The Prince (Modern, Updated Translation)

Book Summary

Niccolò Machiavelli's "The Prince" (1513) stands as one of the most influential and controversial works of political philosophy ever written, marking the birth of modern political theory. Written while Machiavelli was in exile from Florence, the book presents itself as a practical guide for rulers, particularly new princes who have acquired their position through their own abilities (virtù) rather than inheritance.

The work breaks radically from medieval political thought by focusing on how rulers actually behave rather than how they ought to behave. Machiavelli argues that a prince must be willing to act against traditional moral virtues when circumstances require it, famously asserting that it is better to be feared than loved if one cannot be both.

Machiavelli analyzes different types of principalities and how they are acquired and maintained. He examines hereditary principalities, new conquests, and territories won through fortune or ability. Through historical examples from ancient Rome and contemporary Italy, he illustrates successful and unsuccessful political strategies.

The book provides detailed advice on military matters, arguing that a prince must make war his primary study. Machiavelli criticizes the use of mercenaries and auxiliary troops, advocating instead for a citizen militia. He argues that relying on others for defense inevitably leads to weakness and vulnerability.

Central to the work is Machiavelli's concept of virtù – not moral virtue, but rather the combination of skill, strength, and cunning necessary for political success. He pairs this with the concept of fortuna (fortune or chance), arguing that while fortune controls half of our actions, we can influence the other half through preparation and foresight.

The work contains famous discussions of political appearance versus reality. Machiavelli argues that while a prince should appear to be merciful, faithful, humane, religious, and upright, he must be willing to act against these virtues when necessary for the state's security. This seeming endorsement of duplicity has contributed to the term "Machiavellian" becoming synonymous with cynical manipulation.

"The Prince" concludes with an impassioned call for Italian unification, revealing Machiavelli's deeper patriotic motivations. His analysis of power politics was meant not merely as abstract theory but as practical advice for ending Italy's fragmentation and foreign domination.

The Prince (Modern, Updated Translation)

Support more translations by picking up a copy of this book on Amazon.

Buy Book on Amazon

Free Book Preview (Modern English)

Dedication

To the Magnificent Lorenzo di Piero de' Medici

People who want to win the favor of a prince usually bring him gifts that they consider the most valuable or that they know he really enjoys. That's why you often see horses, weapons, gold cloth, precious stones, and similar fancy items being given to princes, fitting for their status.

Wanting to show my dedication to you, I looked for something special to share and realized that what I treasure most is the knowledge I've gained about the actions of great people. This knowledge comes from years of experience with current events and a deep study of history. After thinking about it carefully for a long time, I've put it all together in a little book that I'm now sending to you.

Even though I might think this work isn't quite worthy of your attention, I really hope you'll be kind enough to appreciate it. I can't offer you a better gift than the chance to quickly understand everything I've learned over so many years, through lots of challenges and dangers. I haven't dressed it up with fancy words or elaborate sentences, or any extra frills that many people use to make their work look good. I want it to be valued either for its honesty or for the importance of the topic itself.

I don't agree with those who think it's presumptuous for someone from a low or humble background to discuss and decide on the matters of princes. Just like artists who draw landscapes position themselves in the plains to observe the mountains and high places, and climb mountains to view the plains, to truly understand the nature of the people, you need to be a prince, and to understand the nature of princes, you need to be one of the people.

So, your magnificence, please accept this small gift in the spirit I'm sending it. If you read and think about it carefully, you'll see how much I want you to reach the greatness that your fortune and qualities promise. And if, from the height of your greatness, you occasionally look down to these lower places, you'll see how unfairly I'm dealing with a lot of ongoing bad luck.

The Prince

CHAPTER 1: DIFFERENT TYPES OF PRINCIPALITIES AND HOW THEY'RE ACQUIRED

All states and powers that have ruled or currently rule over people are either republics or principalities.

Principalities are either hereditary, where the ruling family has been in power for a long time, or they are new.

New territories are either completely new, like Milan was for Francesco Sforza, or they're like additions to the existing hereditary state of the prince who acquired them, similar to how the Kingdom of Naples was for the King of Spain.

These territories, once acquired, are either used to living under a ruler or enjoying their freedom. They can be gained through the ruler's own efforts, with help from others, by luck, or through skill.

CHAPTER 2: Concerning Hereditary Principalities

I'm going to skip talking about republics since I've covered them in detail elsewhere. Instead, I'll focus on principalities. I'll follow the order I mentioned earlier and talk about how these principalities should be governed and maintained.

