The Prince

  When Pope Alexander VI decided to turn his son into a powerful duke, he faced all kinds of obstacles, present and future. First, he couldn’t see how he could make him ruler of anywhere that wasn’t Church territory. But he knew that if he gave away Church land, the Duke of Milan and the Venetians would block him, since Faenza and Rimini were already under Venetian protection. What’s more, the armies then operating in Italy, particularly those the pope might have called on for help, were all controlled by people - the Orsini, the Colonna and associated families - who had reason to fear papal expansionism, and hence couldn’t be trusted. What Alexander had to do then was undermine the status quo and the authority of his rivals so as to seize control of part of their lands with impunity. This turned out to be easy because, for reasons all their own, the Venetians were now determined to bring the French back into Italy. Rather than opposing the move, the pope smoothed the way by dissolving King Louis’s first marriage for him.

  So the French king entered Italy with Venetian help and papal consent. No sooner had he taken Milan than the pope got the king to send troops to help his son, Borgia, take Romagna, something that would have been impossible without Louis’s support. With the forces of the Colonna family now beaten, Borgia faced two obstacles if he was to hold on to Romagna and acquire further territory: the first was his own army, which he suspected of disloyalty; the second was French policy. Duke Valentino had been using the forces of the Orsini family but was afraid they would stop obeying his orders, preventing him from making new gains and perhaps depriving him of the old. And he had the same worries about the King of France. His doubts about the Orsinis were confirmed when, after taking Faenza, he attacked Bologna, and saw the soldiers anything but enthusiastic. Louis’s position became clear when, having taken Urbino, Borgia advanced towards Tuscany only to have the French king insist he turn back. After that he decided never to rely on other people’s armies and authority again.

  So first of all he weakened the Orsini and Colonna factions in Rome by luring the noblemen who supported them over to his side with generous salaries and military and political appointments in line with each man’s rank. In a few months old loyalties were forgotten and they were all for the duke. Then, having broken up the Colonna leaders, he waited for a chance to eliminate the main Orsini men. The chance came and he took it. Having realized, too late, that the growing power of Borgia and the Church would be their ruin, the Orsini arranged to meet together at Magione, near Perugia. The meeting produced a rebellion in Urbino, uprisings in Romagna and all kinds of dangers for Borgia. But with the help of the French he won through.

  Having recovered credibility, and not wanting to have to put the loyalty of the French or anyone else to the test, Borgia turned to trickery. He was so good at disguising his intentions that even the Orsini made peace with him, sending Paulo Orsini as mediator. Borgia was extremely generous to Paulo, reassuring him with gifts of money, clothes and horses, until the ingenuous Orsinis eventually responded and accepted an invitation to Senigallia, thus delivering themselves into the duke’s hands. Having killed the Orsini leaders then and forced their followers to become his allies, Borgia had laid solid foundations for his power: he held Romagna and the Duchy of Urbino and, what’s more, he felt he had won the support of the local people who were beginning to enjoy some prosperity.

  Since this last achievement deserves to be more widely known and imitated, I want to give it the proper space. On taking control of Romagna, Borgia found it had been run by weak leaders who had been stripping the people of their wealth rather than governing them, and provoking division rather than unity, with the result that theft, feuds and all kinds of injustice were endemic. So he decided some good government was required to pacify the area and force people to respect authority. With this in mind, he appointed Remirro de Orco, a cruel, no-nonsense man, and gave him complete control. In a short while de Orco pacified and united the area, establishing a considerable reputation for himself in the process. At this point the duke decided that such draconian powers were no longer necessary and might cause resentment. So he set up a civil court of law in the middle of the territory to which every town was to send a representative and he placed a distinguished man in charge. And since he was aware that the recent severity had led some people to hate him, in order to have them change their minds, and hence win them over entirely to his side, he decided to show that if the regime had been cruel, that was due to the brutal nature of his minister, not to him. So as soon as he found a pretext, he had de Orco beheaded and his corpse put on display one morning in the piazza in Cesena with a wooden block and a bloody knife beside. The ferocity of the spectacle left people both gratified and shocked.

