feat_summary_path: finished_summaries/cliffnotes/The Prince/section_3_part_0.txt
feat_book_id: The Prince.chapters 4-5
feat_summary_id: chapters 4-5
feat_summary: {"name": "Chapters 4-5", "url": "https://web.archive.org/web/20201108110625/https://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/p/the-prince/summary-and-analysis/chapters-45", "summary": "All principalities are governed either by a single ruler assisted by his appointed ministers or by a ruler and the hereditary nobles who hold power in their own right and have the loyalty of their subjects. The Turkish sultan divides his kingdom into districts that are managed by his administrators, but the king of France has to contend with many lords who have longstanding privileges. Because the sultan's administrators are dependent on him for their power, they are not likely to help a foreign invader. But if an invader had a strong enough army to win, it would be easy to keep their territory, because the people are not personally loyal to the administrators. In a kingdom like France, the nobles are always ambitious and ready to turn against the king. But if they assist you in conquering the country, they will also be ready to turn on you. Even if you kill all the royal family, the nobles remain, and you can neither satisfy them nor get rid of them. Whether one can control a territory depends less on personal ability than on the character of the territory. If the conquered territory was formerly a republic, in which the citizens were used to living under their own laws, you must destroy it, go live in it, or let the citizens live under their own laws with a government that is friendly to you. If you do not destroy the city, it will destroy you, so fiercely will the citizens remember and long for their freedom.", "analysis": "Machiavelli contrasts two types of government: a strongly centralized model, which he identifies with the East, and the looser confederated model that dominated in Western Europe. Machiavelli had ample opportunities to see the kinds of internal problems that afflicted decentralized collections of states. The example he cites, France, was actually remarkably stable and unified in comparison with his own region of Italy, where competing states invited foreign powers to invade, then turned on them, only to turn on each other as soon as the threat passed. Italy had indeed proved almost impossible to conquer, for exactly the reasons Machiavelli cites, but it had also proved impossible to unify. Machiavelli's comments about governing a conquered republic sound especially merciless: destroy it, he cautions, or it will certainly destroy you. However, if you read Machiavelli's advice as directed toward the new Medici rulers of Florence, it takes on a different tone. If you want to avoid being destroyed by it, you must come and live in it and rule it directly, he says. This is exactly what the Medici had failed to do in the period since their return to power, spending almost all their time away from Florence. Machiavelli's vivid portrayal of the republic's love of liberty can be read as a kind of warning to the Medici about how ready their new possession will be to return to its republican ways if they do not do more to govern it. In Chapter 4, Machiavelli begins elaborating on the theme of ability versus circumstances in determining a leader's success or failure. He implies that the leader's talents are less important than the situation he finds himself in. Machiavelli discusses this theme in detail throughout the book, culminating in his statements about fortune and free will in Chapter 25. The contrast between luck, specifically the favor of others, and ability is further explained in Chapters 6 and 7. Glossary Alexander Alexander the Great , King of Macedon and one of the great conquerors of the ancient world. Darius  King of Persia, one of the territories that Alexander conquered. Pyrrhus King of Epirus who fought against the Romans. He won several victories, but at a very high price. Pisa In 1406, Florence bought the city of Pisa from the dukes of Milan; in 1494, when Charles VII invaded, the Pisans asserted their liberty from Florence. Florence won Pisa back in 1509."}
text: Considering the difficulties which men have had to hold to a newly
  acquired state, some might wonder how, seeing that Alexander the
  Great became the master of Asia in a few years, and died whilst it
  was scarcely settled (whence it might appear reasonable that the whole
  empire would have rebelled), nevertheless his successors maintained
  themselves, and had to meet no other difficulty than that which arose
  among themselves from their own ambitions.
  
  I answer that the principalities of which one has record are found to
  be governed in two different ways; either by a prince, with a body
  of servants, who assist him to govern the kingdom as ministers by his
  favour and permission; or by a prince and barons, who hold that dignity
  by antiquity of blood and not by the grace of the prince. Such barons
  have states and their own subjects, who recognize them as lords and hold
  them in natural affection. Those states that are governed by a prince
  and his servants hold their prince in more consideration, because in all
  the country there is no one who is recognized as superior to him, and
  if they yield obedience to another they do it as to a minister and
  official, and they do not bear him any particular affection.
  