I'll say right away that it's easier to hold onto hereditary states, where people are used to the ruling family, than to manage new ones. For a prince with average abilities, it's usually enough to stick to the traditions of his ancestors and handle situations wisely as they come up to keep his position. This is unless he's overthrown by some extraordinary and overwhelming force. And if that does happen, he'll likely get his state back if something bad happens to the usurper.

Take the Duke of Ferrara in Italy, for example. He wouldn't have been able to fend off the Venetians in '84 or Pope Julius in '10 if he hadn't been firmly established in his territory for a long time. A hereditary prince has fewer reasons and less need to upset people, so he's likely to be more loved. Unless he has some major flaws that make people hate him, it's reasonable to expect that his subjects will naturally like him. Over time, as his rule becomes more established, the memories and reasons for wanting change fade away, because one change often leads to the desire for another.

CHAPTER 3: Concerning Mixed Principalities

But the challenges come up in a new principality. First off, if it's not completely new but is instead part of a larger state, which you could call composite, the changes mainly stem from a common difficulty in all new principalities. People often switch rulers willingly, hoping for a better situation, and this hope leads them to take up arms against the current ruler. However, they end up disappointed because they realize they've gone from bad to worse. This also happens due to another natural and common necessity: a new prince always ends up burdening those who have accepted him with his army and countless other hardships that he has to impose on his new territory.

So, when you take over a territory, you end up making enemies out of everyone you've wronged in the process. Plus, you can't keep the friends who helped you get there because you can't meet their expectations, and you feel obligated to them, so you can't take strong actions against them. Even if you have a powerful military, you still need the locals to be on your side when you enter a new area.

For these reasons, Louis the Twelfth, King of France, quickly took over Milan, but just as quickly lost it. The first time, all it took to kick him out was Lodovico's own forces. The people who had let him in realized they weren't getting the benefits they hoped for and wouldn't put up with the new ruler's bad behavior. It's true that when you take back rebellious areas a second time, they're not as easy to lose again. The prince uses the rebellion as a chance to punish troublemakers, get rid of suspicious people, and strengthen his hold on the weakest spots. So, to make France lose Milan the first time, it was enough for Duke Lodovico to stir up trouble on the borders. But to make him lose it a second time, the whole world had to be rallied against him, and his armies had to be defeated and driven out of Italy, which happened for the reasons mentioned above.

Even so, Milan was taken from France both the first and second time. We've already talked about the general reasons for the first time; now let's look at the reasons for the second time. We'll also explore what resources he had and what anyone in his position could have used to hold onto his new territory more securely than the king of France did.

Now, when someone adds new territories to an old state, those new areas are either from the same country and speak the same language, or they’re not. If they are, it’s easier to keep control over them, especially if they’re not used to governing themselves. To keep them secure, you just need to get rid of the ruling prince’s family. Since the two groups will keep their old ways and aren’t too different in customs, they’ll live peacefully together. We’ve seen this happen in places like Brittany, Burgundy, Gascony, and Normandy, which have been part of France for a long time. Even if there’s a slight language difference, their customs are similar, so the people can easily get along. If the person who annexed them wants to keep them, they should remember two things: first, make sure the former ruler’s family is gone; second, don’t change their laws or taxes. This way, they’ll quickly become a unified part of the old state.

But when you take over a state where the language, customs, or laws are different, it can be tough, and you'll need some good luck and a lot of effort to keep control. One of the best and most effective ways to do this is for the person who has taken over to actually go and live there. This makes their position more secure and long-lasting, just like it did for the Turks in Greece. Even with all the other strategies they used to hold onto that state, if they hadn't settled there, they wouldn't have been able to keep it. Being there in person means you can spot problems as they start and fix them quickly. But if you're not around, you only hear about issues when they've become big, and by then, it's too late to fix them. Plus, your officials won't be able to exploit the country; the people will be happy because they can easily reach out to the ruler. This way, if they want to be good, they have more reasons to love him, and if they want to cause trouble, they have reasons to fear him. Anyone trying to attack that state from the outside has to be extremely careful; as long as the ruler is living there, it's really hard to take it from him.

A better approach is to establish colonies in one or two strategic locations that act as keys to the state. You either need to do this or maintain a large number of cavalry and infantry there. Setting up colonies doesn’t cost a prince much because he can send people there with little or no expense and keep them there. This only upsets a small number of citizens from whom he takes land and houses to give to the new settlers. Those who are upset end up poor and scattered, so they can't really harm him. Meanwhile, the rest of the citizens, who aren't affected, are easy to keep calm and are careful not to make mistakes, fearing they might end up like those who lost their property. In short, these colonies are not expensive, they are more loyal, cause less harm, and those who are harmed, being poor and scattered, can't retaliate. It's important to note that people should either be treated very well or completely crushed, because they can get revenge for minor injuries, but not for severe ones. So, any harm done to someone should be so significant that you don't have to worry about them seeking revenge.