  But let’s get back to where we left off. Borgia had consolidated his power and secured himself against most immediate dangers, building up an army of his own and seeing off the majority of the other armies that had been near enough to attack him. At this point the only obstacle to further expansion was the King of France. Borgia knew the king had realized he’d made a mistake supporting him earlier on and hence would not put up with further adventures. So he began to look around for new alliances and was less than generous in his support when Louis marched south to fight the Spanish who were besieging Gaeta in the northern part of the Kingdom of Naples. His aim was to be safe from French interference, something he would have managed soon enough no doubt, if his father, Pope Alexander, had not died.

  So that was how Borgia dealt with the immediate situation.

  As far as the future was concerned, what worried the duke most of all was that his father’s eventual successor would be hostile and try to deprive him of the territory Pope Alexander had given him. He devised four strategies to guard against this: first, eliminate the families of all the local rulers whose land he had taken, thus denying a new pope the option of restoring them; second, win the support of all the noble families of Rome (as we’ve already seen) so as to put the brakes on any papal initiative; third, get as much control as possible of the College that would elect the next pope; fourth, win so much territory before the pope died as to be able to resist a first attack with his own resources. By the time his father died he had achieved three of these four goals and wasn’t far off achieving the fourth. He had killed all the local rulers he could get his hands on and hardly anyone had escaped; he had won over the Roman nobility and he had enormous influence over the Electoral College. As far as extending his territory was concerned, he was aiming to become master of all Tuscany, having already captured Perugia and Piombino and taken Pisa under his protection.

  As soon as France’s restraining influence weakened (actually, it already had, since, having lost the Kingdom of Naples to Spain, the French - and the Spanish too for that matter - now needed Borgia’s support) he would grab Pisa. At that point Lucca and Siena would quickly surrender, partly out of fear and partly thanks to their old enmity with Florence, after which the Florentines would be unable to defend themselves. If Borgia had managed all this (and he was almost there the very year Alexander died) he would have accumulated so much power and prestige that he could have responded to any aggression with his own forces and talent and wouldn’t have needed to rely on anyone else’s armies or authority. But Alexander died just five years after his son had first drawn his sword. Only in Romagna had Borgia consolidated his power; all his other territorial gains were still shaky. He was isolated, caught between two extremely powerful, hostile armies, and, what’s more, mortally ill.

  Borgia was so ruthless and so talented, he knew so well that you have to win over people or destroy them and he had built up such solid foundations for his power in such a short time that if he hadn’t had these two armies threatening him, or if he hadn’t been so ill, he would have overcome every obstacle. That the foundations Borgia had built were sound was soon evident: Romagna waited loyally for more than a month while he lay half dead in Rome, and in Rome itself no one took advantage of his weakness; when his enemies, the Baglionis, Vitellis and Orsi
nis, turned up no one went over to their side. And though Borgia wasn’t able to choose who would be the new pope, at least he was in a position to block anyone he didn’t want. So if he had been in good health when his father died, everything would have been easy. He himself told me, in the days when the College was meeting to elect Julius II, that he had thought over what might happen on his father’s death and had made plans for every contingency; it was just that it never occurred to him that when the time came he too might be at death’s door.

  Having given this summary of everything Cesare Borgia did, I can’t find anything to criticize; on the contrary, and as I said, I mean to propose him as a model for anyone who comes to power through fortunate circumstances or with the help of another ruler’s armed forces. Given his great determination and considerable ambitions, Borgia could hardly have behaved any differently; only the combination of Alexander’s early death and his own illness prevented him from achieving his goals. A new ruler who reckons he must ward off enemies and woo friends, overcome obstacles by force or fraud, have himself loved and feared by his people, followed and respected by his soldiers, who must eliminate enemies likely or certain to attack him, reform old institutions, show himself both severe and gracious, generous and spontaneous, break up a disloyal army and build a new one, keep the friendship of kings and princes so that they support him with deference, or at least think twice before harming him, will find no better recent example to study than the policies of Cesare Borgia.

