feat_summary_path: finished_summaries/shmoop/The Prince/section_4_part_0.txt
feat_book_id: The Prince.chapter 4
feat_summary_id: chapter 4
feat_summary: {"name": "Chapter 4", "url": "https://web.archive.org/web/20210420060055/https://www.shmoop.com/study-guides/literature/prince-machiavelli/summary/chapter-4", "summary": "Now you're thinking: didn't Alexander the Great get land quickly and hold on to it even after his death? And weren't you just saying how difficult it is to hold on to new lands, Machiavelli? Well, there's a perfectly reasonable explanation for that. There are two ways to govern a monarchy: by a king and non-elected barons or by a king and his appointed ministers. In the second one, the king is more powerful since he's the only person who has real power. Turkey is one example of this kind of government. Because the king has all the power, a country like Turkey is pretty hard to conquer. There are no barons to help you by turning against the king. But on the plus side, once you do take over, ruling is a piece of cake because there are no barons to try to challenge you. On the other hand, we have places like France, where there's a king and barons that go back a long time. It's super easy to get into one of these places, since a baron somewhere is probably pissed at the king and wants him gone. The problem is, those same barons can turn against you after the old king is gone, so it's hard to hold on to these sorts of kingdoms. Back to Alexander. Why was it easy to keep his lands? You guessed it: they were like Turkey and had no barons to complicate things.", "analysis": ""}
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.
  
  
  
  
feat_summary_name: Chapter 4
target: Now you're thinking: didn't Alexander the Great get land quickly and hold on to it even after his death? And weren't you just saying how difficult it is to hold on to new lands, Machiavelli? Well, there's a perfectly reasonable explanation for that. There are two ways to govern a monarchy: by a king and non-elected barons or by a king and his appointed ministers. In the second one, the king is more powerful since he's the only person who has real power. Turkey is one example of this kind of government. Because the king has all the power, a country like Turkey is pretty hard to conquer. There are no barons to help you by turning against the king. But on the plus side, once you do take over, ruling is a piece of cake because there are no barons to try to challenge you. On the other hand, we have places like France, where there's a king and barons that go back a long time. It's super easy to get into one of these places, since a baron somewhere is probably pissed at the king and wants him gone. The problem is, those same barons can turn against you after the old king is gone, so it's hard to hold on to these sorts of kingdoms. Back to Alexander. Why was it easy to keep his lands? You guessed it: they were like Turkey and had no barons to complicate things.