Keeping soldiers there instead of setting up colonies costs a lot more because you have to spend all the state's income on the garrison. This turns the acquisition into a loss, and it makes many people upset because it harms the entire state. As the garrison moves around, everyone experiences hardship and becomes hostile. These people, even when defeated on their own land, can still cause trouble. For all these reasons, having such guards is as pointless as having a colony is beneficial.

A prince who controls a country different from what I've described should become the leader and protector of his weaker neighbors while weakening the stronger ones. He must ensure that no foreign power as strong as himself gets a foothold there by accident. This often happens when discontented locals, driven by ambition or fear, invite them in, as we've seen before. The Romans were brought into Greece by the Ætolians, and in every other place they entered, it was the locals who let them in. Typically, when a powerful outsider enters a country, all the subject states flock to him because of their hatred for the current rulers. So, he doesn't have to work hard to win them over; they naturally align with the new power. He just needs to make sure they don't gain too much power and authority. With his own forces and their support, he can easily control the stronger ones and remain the master of the country. If he doesn't handle this well, he'll quickly lose what he's gained, and even while he holds it, he'll face endless challenges and problems.

The Romans, in the regions they took over, followed a smart strategy. They sent out colonies and kept good relations with smaller powers without letting them get too strong. They kept the bigger powers in check and didn't let any strong foreign powers take control. Greece is a good example of this. They stayed friendly with the Achaeans and Aetolians, humbled the kingdom of Macedonia, and pushed Antiochus out. Despite the Achaeans and Aetolians being helpful, the Romans never let them grow more powerful. Philip couldn't persuade the Romans to be his allies without first being humbled, and Antiochus couldn't convince them to let him keep any control over the land. The Romans acted like any wise ruler should, thinking about not just current problems but also future ones, preparing for them with all their might. When you see issues coming, it's easy to fix them; but if you wait until they're right in front of you, it's often too late because the problem has become too big to handle. It's like doctors say about a fever: at first, it's easy to cure but hard to notice; later, it's easy to notice but hard to cure. The same goes for state affairs. When you spot problems early (which only wise people can do), you can fix them quickly. But if you ignore them and let them grow until everyone can see them, there's no solution left. So, the Romans, seeing trouble ahead, dealt with it immediately. They avoided letting issues escalate into war because they knew war can't be avoided, only postponed to someone else's benefit. They preferred to fight Philip and Antiochus in Greece rather than in Italy. They could have avoided both conflicts, but they chose not to. They didn't agree with the common saying of their time, "Let's enjoy the benefits of the moment," but instead relied on their own courage and wisdom. Time moves everything along and can bring both good and bad, just as bad can bring good.

Now, let's shift our focus to France and see if they've done any of the things we've talked about. I'll talk about Louis (and not Charles) because his actions are the most noteworthy, as he held onto Italy for the longest time. You'll notice that he did the exact opposite of what should be done to keep a state made up of different parts.

King Louis was brought into Italy because the Venetians were ambitious and wanted to get half of Lombardy with his help. I won't criticize the king's decision because he wanted to establish a presence in Italy, and he didn't have any allies there—especially since every door was closed to him due to Charles's actions. So, he had to accept whatever friendships he could find, and he would have succeeded quickly if he hadn't made some mistakes in other areas. Once the king took over Lombardy, he quickly regained the power that Charles had lost: Genoa surrendered; the Florentines became his allies; and the Marquess of Mantua, the Duke of Ferrara, the Bentivogli, the Lady of Forli, and the Lords of Faenza, Pesaro, Rimini, Camerino, Piombino, along with the Lucchese, the Pisans, and the Sienese—all of them reached out to become his friends. That's when the Venetians realized how reckless they had been, because in trying to secure just two towns in Lombardy, they ended up making the king the ruler of two-thirds of Italy.

Think about how easily the king could have kept his position in Italy if he had just followed the rules mentioned earlier and kept all his allies safe and secure. Even though he had a lot of allies, they were weak and scared—some were afraid of the Church, others of the Venetians. Because of this, they would have always had to side with him, and through them, he could have easily protected himself against the stronger powers. But as soon as he got to Milan, he did the opposite by helping Pope Alexander take over the Romagna. He didn't realize that by doing this, he was weakening himself, losing friends, and alienating those who had supported him, while at the same time, he was making the Church stronger by giving it more power. After making this first mistake, he had no choice but to keep going down that path. He ended up having to come to Italy himself to stop Alexander's ambitions and prevent him from taking over Tuscany.

