at the first sign of a better situation, which is good if you want to take over but bad once you've conquered them. As elected officials find out, you can never give people all the things they expected, so they'll hate you for a while. Here's the thing: you need them to not hate you because your army can't control the new land by themselves and need the people on their side. Machiavelli gives the example of when the king of France, Louis XII, tried to take Milan. Everyone thought that Louis was going to be this awesome king, so they helped him kick out their ruler, Duke Ludovico. The thing is, Louis XII was awful, so they ran back to Ludovico. Even though it was easy to take over Milan the first time, after that, the Milanese wised up and it took "the whole world" to push their way in the second time . But then Louis was kicked out again. Why did he lose the second time? Let's take a look: If the land you are adding to your kingdom shares the same language as the rest of the kingdom, great. All you have to do is kill the old rulers and you're set. Leave everything else alone. Seriously. It'll all work out. Do that and you're golden. "But what if my new territory speaks a different language," we hear you bloodthirsty princes and princesses asking. That's just a wee bit more difficult. In that case, you should go live there. You wanted a new summer home didn't you? Then, if anyone tries to rebel, you can shut them down personally. Also, then you don't have to trust that officials are taking care of your new pet country instead of stealing all of its riches. Plus, people are more likely to like you if they see you as one of them, and most people would think twice about attacking your new crib. Basically, this is the best way to go. Don't want to move? Then you can make colonies instead. This is great because it doesn't require lots of military and it's super cheap. Just take land from the natives and give it to your colonialists. The only downside is that the people whose land you took will be angry. But that doesn't matter because they are poor and have no land. Win-win. By the way, you should only deal with people in two ways: crush them or pamper them to death. If you are going to hit, you need to hit so hard that they can't stand up again. Are you thinking about armies? Stop it. Armies will cause widespread but uneven damage, leaving more than enough people left who can hit back and are looking for you. Bad idea. Okay, next thing you have to do is become the guardian angel for the weaker nations around your new land. Or at least look like it. What you are really doing is making sure a strong foreign power doesn't swoop in and start cramping your style. People have this silly tendency to ask foreign nations to come in and save them from their horrible rulers. That's how the Roman Empire got so huge--people invited them in. You want to make sure that no foreigners come in and that everyone is on your side. So play nice with the neighbors. Machiavelli has the perfect example: the Romans. They had colonies, they made friends with the neighbors, they made strong neighbors weaker, and they didn't let any stronger people move into the neighborhood. Perfect. They were preparing for trouble that might come in the future, which is the easiest and best way to deal with problems. They didn't try to procrastinate, which only makes things worse. They hit their problems head on. Anyway, back to Louis and Milan. Why was he so terrible again? Oh yeah, he did the opposite of everything he was supposed to do. He didn't play nice with his neighbors and he actually helped two stronger powers move in to the neighborhood. He helped Pope Alexander invade Romagna and basically carried the King of Spain's moving boxes into Naples so they could split the Kingdom and be roomies. Yikes, no wonder he got kicked out. Machiavelli gets that Louis wanted more land, but it's best not to get too greedy. It doesn't make sense to get more land if you can't do it on your own. Help comes with too many strings attached. So in total, Louis was stupid in six ways:He got rid of his weaker buddies. He made the pope stronger.He brought a stronger king into his neighborhood.He didn't live in his new land.He didn't establish colonies. And the worst offense: he took power away from Venice, which allowed another strong state to muscle its way in. He got rid of his weaker buddies. He made the pope stronger. He brought a stronger king into his neighborhood. He didn't live in his new land. He didn't establish colonies. And the worst offense: he took power away from Venice, which allowed another strong state to muscle its way in. According to Machiavelli, it's no surprise that he lost his land. He did everything wrong, after all.