  The only criticism one can level at him is his role in the election of Pope Julius. As we’ve said, Borgia wasn’t in a position to impose the pope he wanted but he did have influence enough to keep out the candidates he didn’t want. And he should never have allowed a cardinal whose interests he had damaged, or who as pope would have reason to fear him, to win the election. Because it’s fear or hatred that makes men attack each other. The cardinals Borgia had wronged were, among others, Giuliano della Rovere, cardinal of San Pietro ad Vincula, Cardinal Colonna, cardinal of San Giorgio of Savona, and Ascanio Sforza. All the others, with the exception of the cardinal of Rouen and the Spanish cardinals, would have had reason to fear him had they become pope. With the King of France behind him, the cardinal of Rouen was a very powerful man, while the Spanish cardinals were related to Borgia and indebted to him. So the best solution for Borgia was a Spanish pope; failing that, he should have let Rouen take the throne, but not Giuliano della Rovere. Anyone who thinks that an important man will forget past grievances just because he’s received some new promotion must think again. Borgia miscalculated in this election, and the mistake was fatal.

  8

  States won by crime

  Aside from lucky circumstances and positive qualities, there are two other ways a private citizen can become a ruler and we should include them in our discussion, though one of these would find more space in a book about republics. They are, first, when a man seizes power by some terrible crime and, second, when a private citizen becomes hereditary ruler with the support of his fellow citizens. As for achieving kingship by crime, we’ll discuss two examples, one from ancient history and one from modern times, and look no deeper into the question, since these will be models enough for anyone obliged to take this course.

  Agathocles was a Sicilian. From being a private citizen, one of the lowest of the low in fact, he became King of Syracuse. Born a potter’s son, he lived a life of depravity from start to finish. All the same, mixed with that depravity were such excellent mental and physical qualities that, having joined the Syracusan army, he rose through the ranks and eventually became commander-in-chief. Once he’d taken charge, Agathocles decided to make himself king, using whatever violence was necessary to keep the power conferred on him as commander without being obliged to anyone. He discussed his intentions with Hamilcar, a Carthaginian whose army was then fighting in Sicily, and reached an agreement with him. Then one morning he called an assembly of the people and the Senate as if he had important state business to discuss. At a prearranged signal his soldiers moved in and killed all the senators and richest men in town. After this massacre Agathocles became King of Syracuse and held his throne without any resistance from the people. Twice defeated by the Carthaginians and then actually besieged, not only did he manage to defend his town but, leaving some men behind to resist the siege, he led the rest out of Syracuse to attack Africa. The siege was lifted and the Carthaginians pushed to the brink of collapse, at which point they accepted an agreement which allowed them to keep Africa and left Sicily to Agathocles.

  Looking at Agathocles’ life and achievements, you won’t find much that can be attributed to luck. As I said, he had no backers or benefactors when he took power but rose through the ranks, surviving all kinds of hardships and dangers. And when he’d got power he knew how to take tough, dangerous decisions to hold on to it. On the other hand, we can hardly describe killing fellow citizens, betraying friends and living without loyalty, mercy or creed as signs of talent. Methods like that may bring you power, but not glory. If you consider Agathocles’ ability to take risks and come out on top, and his remarkable spirit when it came to facing and overcoming obstacles, it’s hard to see why he isn’t rated as highly as the most outstanding military leaders. But his brutality, cruelty and inhumanity, together with the endless crimes he committed, mean he has no place among the men we most admire. In conclusion, we can’t attribute Agathocles’ achievements to luck or to positive qualities, since he needed neither.