As if it wasn't enough to have boosted the church and lost his friends, he decided he wanted the Kingdom of Naples. So, he split it with the King of Spain. Instead of being the main power in Italy, he brought in a partner. I understand that the ambitions and frustrations of that region needed an outlet. But instead of leaving someone loyal to him as king, he kicked him out and put someone in who could eventually kick him, Louis, out too.

The desire to acquire things is really natural and common, and people always try to do it when they can, and for that, they get praised, not blamed. But when they can't do it and still try by any means, that's when it's foolish and blameworthy. So, if France could have attacked Naples with its own forces, it should have done that. If it couldn't, then it shouldn't have split it up. And if the division France made with the Venetians in Lombardy was justified because it gave them a foothold in Italy, this other division deserves criticism because it didn't have the same excuse of necessity.

So, Louis made these five mistakes: he got rid of the smaller powers, he made one of the bigger powers in Italy stronger, he brought in a foreign power, he didn't settle in the country, and he didn't establish colonies. These mistakes wouldn't have been enough to hurt him if he hadn't made a sixth one by taking away the Venetians' territories. If he hadn't strengthened the Church or brought Spain into Italy, it would have been reasonable and necessary to weaken them. But since he did those things first, he should never have agreed to their downfall. The Venetians, being strong, would have always kept others from making moves on Lombardy. The Venetians wouldn't have agreed to that unless they could become the rulers there themselves. Plus, the others wouldn't want to take Lombardy from France just to give it to the Venetians, and they wouldn't have had the guts to go against both France and the Venetians.

And if someone says, "King Louis gave up Romagna to Alexander and the kingdom to Spain to avoid war," I'd respond, based on the reasons mentioned earlier, that making a mistake to avoid war is never a good idea. War isn't really avoided; it's just postponed to your disadvantage. And if someone else brings up the promise the king made to the Pope to help him with his plans in exchange for the annulment of his marriage and the title for Rouen, I'd say I'll address that later when I talk about how princes should keep their promises.

So, King Louis lost Lombardy because he didn't follow the rules that others have used when taking over countries and wanting to keep them. There's nothing miraculous about this; it's actually quite logical and natural. I talked about this in Nantes with Rouen, when Valentino, who was usually called Cesare Borgia, the son of Pope Alexander, took over the Romagna. Cardinal Rouen mentioned to me that Italians didn't understand war, and I replied that the French didn't understand politics. By that, I meant they wouldn't have let the Church become so powerful. In fact, it's clear that the Church and Spain's power in Italy was caused by France, and France's downfall can be blamed on them. From this, we can draw a general rule that almost always holds true: if you help someone else become powerful, you'll end up ruined. This is because their rise to power is either due to cunning or force, and both make the person who helped them feel uneasy.

CHAPTER 4: WHY THE KINGDOM OF DARIUS, CONQUERED BY ALEXANDER, DIDN'T REBEL AGAINST ALEXANDER'S SUCCESSORS AFTER HIS DEATH

Given the challenges people face in maintaining a newly acquired state, some might wonder how Alexander the Great managed to become the ruler of Asia in just a few years and then died before things were even settled. It seems reasonable to think that the whole empire would have rebelled. Yet, his successors managed to hold onto power and only had to deal with issues that came from their own ambitions.

I’d say that historically, principalities have been governed in two main ways: either by a prince with a group of servants who help him run the kingdom as his ministers, thanks to his favor and permission; or by a prince and barons, who have their status due to their family lineage, not because the prince granted it to them. These barons have their own lands and subjects who see them as lords and have a natural loyalty to them. In states governed by a prince and his servants, the prince is held in higher regard because there’s no one else in the country seen as above him. If people obey someone else, it’s only because they’re acting as a minister or official, not because they have any special loyalty to them.

In today's world, we can look at the examples of the Turkish government and the King of France. The entire Turkish monarchy is run by one ruler, and everyone else is just his servants. He divides his kingdom into regions called sanjaks and sends different administrators there, swapping them out whenever he wants. On the other hand, the King of France is surrounded by a long-established group of lords who are respected and loved by their own people. These lords have their own rights, and the king can't take those away without risking trouble. So, if you think about these two types of governments, you'll see that it's really tough to take over the Turkish state, but once you do, it's pretty easy to keep control. The reason it's hard to take over the Turkish kingdom is that you can't rely on the local princes to help you, and you can't expect the people close to the ruler to revolt and support you. This is because, as mentioned earlier, his ministers are all basically slaves and are really hard to corrupt. Even if you manage to corrupt them, they can't really sway the people to your side. So, if you're planning to attack the Turks, you need to remember that they'll be united, and you'll have to depend more on your own strength than on any internal rebellion. But once you've defeated the Turks and beaten them so badly that they can't rebuild their armies, the only thing to worry about is the ruler's family. If you eliminate them, there's no one left to fear because the others don't have any influence with the people. Since you didn't rely on them to win, you shouldn't worry about them afterward either.

