Coming now to the other qualities mentioned above, I say that every prince ought to desire to be considered clement and not cruel. Nevertheless he ought to take care not to misuse this clemency. Cesare Borgia was considered cruel; notwithstanding, his cruelty reconciled the Romagna, unified it, and restored it to peace and loyalty. And if this be rightly considered, he will be seen to have been much more merciful than the Florentine people, who, to avoid a reputation for cruelty, permitted Pistoia to be destroyed. Therefore a prince, so long as he keeps his subjects united and loyal, ought not to mind the reproach of cruelty; because with a few examples he will be more merciful than those who, through too much mercy, allow disorders to arise, from which follow murders or robberies; for these are wont to injure the whole people, whilst those executions which originate with a prince offend the individual only.
Turning now to the other qualities mentioned above, every prince should want to be seen as merciful rather than cruel. But he should take care not to misuse this mercy. Cesare Borgia was considered cruel. Yet his cruelty brought order to the Romagna, united it, and restored peace and loyalty. Considered properly, he was far more merciful than the people of Florence. To avoid a reputation for cruelty, they allowed Pistoia to be destroyed. So a prince should not mind being called cruel, as long as he keeps his subjects united and loyal. By making examples of a few people, he will be more merciful than those who show too much mercy. Their excessive mercy allows disorder to arise, leading to murders and robberies. These usually harm the whole population, while executions ordered by a prince harm only the individuals concerned.
During riots between the Cancellieri and Panciatichi factions in 1502 and 1503.
And of all princes, it is impossible for the new prince to avoid the imputation of cruelty, owing to new states being full of dangers. Hence Virgil, through the mouth of Dido, excuses the inhumanity of her reign owing to its being new, saying:
Of all princes, a new prince cannot avoid being accused of cruelty, because new states are full of dangers. So Virgil, speaking through Dido, excuses the inhumanity of her rule because it is new, saying:
“Res dura, et regni novitas me talia cogunt Moliri, et late fines custode tueri.”
“Harsh conditions and my newly established kingdom force me to take these measures. They also force me to guard my borders far and wide.”
. . . Against my will, my fate, an unstable throne, and a newly founded state force me to act. I must defend my realm with all my strength and protect my shores with these harsh measures. Christopher Pitt.
Nevertheless he ought to be slow to believe and to act, nor should he himself show fear, but proceed in a temperate manner with prudence and humanity, so that too much confidence may not make him incautious and too much distrust render him intolerable.
Still, he should be slow to believe and act, and he should not show fear. He should proceed calmly, with good judgment and humanity. Too much confidence must not make him careless, nor too much distrust make him unbearable.
Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with. Because this is to be asserted in general of men, that they are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous, and as long as you succeed they are yours entirely; they will offer you their blood, property, life, and children, as is said above, when the need is far distant; but when it approaches they turn against you. And that prince who, relying entirely on their promises, has neglected other precautions, is ruined; because friendships that are obtained by payments, and not by greatness or nobility of mind, may indeed be earned, but they are not secured, and in time of need cannot be relied upon; and men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than one who is feared, for love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails.
This raises a question: is it better to be loved than feared, or feared than loved? The answer is that a ruler should want to be both. But since the two are hard to combine, it is much safer to be feared if one must be sacrificed. For this can be said of people in general: they are ungrateful, fickle, dishonest, cowardly, and greedy. As long as you succeed, they are entirely yours. They will offer you their blood, property, lives, and children, as noted above, when the need is far off. But when it draws near, they turn against you. A prince who relies entirely on their promises and neglects other precautions is ruined. Friendships bought with money, rather than gained through greatness or nobility of character, may indeed be acquired. But they are not secure, and you cannot rely on them in times of need. People are less hesitant to offend someone they love than someone they fear. Love is maintained by a bond of obligation. But because people are base, they break that bond whenever it benefits them. Fear, however, protects you through a dread of punishment that never fails.