  In our own times, we have the example of Oliverotto, a man from the town of Fermo who lived during the papacy of Alexander VI. Orphaned of his father while still very young, Oliverotto was brought up by his uncle, Giovanni Fogliani, who had him join the army under Paulo Vitelli in the hope that, with military discipline, he would rise to a high rank. On Paulo’s death, Oliverotto served under his brother, Vitellozzo, and being very capable, with a strong personality and powerful physique, he soon became the army’s top man. But since he felt that working with others was demeaning, he decided to take Fermo for himself. Having got the support of some of the town’s citizens, people who preferred to see their city enslaved rather than free, and with the backing of Vitellozzo, he wrote to Giovanni Fogliani saying that now so many years had gone by he was eager to come home and see his uncle again, visit the town, and check over some of his property. And since, he wrote, he’d been working hard for nothing but the prestige of his position, he wanted to ride into town in style with a hundred mounted friends and servants beside him; that way his fellow citizens would see that he hadn’t been wasting his time. And he asked his uncle please to arrange for the people of Fermo to organize an appropriate reception, something that would not only honour him but also his uncle, who had brought him up.

  Giovanni spared no effort to do his nephew proud and, after the people of Fermo had given him a formal reception, Oliverotto was welcomed into his uncle’s house. A few days later, having used the time to make secret arrangements for the crime he was planning, he threw an impressive banquet to which he invited Giovanni Fogliani and all the town’s leading men. After they’d finished eating and sat through all the entertainments you get on these occasions, Oliverotto slyly launched into some weighty reflections on the power and achievements of Pope Alexander and his son Cesare Borgia. When Giovanni and the others joined the conversation, Oliverotto suddenly got to his feet and said these were matters best discussed in a more private place and he headed for another room with Giovanni and all the other citizens trailing after him. They had barely sat down before Oliverotto’s soldiers rushed out of their hiding places and killed the lot of them.

  After the massacre, Oliverotto got on his horse, rode round the town and surrounded the chief magistrate in the state palace, with the result that people were forced to do what he said and set up a government with Oliverotto as the ruler. Having killed everyone who opposed the coup and might hit back, he strengthened his position by setting up a new army and new civil institutions, so that within the
year he was not only undisputed master of Fermo but also a serious threat to the neighbouring towns. And as with Agathocles, it would have been very hard to unseat Oliverotto, had he not let himself be fooled by Cesare Borgia, when, as explained earlier on, Borgia lured the Orsini and Vitelli men to Senigallia. Oliverotto went with them and so, just a year after killing his uncle, he was strangled along with Vitellozzo Vitelli, his mentor in courage and crime.

  You might well wonder how on earth, after all their countless betrayals and cruelties, men like Agathocles could sit safe on their thrones for years and even defend themselves against foreign enemies without their citizens ever conspiring against them; and this while many others, equally ready to use cruelty, weren’t even able to hold on to their power in peacetime, never mind in war. I think it’s a question of whether cruelty is well or badly used. Cruelty well used (if we can ever speak well of something bad) is short-lived and decisive, no more than is necessary to secure your position and then stop; you don’t go on being cruel but use the power it has given you to deliver maximum benefits to your subjects. Cruelty is badly used when you’re not drastic enough at the beginning but grow increasingly cruel later on, rather than easing off. A leader who takes the first approach has a chance, like Agathocles, of improving his position with his subjects and with God too; go the other way and you have no chance at all.

  It’s worth noting that when you take hold of a state, you must assess how much violence and cruelty will be necessary and get it over with at once, so as not to have to be cruel on a regular basis. When you’ve stopped using violence your subjects will be reassured and you can then win them over with generosity. If you don’t do all it takes at the beginning, because you were badly advised or didn’t have the nerve, then you’ll always have to be wielding the knife; and you’ll never be able to count on your subjects, since with all the violence you’re handing out they won’t be able to count on you. So get the violence over with as soon as possible; that way there’ll be less time for people to taste its bitterness and they’ll be less hostile. Favours, on the other hand, should be given out slowly, one by one, so that they can be properly savoured. Most of all, though, a ruler should have the kind of relationship with his subjects where nothing that can happen, good or bad, will force him to change his approach, because if hard times demand it, your cruelty will come too late, while any concessions you make will be seen as wrung out of you and no one will be impressed.