The opposite is true in kingdoms like France. You can easily get in by winning over some baron, because there are always people who are unhappy and want change. These people can help you get into power and make victory easy. But if you want to keep control afterward, you'll face endless challenges from both those who helped you and those you defeated. It's not enough to just eliminate the prince's family, because the remaining lords will lead new uprisings against you. Since you can't satisfy or eliminate them all, you'll lose control of the state whenever the chance arises.

If you think about how Darius's government worked, you'll see it was a lot like the Turkish kingdom. So, all Alexander needed to do was defeat him in battle and then take over the country. Once he won and Darius was killed, Alexander had a firm hold on the state for those reasons. If his successors had stuck together, they could have ruled peacefully and easily, because any unrest in the kingdom was only caused by their own actions.

But it's impossible to maintain such calm in countries set up like France. That's why there were so many rebellions against the Romans in places like Spain, France, and Greece. These areas had lots of principalities, and as long as people remembered them, the Romans never really had a firm grip. However, as the Roman Empire grew stronger and lasted longer, people forgot about those principalities, and the Romans finally became secure rulers. Later, when they fought among themselves, each leader could claim parts of the country based on the power they had established there. With the old ruling families wiped out, only the Romans were recognized as rulers.

When you think about these things, it's no surprise how easily Alexander kept control of the Asian Empire, or why others like Pyrrhus struggled to hold onto their conquests. It's not really about how skilled the conqueror is, but more about the lack of consistency in the conquered state.

CHAPTER 5: HOW TO GOVERN CITIES OR PRINCIPALITIES THAT HAD THEIR OWN LAWS BEFORE BEING TAKEN OVER

When you take over states that are used to living under their own laws and in freedom, there are three ways to keep control: first, you can destroy them; second, you can move there yourself; and third, you can let them keep their own laws, collect taxes, and set up a friendly oligarchy. This kind of government, created by the ruler, knows it can't survive without his support, so it does everything it can to help him. So, if you want to keep control of a city that's used to freedom, it's easier to do it with the help of its own citizens than any other way.

Take the Spartans and the Romans, for example. The Spartans took over Athens and Thebes and set up an oligarchy there, but they eventually lost control. On the other hand, the Romans managed to keep control of places like Capua, Carthage, and Numantia by dismantling them, and they didn't lose them. The Romans tried to control Greece like the Spartans did, by allowing it to be free and keep its own laws, but they didn't succeed. To maintain control, they had to dismantle many cities in the region because, honestly, there's no safe way to keep control without destroying them. If someone takes over a city that's used to being free and doesn't destroy it, they can expect to be overthrown by it. That's because the city will always rally around the idea of liberty and its old privileges, which time or benefits will never make them forget. No matter what you do, they won't forget their name or privileges unless they're broken up or scattered. They'll seize every opportunity to rally around them, just like Pisa did after being under Florentine control for a hundred years.

When cities or countries are used to living under a prince, and his family is wiped out, they find themselves in a tricky spot. They're used to following orders but don't have the old prince around anymore, so they can't agree on picking a new leader from among themselves, and they don't really know how to govern themselves. Because of this, they're usually slow to take up arms, making it easier for a new prince to win them over and secure control. On the other hand, republics have more energy, stronger feelings of hatred, and a bigger desire for revenge, which means they won't easily forget their past freedom. So, the safest approach is either to destroy them or to live there.

CHAPTER 6: Concerning NEW PRINCIPALITIES GAINED THROUGH PERSONAL EFFORTS AND SKILLS

Don't be surprised if, when I talk about brand new principalities, I bring up the best examples of rulers and states. People usually follow the paths set by others and try to imitate their actions, but they can't completely stick to those paths or reach the same level of power as those they copy. A smart person should always follow the paths of great individuals and try to imitate those who have been the best. This way, even if they can't match their abilities, they'll at least come close. They should be like skilled archers who, when aiming for a target that seems too far away, know the limits of their bow's strength. They aim much higher than the target, not to reach that height with their strength or arrow, but to use that high aim to hit the target they want to reach.