  The examples of these two governments in our time are the Turk and the
  King of France. The entire monarchy of the Turk is governed by one lord,
  the others are his servants; and, dividing his kingdom into sanjaks, he
  sends there different administrators, and shifts and changes them as
  he chooses. But the King of France is placed in the midst of an ancient
  body of lords, acknowledged by their own subjects, and beloved by them;
  they have their own prerogatives, nor can the king take these away
  except at his peril. Therefore, he who considers both of these states
  will recognize great difficulties in seizing the state of the Turk,
  but, once it is conquered, great ease in holding it. The causes of the
  difficulties in seizing the kingdom of the Turk are that the usurper
  cannot be called in by the princes of the kingdom, nor can he hope to be
  assisted in his designs by the revolt of those whom the lord has around
  him. This arises from the reasons given above; for his ministers, being
  all slaves and bondmen, can only be corrupted with great difficulty, and
  one can expect little advantage from them when they have been corrupted,
  as they cannot carry the people with them, for the reasons assigned.
  Hence, he who attacks the Turk must bear in mind that he will find him
  united, and he will have to rely more on his own strength than on the
  revolt of others; but, if once the Turk has been conquered, and routed
  in the field in such a way that he cannot replace his armies, there
  is nothing to fear but the family of this prince, and, this being
  exterminated, there remains no one to fear, the others having no credit
  with the people; and as the conqueror did not rely on them before his
  victory, so he ought not to fear them after it.
  
  The contrary happens in kingdoms governed like that of France, because
  one can easily enter there by gaining over some baron of the kingdom,
  for one always finds malcontents and such as desire a change. Such men,
  for the reasons given, can open the way into the state and render the
  victory easy; but if you wish to hold it afterwards, you meet with
  infinite difficulties, both from those who have assisted you and from
  those you have crushed. Nor is it enough for you to have exterminated
  the family of the prince, because the lords that remain make themselves
  the heads of fresh movements against you, and as you are unable either
  to satisfy or exterminate them, that state is lost whenever time brings
  the opportunity.
  
  Now if you will consider what was the nature of the government of
  Darius, you will find it similar to the kingdom of the Turk, and
  therefore it was only necessary for Alexander, first to overthrow him in
  the field, and then to take the country from him. After which victory,
  Darius being killed, the state remained secure to Alexander, for the
  above reasons. And if his successors had been united they would have
  enjoyed it securely and at their ease, for there were no tumults raised
  in the kingdom except those they provoked themselves.
  
  But it is impossible to hold with such tranquillity states constituted
  like that of France. Hence arose those frequent rebellions against the
  Romans in Spain, France, and Greece, owing to the many principalities
  there were in these states, of which, as long as the memory of them
  endured, the Romans always held an insecure possession; but with the
  power and long continuance of the empire the memory of them passed
  away, and the Romans then became secure possessors. And when fighting
  afterwards amongst themselves, each one was able to attach to himself
  his own parts of the country, according to the authority he had assumed
  there; and the family of the former lord being exterminated, none other
  than the Romans were acknowledged.
  
  When these things are remembered no one will marvel at the ease with
  which Alexander held the Empire of Asia, or at the difficulties which
  others have had to keep an acquisition, such as Pyrrhus and many more;
  this is not occasioned by the little or abundance of ability in the
  conqueror, but by the want of uniformity in the subject state.
  
  
  
  Whenever those states which have been acquired as stated have been
  accustomed to live under their own laws and in freedom, there are three
  courses for those who wish to hold them: the first is to ruin them, the
  next is to reside there in person, the third is to permit them to live
  under their own laws, drawing a tribute, and establishing within it an
  oligarchy which will keep it friendly to you. Because such a government,
  being created by the prince, knows that it cannot stand without
  his friendship and interest, and does it utmost to support him; and
  therefore he who would keep a city accustomed to freedom will hold it
  more easily by the means of its own citizens than in any other way.
  
