How we cite our quotes: (Chapter.Paragraph)
Quote #1
Colonies don't cost a great deal. You can send and maintain them very cheaply and they only arouse the hostility of the people whose houses and land are expropriated to give to the colonists. (3.6)
What benefit do colonies give to the main state? Does eminent domain (taking people's houses and land) fit in with the idea of protecting the state?
Quote #2
In fact I discussed the matter in Nantes with the Cardinal of Rouen when Duke Valentino (that was what people used to call Cesare Borgia, Pope Alexander's son) was invading Romagna; and when the cardinal told me that the Italians knew nothing about war, I told him that the French knew nothing about politics, because if they did they wouldn't be letting the pope grow so powerful. (3.17)
The Pope kicked the French out of Florence in 1512. Enough said.
Quote #3
From which we can infer a general rule that always holds, or almost always: that to help another ruler to grow powerful is to prepare your own ruin; because it takes flair or military strength to build up a new power, and both will seem threatening to the person who has benefited from them. (3.17)
The complicated moves that Machiavelli advises are like a mixture of chess and poker. Guard your king and take as many pieces as you can, but don't forget to keep your game face on.
Quote #4
Republics, on the other hand, have more life in them, more hatred and a greater thirst for revenge. Their memory of old freedoms lingers on and won't let them rest. In these cases, your only options are to reduce the place to rubble or go and live there yourself. (5.4)
Isn't it interesting that there's no third option, like leave the people alone to govern themselves? Unfortunately, modern history proves Machiavelli wrong because even those crushed nations seem to have eventually remembered enough to get pretty angry and kick their rulers out.
Quote #5
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. (7.6)
In Machiavelli's day, the Medicis greased a few palms to get their way. It seemed to work for them and for Cesare Borgia, so Machiavelli gives it as an example of what to do to get allies. How faithful do you think these allies will be?
Quote #6
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. (7.15)
Here he goes again, taking the morality out of politics. "Miscalculated" is an interesting word here, because it implies that politics is cold and rational like math or science. How close is that to the truth?
Quote #7
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. (8.8)
We guess this is good practice, but this stability sounds boring—not to mention really unlikely in the political climate that Machiavelli knew. How about a party every now and again?
Quote #8
I'll just conclude, then, that a ruler must have the people on his side; otherwise when things get tough there'll be no way out. (9.5)
Never forget that politics originally comes from a word meaning "citizen." That's the whole point! If the people aren't on your side, everything else Machiavelli has said is pointless.
Quote #9
So if he's sensible the ruler must work out a situation where his citizens will always need both his government and him, however well or badly things are going. Then they will always be loyal. (9.7)
This sounds like a bad relationship to us, but maybe it's just another way to keep the people on your side. (Rule number 1.) What strategies do rulers use to keep their citizens needing them? Are they anything like abusive relationships?
Quote #10
It's worth noting that Egypt is a unique case; it is similar to the papal state, which can't be classified as a hereditary monarchy or as a new monarchy. When the old ruler dies he is not replaced by one of his children, but a new leader is elected by a body vested with this authority. Since the state's institutions are well established, this can hardly be compared with a situation where a new ruler seizes a state, and in fact a pope or Egyptian sultan faces none of the difficulties that a new ruler usually faces, because although he may be new to power the institutions are old and set up to work on his behalf as if he were a hereditary king. (19.22)
Since popes and Egyptian rulers are so different from monarchs, do Machiavelli's rules still apply to them? Does being a religious leader change your strategy?