In new territories with a new ruler, the challenge of maintaining control depends on how skilled the ruler is. If someone becomes a ruler from an ordinary background, it usually means they have either talent or luck. One of these factors will help them overcome many challenges. However, the ruler who depends less on luck tends to be more secure in their position. It's also easier for the ruler to manage things if they have no other territories and are required to live there personally.

Let's talk about those who became leaders through their own skills and not just luck. Moses, Cyrus, Romulus, Theseus, and others like them are great examples. Even though we might not discuss Moses in the same way since he was carrying out God's will, he still deserves admiration for being chosen to speak with God. When we look at Cyrus and others who built or took over kingdoms, they're all impressive. If we examine their actions and how they lived, they stand up well next to Moses, even though he had such a great teacher. When we look at what they did, it's clear they didn't rely on luck, except for the opportunities that came their way. These opportunities gave them the chance to shape things as they saw fit. Without those opportunities, their talents might have gone unnoticed, and without their talents, the opportunities would have been wasted.

Moses needed to find the Israelites in Egypt enslaved and oppressed by the Egyptians so they would be willing to follow him to freedom. Romulus had to leave Alba and be abandoned at birth to become the King of Rome and the founder of the nation. Cyrus needed to encounter the Persians unhappy with the rule of the Medes, who had become weak and indulgent after a long period of peace. Theseus wouldn't have been able to prove his skills if he hadn't found the scattered Athenians. These opportunities made these men successful, and their great abilities allowed them to seize the moment and elevate their countries to fame and honor.

People who become leaders through brave actions, like these individuals, find it tough to gain power, but once they have it, it's easier to hold onto. The challenges they face in gaining power often come from the new rules and methods they have to introduce to establish and secure their government. It's important to remember that there's nothing more challenging to start, more risky to carry out, or more uncertain in its success than leading the way in creating a new order. This is because the innovator faces opposition from everyone who benefited from the old ways, and only lukewarm support from those who might benefit from the new ways. This lack of enthusiasm partly comes from fear of the opponents, who have the law on their side, and partly from people's skepticism, as they don't easily trust new things until they've been around for a while. So, when those who oppose have the chance to attack, they do so aggressively, while the supporters defend half-heartedly, putting the leader at risk along with them.

So, if we really want to dive into this topic, we need to ask whether these innovators can stand on their own or if they have to rely on others. In other words, to achieve their goals, do they need to pray and hope, or can they use force? If they have to rely on prayers, they usually fail and don't achieve much. But if they can rely on themselves and use force, they're rarely in danger. That's why all armed prophets have succeeded, while the unarmed ones have been defeated. Besides the reasons already mentioned, people are unpredictable. It's easy to convince them, but hard to keep them convinced. So, it's crucial to have a plan in place so that when they stop believing, you can make them believe again by using force.

If Moses, Cyrus, Theseus, and Romulus hadn't been armed, they couldn't have kept their rules in place for long—just like what happened to Fra Girolamo Savonarola in our time. He was quickly ruined with his new ideas once people stopped believing in him, and he had no way to keep his supporters loyal or convince the skeptics. So, people like this face big challenges in achieving their goals. All their dangers come while they're rising to power, but with skill, they can overcome them. Once they do, and those who doubted them are dealt with, they'll start to earn respect and will continue to be powerful, secure, honored, and happy.

I want to add a smaller example to these great ones; it still has some similarities to them, and I hope it will be enough for all similar cases: it's Hiero of Syracuse. [1] This guy went from being an ordinary citizen to becoming the ruler of Syracuse, and he didn't owe anything to luck except for the opportunity. The people of Syracuse, feeling oppressed, chose him as their leader, and later he was rewarded by being made their ruler. He was so capable, even as a regular citizen, that someone who wrote about him said he only needed a kingdom to be a king. He got rid of the old army, organized a new one, ended old alliances, and formed new ones. With his own soldiers and allies, he could build whatever he wanted: so, while he went through a lot of trouble to gain power, he had very little trouble keeping it.

CHAPTER 7: Concerning NEW PRINCIPALITIES GAINED THROUGH THE HELP OF OTHERS OR BY LUCK

People who become leaders purely by luck, going from being regular citizens to rulers, find it easy to rise but hard to stay on top. They don't face many challenges on their way up because their rise is swift, but they encounter many once they're at the peak. This happens to those who are given power either through money or the favor of someone who grants it, like what happened to many in Greece, in the cities of Ionia and the Hellespont, where Darius made them rulers to secure and glorify his empire. The same goes for those emperors who, through the corruption of soldiers, went from being citizens to rulers. These people are simply elevated by the goodwill and fortune of the person who raised them up—two of the most unpredictable and unstable things. They also lack the necessary knowledge for the role because, unless they are exceptionally talented and capable, it's unreasonable to expect them to know how to lead, having always lived as private citizens. Moreover, they can't maintain their position because they don't have loyal and trustworthy forces to support them.

