How we cite our quotes: (Chapter.Paragraph)
Quote #1
Whatever you do, whatever measures you take, if the population hasn't been routed and dispersed so that its freedoms and traditions are quite forgotten, they will rise up to fight for those principles at the first opportunity; just as the Pisans did after a hundred years of Florentine dominion. (5.3)
Huh, so you have to use violence to prevent violence? Also, aren't we supposed to be on the side of people rising up against their oppressors?
Quote #2
Once he's done that and eliminated those who resented his achievements, so that people start to respect and admire him, then he can enjoy his power in safety and will live honoured and fulfilled. (6.7)
Since when did violence lead to safety, honor, and fulfillment? Is today opposite day?
Quote #3
Moses, Cyrus, Theseus and Romulus couldn't have got people to respect their new laws for long if they hadn't possessed armed force. (6.7)
All of these guys killed people that weren't exactly in their grand plan for ruling. Yep, even Moses. Machiavelli always has a slightly different take on things. But hey, like any good essay-writer, he backs up his thesis with examples from old and new history. Take note, Shmooptons: your teachers will love this.
Quote #4
With this in mind, he appointed Remirro de Orco, a cruel, no-nonsense man, and gave him complete control. In a short while de Orco pacified and united the area, establishing a considerable reputation for himself in the process. At this point the duke decided that such draconian powers were no longer necessary and might cause resentment … he decided to show that if the regime had been cruel, that was due to the brutal nature of his minister, not to him. So as soon as he found a pretext, he had de Orco beheaded and his corpse put on display one morning in the piazza in Cesena with a wooden block and a bloody knife beside. The ferocity of the spectacle left people both gratified and shocked. (7.8)
Let's recap. Cesare Borgia is the one appointing Remirro de Orco to his brand new state, Romagna, in order to whip it into shape. Remirro was not a nice guy, so the whipping got done pretty quick. Borgia figured that he didn't want to get in trouble for that cruelty so he put all the blame on Remirro. This isn't the last time we'll see a scapegoat.
Quote #5
And as with Agathocles, it would have been very hard to unseat Oliverotto, had he not let himself be fooled by Cesare Borgia, when, as explained earlier on, Borgia lured the Orsini and Vitelli men to Senigallia. Oliverotto went with them and so, just a year after killing his uncle, he was strangled along with Vitellozzo Vitelli, his mentor in courage and crime. (8.7)
We keep talking about rulers using violence on other people, but remember: if you don't watch out, a ruler can be a victim, too.
Quote #6
I think it's a question of whether cruelty is well or badly used. Cruelty well used (if we can ever speak well of something bad) is short-lived and decisive, no more than is necessary to secure your position and then stop; you don't go on being cruel but use the power it has given you to deliver maximum benefits to your subjects. Cruelty is badly used when you're not drastic enough at the beginning but grow increasingly cruel later on, rather than easing off. (8.7)
Machiavelli removes morality from the whole topic. He's the first guy to do it, and it raises a question that we still ask today: is morality ever relevant? Do big banks have an ethical responsibility to the world, or do they just need to make as much money as possible?
Quote #7
So get the violence over with as soon as possible; that way there'll be less time for people to taste its bitterness and they'll be less hostile. Favours, on the other hand, should be given out slowly, one by one, so that they can be properly savoured. (8.8)
Seems like violence comes with an expiration date. Ew—who wants sour violence?
Quote #8
They realized they couldn't win anything else with him, because that wasn't what he wanted, but they couldn't fire him either for fear of losing what they had previously won; at which point the only safe thing to do was to kill him. (12.8)
Remind us never to work for the 15th-century Venetians. Machiavelli mentions them to prove how much mercenaries like Carmagnola stink, but that's harsh. Sentences like these make us realize we could never be rulers. We'd probably just exile Carmagnola and twenty years later he'd come back looking for revenge. The Shmoop reign would be short, but gloriously peaceful.
Quote #9
Severus's son, Antoninus, was also a man with some excellent qualities; the people thought him remarkable and the army welcomed him. He was a warlike leader, capable of handling every hardship and contemptuous of fine foods and easy living of any kind. So the army loved him. But his cruelty and ferocity were overwhelming and unspeakable, to the extent that, after endless individual murders, he wiped out much of the population of Rome and all the people of Alexandria. At this point everybody really hated him and even those close to him began to get nervous so that in the end he was killed by a centurion while among his soldiers. (19.17)
Machiavelli has been cheerleading violence for a while now, but it doesn't seem to work out too well for Antoninus. Is this violence pushed to the edge? Is this morally unacceptable or just a stupid move?
Quote #10
It's worth noting that assassinations like this, coming as they do when a determined man takes a considered decision, are bound to happen to rulers sometimes. (19.18)
Live by the sword, die by the sword. Or, in the immortal words of Metallica, "My lifestyle determines my deathstyle."