I shall not discuss how the Samnites watched while the Roman people conquered the Volsci and the Aequi, and in order not to be too wordy I shall mention only the Carthaginians, who were very powerful and enjoyed a great reputation while the Romans were fighting with the Samnites and the Tuscans, for they already held all of Africa, Sardinia, and Sicily, and had conquered part of Spain. Their power, plus the fact that they were situated far from the borders of the Roman people, never made them think of attacking Rome or of giving aid to the Samnites and the Tuscans; on the contrary, they acted as a prosperous person would act when all goes well, making treaties with the Romans and seeking their friendship. They never realized their error until the Romans, having now conquered all the peoples between themselves and the Carthaginians, began to fight with the latter over the rule of Sicily and Spain. The same thing happened to the Gauls that happened to the Carthaginians, as well as to Philip, King of the Macedonians, and to Antiochus: all of them believed that while the Roman people were occupied with another power, the other power would defeat Rome and they would have the time to defend themselves against the Romans in either peace or war. Therefore, I believe that the Fortune the Romans enjoyed in this regard would have been possible for those rulers who acted in the same way as the Romans and possessed the same ability.
In this regard, I would talk about the method used by the Roman people in entering the territories of others if it were not for the fact that in my treatise on principalities I spoke of this at some length; this question is discussed fully in that work. To be brief, I shall say only this: they always tried to have some friend in a new province who might serve as a ladder to climb up or a gate through which to enter or as a means to hold onto it, as is evident when they entered Samnium with the aid of the Capuans, Tuscany with the support of the Camertines, Sicily with the assistance of the Mamertines, Spain with the help of the Saguntians, Africa with the aid of Masinissa, Greece with the Aetolians, Asia with the support of Eumenes as well as other princes, and Gaul with the assistance of the Aedui. And so, they never lacked support to facilitate their undertakings in acquiring and maintaining such provinces. The peoples who observe this practice discover that they have less need of Fortune than those who do not observe it well, and in order that everyone may better understand how much more effective was their ability than their Fortune in acquiring their empire, we shall discuss in the following chapter the characteristics of the peoples with whom they had to fight and how stubborn they were in defending their liberty.
CHAPTER II. WITH WHAT KINDS OF PEOPLES THE ROMANS HAD TO FIGHT, AND HOW STUBBORNLY THOSE PEOPLE DEFENDED THEIR LIBERTY
Nothing made it more difficult for the Romans to conquer the peoples around them and the provinces some distance from them than the love such peoples had in those times for liberty, which they defended so stubbornly that they would never have been defeated except for the extraordinary amount of strength employed against them; and in many instances we know in what dangers they placed themselves in order to maintain or regain that liberty, and what revenge they took against those who had deprived them of it. We also learn from reading their histories about the harm servitude caused these people and their cities. Whereas in our own times there is only one country that can be said to contain within it free cities,49 in ancient times there were in all lands many peoples who lived completely free. It is clear that in the times of which we are now speaking, from the Apennines which divided Tuscany from Lombardy all the way to the tip of Italy, all the peoples were free, as were the Tuscans, the Romans, the Samnites, and many others who inhabited that section of Italy. Nor do we ever read that any kings existed there besides the ones that reigned in Rome and Porsenna, King of Tuscany, the extinction of whose lineage history does not explain. But it is most clear that in the time when the Romans went to besiege Veii, Tuscany was free, and it enjoyed its liberty so much and so hated the very name of prince that when the people of Veii created a king for their protection and asked the Tuscans to help them against the Romans, the Tuscans, after holding many meetings, decided not to aid the people of Veii so long as they lived under a king, believing that it was not a good idea to defend the native city of those who had already subjected it to someone else.
It is an easy matter to understand the origin of this love for free government among peoples, for experience shows that cities have never enlarged their dominion nor increased their wealth except while they have existed in freedom. It is truly a marvelous thing to consider to what greatness Athens arrived in the space of one hundred years after she freed herself from the tyranny of Pisistratus; but, above all, it is even more marvelous to consider the greatness Rome reached when she freed herself from her kings. The reason is easy to understand, for it is the common good and not private gain that makes cities great. Yet, without a doubt, this common good is observed only in republics, for in them everything that promotes it is practiced, and however much damage it does to this or that private individual, those who benefit from the said common good are so numerous that they are able to advance it in spite of the inclination of the few citizens who are oppressed by it.