  There are, for example, the Spartans and the Romans. The Spartans held
  Athens and Thebes, establishing there an oligarchy; nevertheless they
  lost them. The Romans, in order to hold Capua, Carthage, and Numantia,
  dismantled them, and did not lose them. They wished to hold Greece as
  the Spartans held it, making it free and permitting its laws, and did
  not succeed. So to hold it they were compelled to dismantle many
  cities in the country, for in truth there is no safe way to retain them
  otherwise than by ruining them. And he who becomes master of a city
  accustomed to freedom and does not destroy it, may expect to be
  destroyed by it, for in rebellion it has always the watchword of liberty
  and its ancient privileges as a rallying point, which neither time
  nor benefits will ever cause it to forget. And whatever you may do or
  provide against, they never forget that name or their privileges unless
  they are disunited or dispersed, but at every chance they immediately
  rally to them, as Pisa after the hundred years she had been held in
  bondage by the Florentines.
  
  But when cities or countries are accustomed to live under a prince, and
  his family is exterminated, they, being on the one hand accustomed to
  obey and on the other hand not having the old prince, cannot agree in
  making one from amongst themselves, and they do not know how to govern
  themselves. For this reason they are very slow to take up arms, and a
  prince can gain them to himself and secure them much more easily. But
  in republics there is more vitality, greater hatred, and more desire
  for vengeance, which will never permit them to allow the memory of their
  former liberty to rest; so that the safest way is to destroy them or to
  reside there.
  
  
  
  
feat_summary_name: Chapters 4-5
target: All principalities are governed either by a single ruler assisted by his appointed ministers or by a ruler and the hereditary nobles who hold power in their own right and have the loyalty of their subjects. The Turkish sultan divides his kingdom into districts that are managed by his administrators, but the king of France has to contend with many lords who have longstanding privileges. Because the sultan's administrators are dependent on him for their power, they are not likely to help a foreign invader. But if an invader had a strong enough army to win, it would be easy to keep their territory, because the people are not personally loyal to the administrators. In a kingdom like France, the nobles are always ambitious and ready to turn against the king. But if they assist you in conquering the country, they will also be ready to turn on you. Even if you kill all the royal family, the nobles remain, and you can neither satisfy them nor get rid of them. Whether one can control a territory depends less on personal ability than on the character of the territory. If the conquered territory was formerly a republic, in which the citizens were used to living under their own laws, you must destroy it, go live in it, or let the citizens live under their own laws with a government that is friendly to you. If you do not destroy the city, it will destroy you, so fiercely will the citizens remember and long for their freedom.
feat_summary_analysis: Machiavelli contrasts two types of government: a strongly centralized model, which he identifies with the East, and the looser confederated model that dominated in Western Europe. Machiavelli had ample opportunities to see the kinds of internal problems that afflicted decentralized collections of states. The example he cites, France, was actually remarkably stable and unified in comparison with his own region of Italy, where competing states invited foreign powers to invade, then turned on them, only to turn on each other as soon as the threat passed. Italy had indeed proved almost impossible to conquer, for exactly the reasons Machiavelli cites, but it had also proved impossible to unify. Machiavelli's comments about governing a conquered republic sound especially merciless: destroy it, he cautions, or it will certainly destroy you. However, if you read Machiavelli's advice as directed toward the new Medici rulers of Florence, it takes on a different tone. If you want to avoid being destroyed by it, you must come and live in it and rule it directly, he says. This is exactly what the Medici had failed to do in the period since their return to power, spending almost all their time away from Florence. Machiavelli's vivid portrayal of the republic's love of liberty can be read as a kind of warning to the Medici about how ready their new possession will be to return to its republican ways if they do not do more to govern it. In Chapter 4, Machiavelli begins elaborating on the theme of ability versus circumstances in determining a leader's success or failure. He implies that the leader's talents are less important than the situation he finds himself in. Machiavelli discusses this theme in detail throughout the book, culminating in his statements about fortune and free will in Chapter 25. The contrast between luck, specifically the favor of others, and ability is further explained in Chapters 6 and 7. Glossary Alexander Alexander the Great , King of Macedon and one of the great conquerors of the ancient world. Darius  King of Persia, one of the territories that Alexander conquered. Pyrrhus King of Epirus who fought against the Romans. He won several victories, but at a very high price. Pisa In 1406, Florence bought the city of Pisa from the dukes of Milan; in 1494, when Charles VII invaded, the Pisans asserted their liberty from Florence. Florence won Pisa back in 1509.