Nevertheless a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred; because he can endure very well being feared whilst he is not hated, which will always be as long as he abstains from the property of his citizens and subjects and from their women. But when it is necessary for him to proceed against the life of someone, he must do it on proper justification and for manifest cause, but above all things he must keep his hands off the property of others, because men more quickly forget the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony. Besides, pretexts for taking away the property are never wanting; for he who has once begun to live by robbery will always find pretexts for seizing what belongs to others; but reasons for taking life, on the contrary, are more difficult to find and sooner lapse. But when a prince is with his army, and has under control a multitude of soldiers, then it is quite necessary for him to disregard the reputation of cruelty, for without it he would never hold his army united or disposed to its duties.
Nevertheless, a prince should inspire fear in a way that avoids hatred, even if he does not win love. He can manage very well being feared, as long as he is not hated. He will always avoid hatred if he leaves his citizens’ and subjects’ property and women alone. When he must take someone’s life, he must have proper justification and a clear reason. Above all, he must keep his hands off other people’s property. Men forget their father’s death more quickly than the loss of their inheritance. Besides, there is never a shortage of excuses for taking property. Anyone who has begun to live by robbery will always find excuses to seize what belongs to others. Reasons for taking a life, however, are harder to find and lose their force sooner. But when a prince commands an army with many soldiers, he must disregard any reputation for cruelty. Without it, he could never keep his army united or ready to carry out its duties.
Among the wonderful deeds of Hannibal this one is enumerated: that having led an enormous army, composed of many various races of men, to fight in foreign lands, no dissensions arose either among them or against the prince, whether in his bad or in his good fortune. This arose from nothing else than his inhuman cruelty, which, with his boundless valour, made him revered and terrible in the sight of his soldiers, but without that cruelty, his other virtues were not sufficient to produce this effect. And short-sighted writers admire his deeds from one point of view and from another condemn the principal cause of them. That it is true his other virtues would not have been sufficient for him may be proved by the case of Scipio, that most excellent man, not only of his own times but within the memory of man, against whom, nevertheless, his army rebelled in Spain; this arose from nothing but his too great forbearance, which gave his soldiers more license than is consistent with military discipline. For this he was upbraided in the Senate by Fabius Maximus, and called the corrupter of the Roman soldiery. The Locrians were laid waste by a legate of Scipio, yet they were not avenged by him, nor was the insolence of the legate punished, owing entirely to his easy nature. Insomuch that someone in the Senate, wishing to excuse him, said there were many men who knew much better how not to err than to correct the errors of others. This disposition, if he had been continued in the command, would have destroyed in time the fame and glory of Scipio; but, he being under the control of the Senate, this injurious characteristic not only concealed itself, but contributed to his glory.
One of Hannibal’s remarkable achievements was this. He led an enormous army, made up of men from many different peoples, to fight in foreign lands. Yet no disputes arose among his soldiers, and none rebelled against him, in either good fortune or bad. This was due entirely to his inhuman cruelty. Combined with his boundless courage, it made his soldiers both revere and fear him. Without that cruelty, his other virtues would not have been enough to achieve this. Yet shortsighted writers admire his achievements while condemning their main cause. Scipio’s case proves that Hannibal’s other virtues would not have been enough. Scipio was an outstanding man, not only in his own time but in all living memory. Nevertheless, his army rebelled against him in Spain. This happened solely because he was too lenient, giving his soldiers more freedom than military discipline allowed. Fabius Maximus criticized him for this in the Senate, calling him the corrupter of Rome’s soldiers. One of Scipio’s subordinate commanders devastated the Locrians’ lands. Yet Scipio neither secured justice for them nor punished the commander’s outrageous conduct, entirely because of his easygoing nature. Someone in the Senate, trying to defend him, said many men were better at avoiding wrongdoing than correcting others’ wrongdoing. Had Scipio remained in command, this tendency would eventually have destroyed his fame and glory. But because he was under the Senate’s control, this harmful trait not only went unnoticed but contributed to his glory.
Returning to the question of being feared or loved, I come to the conclusion that, men loving according to their own will and fearing according to that of the prince, a wise prince should establish himself on that which is in his own control and not in that of others; he must endeavour only to avoid hatred, as is noted.
Returning to whether it is better to be feared or loved, I reach this conclusion. People love by their own choice, but they fear at the prince’s will. A wise prince should therefore rely on what he controls, not on what others control. He must only take care to avoid being hated, as I have noted.