The contrary happens when there is a prince; in general, what he does in his own interest harms the city and what he does for the city’s benefit harms him. For this reason, when a tyranny replaces a free government the least amount of evil that results in cities so affected is that they no longer advance or increase in power and riches; but, in most cases—in truth, always—they decline. And if fate brings about the rise of an able tyrant who, through courage and force of arms, increases his dominion, the republic derives no benefit from this; it is he who benefits, for he cannot honor any of the brave and strong citizens whom he tyrannizes unless he is willing to fear them. Nor can he subjugate or make the cities he conquers tributaries to the city in which he is tyrant, for making the city powerful does not benefit him; but it is in his interest to keep the state disunited and to have each city and province acknowledge his personal rule. Thus, he alone profits from his conquests and not his native city. And anyone wishing to confirm this opinion with countless other arguments should read Xenophon’s treatise entitled On Tyranny.50
It is no wonder, then, that ancient peoples prosecuted tyrants with so much hatred and loved free government, and that the very name of liberty was so revered by them. This was the case when Hieronymus, the grandson of Hiero of Syracuse, was murdered in Syracuse, for when the news of his death reached his army, which was far from the city, the soldiers first began to riot and to take up arms against his murderers; but when they heard that in Syracuse the word liberty was being shouted, they calmed down completely and, delighted by that word, put aside their anger against the tyrannicides and began thinking about how a free government might be organized in their city.
It is also no wonder that the people take extraordinary revenge on those who deprive them of their liberty. There are many cases of this, but I will refer to only one of them: it happened in Corcyra, a Greek city, during the Peloponnesian War. Greece was at that time divided into two factions, one of which followed the Athenians, the other the Spartans; thus, in many cities that were so divided one faction sought the friendship of Sparta and the other that of Athens. And when it happened that in Corcyra the nobles prevailed and deprived the people of liberty, the popular party regrouped its forces with Athenian assistance, seized the nobles, and shut them up in a prison capable of holding all of them; then they took them out eight or ten at a time, and under the pretence of sending them into exile in various places they had them tortured in memorable fashion and then killed. When those still inside the prison became aware of this, they decided to escape this ignominious death if at all possible: armed with whatever they could find, they defended the entrance of the prison, fighting off all those who tried to enter. As soon as the people heard the noise, they removed the upper part of the building and smothered the prisoners with the debris. Many other events took place in that country of a similarly horrible and noteworthy nature;
thus, it is evidently true that liberty that has actually been taken from you is avenged with greater ferocity than is liberty that someone tries to take from you.
Considering, therefore, why it is that in ancient times the people were greater lovers of liberty than in our own times, I believe this arises from the same cause that makes men less strong today—and this, I believe, is due to the difference between our education and ancient education, based upon the difference between our religion and ancient religion. Since our religion has shown us the truth and the true path, it makes us value the honor of this world less; whereas the pagans,51 who valued it very much and considered it the highest good, were more fierce in their actions. This can be seen in many of their institutions, beginning with the magnificence of their sacrifices as compared to the meagerness of our own. In our sacrifices there is some ceremony (more delicate than magnificent) but no act that is fierce or brave. Theirs lacked neither pomp nor ceremonial magnificence; in addition, there was the act of sacrifice, full of blood and ferocity, involving the killing of a multitude of animals—this spectacle was awesome, and it produced similarly awesome men. Besides this, ancient religion glorified only men who were endowed with worldly glory, such as generals of armies and rulers of republics; our religion has glorified humble and contemplative men rather than active ones. Furthermore, it has established as the supreme good humility, abjection, and contempt for human affairs, while ancient religion defined it as grandeur of spirit, strength of body, and all the other things likely to make men most vigorous. If it is true that our religion also requires strength, it is the kind of strength that makes you willing to suffer rather than to undertake bold deeds.
So this way of living, then, seems to have rendered the world weak and handed it over as prey to wicked men, who can safely manage it when they see that most men think more of going to Heaven by enduring their injuries than by avenging them. If it would appear that the world has become effeminate and Heaven disarmed, this, without a doubt, is the result of the cowardice of men who have interpreted our religion according to sloth and not according to strength. For if they would consider that religion permits us to defend and better the fatherland, they would see that it intends us to love and honor it and to prepare ourselves to be the kind of men who can defend it.
Such education and such false interpretations as these, then, explain the fact that there are not as many republics today as there were in ancient times and, as a result, that people do not have as much love for liberty now as they did then; yet I believe that the cause of this was, rather, that the Roman empire, with its forces and its greatness, wiped out all the republics and all the self-governing states. And although this empire was later dissolved, the cities have not yet been able to unite or to reorganize themselves in a self-governing body except for very few places in the empire; however this may be, the Romans did encounter in the very remotest part of the globe a confederation of extremely well-armed republics that were most stubborn in the defense of their liberty. This demonstrates that the Roman people would never have been able to overcome such republics without rare and immense ability.
And as an illustration of a member of these confederations, the example of the Samnites should suffice: it seems a marvelous thing (and Livy admits it) that because they were so powerful and their armies so strong they were able to resist the Romans until the time of Papirius Cursor, consul and son of the first Papirius—a space of forty-six years—after the many defeats, ruins, and massacres they had suffered in their country; especially when one observes that a country where there were once so many cities and men is now almost uninhabited; at that time there was such order and force there that it would have been unconquerable if it had not been for the skill of the Romans. It is easy to see where that earlier order came from and how this present disorder arose: it all resulted from living in freedom then and living in servitude now. For, as I said above, all countries and provinces living in freedom make very great progress; for wherever there is a growing population marriages are freer and more desired by men, since every man willingly procreates the children he believes he can provide for without fear that this patrimony will be taken away; he is assured that they will be born free, not slaves, and that they may, through their own ability, become great men. Wealth derived from agriculture as well as from trade increases more rapidly in a free country, for all men gladly increase those things and seek to acquire those goods which they believe they can enjoy once they have acquired them. Thus, it comes about that men in competition with each other think about both private and public benefits, and both one and the other continue to grow miraculously.