States that suddenly rise to power, like anything else in nature that is born and grows quickly, often don't have solid foundations or connections. This means that the first challenge or crisis can easily topple them. However, if the people who unexpectedly become leaders are really skilled, they understand that they need to be ready right away to hold onto what luck has given them. They must build the foundations that others had already established before they became leaders.

When it comes to becoming a ruler through either skill or luck, I want to bring up two examples we all know: Francesco Sforza and Cesare Borgia. Francesco, through his own efforts and great skill, went from being an ordinary person to becoming the Duke of Milan, and he managed to hold onto what he had gained with a lot of hard work without much difficulty. On the other hand, Cesare Borgia, known by the people as Duke Valentino, gained his position while his father was in power, but lost it when his father's influence waned. This happened even though he did everything a wise and capable person should do to secure his position in the territories that others' efforts and luck had given him.

As mentioned earlier, if someone hasn't set up their foundations first, they might be able to do it later with great skill, but it will be challenging for the architect and risky for the building. So, if we look at all the steps the duke took, it's clear he built a solid foundation for his future power. I don't think it's unnecessary to talk about them because I can't think of better advice for a new ruler than to follow his example. And if his plans didn't work out, it wasn't his fault but rather the result of incredibly bad luck.

Alexander the Sixth wanted to expand his son, the duke's, power, but he faced a bunch of immediate and future challenges. First off, he couldn't figure out how to make his son ruler of any state that wasn't already part of the Church. Even if he was okay with taking land from the Church, he knew the Duke of Milan and the Venetians wouldn't agree, since places like Faenza and Rimini were already under Venetian protection. On top of that, he noticed that the military forces in Italy, especially those who might have helped him, were in the hands of people who would be worried about the Pope gaining more power, like the Orsini and the Colonnesi and their allies. So, he needed to shake things up and create some chaos among the powers to secure control over part of their territories. This was pretty easy for him because the Venetians, for their own reasons, were open to bringing the French back into Italy. Not only did he not oppose this, but he also made it easier by annulling King Louis's previous marriage. So, the king came into Italy with the help of the Venetians and Alexander's approval. As soon as he was in Milan, the Pope got soldiers from him to make a move on the Romagna, which surrendered to him thanks to the king's reputation. The duke, having taken over the Romagna and defeated the Colonnesi, wanted to hold onto that and push further, but he was stopped by two issues: his forces didn't seem loyal, and he was unsure about France's support. He worried that the Orsini forces he was using wouldn't stick by him, and not only might they stop him from gaining more, but they might even take what he had already won. He also feared the king might do the same. He got a hint about the Orsini's loyalty when, after capturing Faenza and moving to attack Bologna, he saw them dragging their feet. As for the king, he got a sense of his intentions when, after taking the Duchy of Urbino, he moved on Tuscany, and the king made him back off. So, the duke decided he couldn't rely on the forces and luck of others anymore.

First, he weakened the Orsini and Colonna factions in Rome by winning over their supporters who were gentlemen. He made them his own gentlemen, paid them well, and gave them positions and commands based on their rank. In just a few months, their loyalty shifted entirely to the duke. After that, he waited for the right moment to take down the Orsini, having already scattered the supporters of the Colonna family. This opportunity came soon, and he seized it effectively. The Orsini, realizing that the duke and the Church's rise to power was a threat to them, called a meeting at Magione in Perugia. This led to the rebellion in Urbino and unrest in the Romagna, creating numerous dangers for the duke, all of which he overcame with French support. Once he restored his authority, he didn't want to risk it by relying on the French or other external forces. So, he resorted to cunning strategies and was so good at hiding his intentions that, with the help of Signor Pagolo—whom the duke kept close with gifts of money, clothes, and horses—the Orsini were reconciled. Their naivety led them into his trap at Sinigalia. After eliminating their leaders and turning their followers into his allies, the duke built a strong foundation for his power, controlling all of Romagna and the Duchy of Urbino. As the people began to appreciate their improved situation, he won them over completely. This strategy is noteworthy and worth imitating, so I didn't want to leave it out.