The contrary of all these things occurs in countries that live in servitude: the further they move away from their accustomed good, the harsher is their servitude. And of all the harsh forms of slavery, the harshest is that which subjects you to a republic—first, because it is more lasting and there is less hope of escaping from it; second, because the goal of a republic is to enervate and weaken all other bodies in order to strengthen its own body. This is not done by a prince to whom you are subjugated unless the prince is some barbarian ruler or a destroyer of lands and a devastator of all human civilization, as are oriental rulers. But if he possesses humane and normal qualities, he is usually fond of all his subject cities and allows them all their industries and almost all their ancient institutions, so that if they cannot prosper like free men they will not come to ruin like slaves—and here I mean the kind of servitude which comes to cities subject to a foreigner, since I spoke earlier of those cities subject to one of their own citizens.
Anyone, then, who considers all that has been said will not wonder at the power of the Samnites when they were free and at their weakness when they later became slaves. Livy testifies to this fact in more than one passage, especially in his description of the war with Hannibal, where he shows that when the Samnites were oppressed by a legion of men stationed in Nola, they sent ambassadors to Hannibal begging him to come to their rescue. In their speech they said that they had fought with the Romans for a hundred years, using their own soldiers and their own generals; they had resisted two consular armies and two consuls on a number of occasions, and they had now come to such a shameful state that they could hardly defend themselves against one small Roman legion stationed in Nola.
CHAPTER III. ROME BECAME A GREAT CITY BY DESTROYING THE NEARBY CITIES AND BY FREELY ADMITTING FOREIGNERS TO HER OFFICES
[A city must become populous to build a great empire, and this may be achieved either by attracting people to a city because of its advantages or by compelling them to go there to live. Rome did not commit the error of Sparta; she always allowed foreigners to take part in her government, thereby increasing her population as her empire grew. The actions of men resemble those of nature; thus, just as the great branches of a tree require a large trunk to support them, similarly a small republic cannot conquer and hold cities or states larger than itself unless it is allowed to grow.]
CHAPTER IV. REPUBLICS HAVE USED THREE METHODS IN ORDER TO EXPAND
Anyone who has studied ancient history knows that republics have used three methods in order to expand. One the ancient Tuscans employed, which consisted of associating together many republics in which none surpassed the other in authority or rank; as they conquered, they made the new cities their companions in the same manner as the Swiss do today or as the Achaeans and the Aetolians did in ancient Greece. And because the Romans waged many wars against the Tuscans, I shall present a rather lengthy account of them in order better to demonstrate the characteristics of this first method.
Before the creation of the Roman empire in Italy, the Tuscans were very powerful on both land and sea; and while there is no detailed historical account of their affairs, there still remains some small trace of their greatness. It is known that to the sea above them they sent a colony, called Adria, that was so noble that it gave its name to the sea the Latins still call the Adriatic; it is also known that their forces were obeyed f
rom the Tiber River as far as the foot of the Alps, which circle the largest part of Italy, notwithstanding the fact that two hundred years before the Romans grew in strength the said Tuscans lost their rule over that land which today is called Lombardy; and that province was occupied by the Gauls, who, driven either by necessity or attracted by the sweetness of the fruits, and especially of the wine, entered Italy under their leader Bellovesus. After defeating and driving out the inhabitants of the province, they settled there and built many cities, and they called the province Gaul after the name they bore; they held this land until they were conquered by the Romans. The Tuscans, then, lived in equality and went about their conquests by employing the first method explained above, and there were twelve cities, among them Chiusi, Veii, Arezzo, Fiesole, Volterra, and other similar cities, which ruled their empire through a confederation; nor were they able to go beyond Italy with their conquests; the larger part of Italy remained intact for reasons that will be explained below.
The second method is to make allies for yourself—not to the extent, however, that you do not retain the position of command, the seat of the empire, and the glory of its undertakings—a method followed by the Romans. The third method is quickly to get subjects rather than allies for yourself, as the Spartans and the Athenians did.
Of these three methods, the last one is completely useless, as it was in the case of the two republics mentioned above, which came to ruin for no other reason than that they acquired more dominion than they were able to hold; for to undertake the task of governing cities by violence, especially those used to living in liberty, is a difficult and tiring matter. If you are not armed and equipped with strong forces, you can neither command nor rule them. If you wish to be in the position to do this, it is necessary to enlist allies who will give you aid. You should also increase the population of your cities. Because Athens and Sparta did neither of these things, their method of proceeding was useless.
The Portable Machiavelli Page 30