When the duke took over Romagna, he found it was being run by weak leaders who were more interested in exploiting their people than governing them. This led to a lot of division, with the region plagued by theft, fights, and all sorts of violence. Wanting to restore peace and respect for authority, the duke decided it was necessary to appoint a strong governor. So, he promoted Messer Ramiro d'Orco, a quick and ruthless man, giving him full power. Ramiro quickly brought peace and unity with great success. However, the duke later realized that giving someone so much power might not be a good idea, as it could make him unpopular. So, he established a court of judgment in the region, led by an excellent president, where all cities had their representatives. Knowing that the previous harshness had made him unpopular, the duke wanted to clear his name and win over the people. He wanted to show that any cruelty was not his doing but was due to the minister's natural harshness. Using this as a cover, he had Ramiro executed one morning and left his body in the square at Cesena with a block and a bloody knife beside him. The brutality of this scene left the people both satisfied and shocked.

But let's go back to where we started. I'm saying that the duke, now feeling strong enough and somewhat protected from immediate threats by having armed himself his own way, and having mostly defeated nearby forces that could harm him if he wanted to continue his conquest, had to think about France next. He knew that the king, who realized his mistake too late, wouldn't support him. From this point on, he started looking for new allies and tried to play nice with France during their campaign towards the Kingdom of Naples against the Spaniards who were besieging Gaeta. He intended to protect himself from them, and he would have done so quickly if Alexander had lived.

This was his approach to the current situation. Looking ahead, he was worried that the next Pope might not be friendly and could try to take away what Alexander had given him. So, he came up with four strategies. First, he aimed to eliminate the families of the lords he had overthrown, removing any excuse for the Pope to act against him. Second, he worked on gaining the support of the influential people in Rome, so he could use their help to keep the Pope in check. Third, he sought to sway the college to his side. Fourth, he wanted to build enough power before the Pope died so he could handle any immediate threats on his own. By the time Alexander passed away, he had achieved three of these goals. He had managed to kill most of the lords he had ousted, with only a few escaping; he had won over the Roman elite; and he had the largest faction in the college. For further expansion, he planned to take control of Tuscany, as he already held Perugia and Piombino, and Pisa was under his protection. Since he no longer had to worry about France (the French had been driven out of Naples by the Spanish, making both sides eager to stay on his good side), he set his sights on Pisa. After that, Lucca and Siena quickly fell in line, partly due to their dislike and fear of the Florentines. The Florentines would have had no way to stop him if he had continued to succeed as he was the year Alexander died. He had gained so much power and reputation that he could stand on his own, relying solely on his own strength and skills, rather than on luck or the support of others.

But Alexander died just five years after he first picked up the sword. He left the duke with only the Romagna region firmly under control, while everything else was up in the air, caught between two powerful enemy armies, and he was gravely ill. Despite this, the duke was bold and capable, and he knew exactly how to win people over or deal with them if necessary. He had laid such strong foundations in such a short time that if he hadn't been burdened by those armies or if he had been healthy, he would have overcome all his challenges. You can tell his foundations were solid because Romagna waited for him for over a month. In Rome, even though he was barely hanging on, he was secure; and while the Baglioni, the Vitelli, and the Orsini might have come to Rome, they couldn't do anything against him. Even if he couldn't make the Pope someone he wanted, at least he could ensure that someone he didn't want wouldn't be elected. But if he had been healthy when Alexander died, everything would have turned out differently for him. On the day Julius the Second was elected, he told me that he had thought of everything that might happen when his father died and had a plan for it all, except he never expected that when it happened, he would be on the brink of death himself.

When I think about everything the duke did, I can't really blame him. In fact, like I mentioned before, I think he's a great example for anyone who rises to power through luck or the support of others. He had big dreams and a strong spirit, and he couldn't have acted any differently. It was only the early death of Alexander and his own illness that stopped him from achieving his goals. So, if someone wants to secure their new position, make friends, win over people either by force or cleverness, be loved and feared by the public, respected by soldiers, eliminate threats, shake up the old ways, be both strict and kind, generous and noble, get rid of unreliable troops and build a new army, and maintain strategic friendships with other leaders, they should look no further than this man's actions as a guide.

The only thing he can really be blamed for is the election of Julius the Second, which was a bad choice. As people say, even if he couldn't get a Pope he liked, he could have stopped others from becoming Pope. He should never have agreed to elect any cardinal he had wronged or who might fear him if they became Pope. People hurt others out of fear or hatred. Among those he had wronged were San Pietro ad Vincula, Colonna, San Giorgio, and Ascanio. The rest, except for Rouen and the Spaniards, would have had reason to fear him if they became Pope. The Spaniards were safe because of their ties and obligations, and Rouen because of his influence, since France had connections with him. So, above all, the duke should have made sure a Spaniard became Pope, and if not, he should have supported Rouen instead of San Pietro ad Vincula. Anyone who thinks that new favors will make people forget old wrongs is mistaken. That's why the duke made a mistake in his choice, and it ultimately led to his downfall.