Niccolò Machiavelli, the Prince
Machiavellian thought contends that a ruler, as long as he has the approval of his subjects, will be safe in maintaining his state. Such is the case with Moses, Cyrus, Theseus, and Romulus. However, in the case of Agathocles, he did not win his state by possessing the true characters of a prince and thus he would be not be praised as one of the finest men. All Agathocles gained was power, not the popular respect and admiration that should accompany a true prince’s reign. His inhuman cruelty and brutality, and his innumerable wicked actions prevents him from being a true prince. Contrastingly, the characteristics of someone like Romulus who used his virtue in order to use his power well would be classified as a ruler who deserved princely praise.
In The Prince, Machiavelli describes all of the characteristics of a prince that he thinks are worth his mentioning. Among these are in chapter 19 of The Prince, labeled “How one should avoid hatred and contempt.” It is mentioned that when it pertains to the subject of a state, a true prince should “âÂ?¦acquire a reputation that will discourage people from even considering tricking or deceiving you.” Thus a man who gains power by doing evil upon his people will not gain the same reputation as a man who gains his power through moral means. This reputation will either lead to respect or the opposite, which will determine the successfulness of that ruler. Machiavelli also further mentions that “A ruler who is thought of in these terms has the sort of reputation he needs; and it is difficult to conspire against someone who is respected in this way, difficult to attack him, because people realize he is on top of his job and has the loyalty of his employees.” Romulus, Cyrus, and others like them were these type of rulers, and were very successful in making their people follow and abide their order. Agathocles on the other hand did not have the popular respect and admiration to aid in his attempts to gain power.
First, those rulers that Machiavelli finds “glorious” have to be examined. The reason that these rulers were worthy of imitation of a prince was because they had the virtue and admiration from their citizens that it took to become as successful as they had become. As Machiavelli writes “Let us look at those who through their own skill [virtu], and not merely through chance, have become rulers. In my view, the greatest have been Moses, Cyrus, Romulus, Theseus, and other like men.” These men had many difficulties to overcome and had to use force in order to acquire power. However with their power came the support of their citizens which made their rule noble. Even though Romulus had to kill in order to gain power as Machiavelli notes, commenting on Cloemenes that, “He, in order to be sole ruler, had to kill the ephors, just as Romulus, for the same reason, had to kill both his brother and Titus Tatius the Sabine. They went on to use their power well.” Thus through their political skill these rulers were deemed as noble not only by the measure of their success but also by the opinion of their own citizens.
Agathocles, on the other hand, went on a spree that was not deemed as worthy of the characteristics of a prince. As is mentioned, “One ought not, of course, to call it virtu [virtue or manliness] to massacre one’s fellow citizens, to betray one’s friends, to break one’s word, to be without mercy and without religion. By such means one can acquire power but not glory. As noted there are two ways that a private citizen can become ruler, “First, when one acquires power through some wicked or nefarious action, and second when a private citizen becomes ruler of his own country because he has the support of his fellow citizens.” Agathocles choose to gain power by the first of these explanations, which is why he was not thought of as a “glorious prince.” “His inhuman cruelty and brutality, and his innumerable wicked actions, mean it would be wrong to praise him as one of the finest of men. It is clear, at any rate, that one can attribute neither to luck nor to virtue [virtu] his accomplishments, which owed nothing to either.” Since Machiavelli says that both luck and skill enable you to overcome difficulties, Agathocles’ actions would have made him unable to have either and thus would not enable him to overcome difficulties. Hiding his loyal soldiers in the town council, Agathocles summoned all the senators, nobles, and rich citizens of Syracuse to a supposedly crucial meeting. On a secret signal, his soldiers sprang from their hiding place and slaughtered the stunned guests. Then, Agathocles proclaimed himself king of Syracuse as he assumed absolute power. Thus, all Agathocles gained was power, not the popular respect and admiration that should accompany a true prince’s reign. He did not achieve leadership through his high rank in the Army, but he massacred his fellow citizens, betrayed his friends, and lacked good faith, mercy, and religion. His excessive cruelty and inhumanity, together with his endless number of crimes, keeps him from being ranked with the celebrated rulers and founders of history.
Consequently, Rolumulus possessed all of the qualities, which enabled him to become a glorious ruler, while Agathocles possessed every unnoble characteristic that led to the reason why he was not thought of as such. As mentioned, “When the consequences are good, as were the consequences of Romulus’s act, then he will always be excused, for it is those who are violent in order to destroy who should be found guilty, not those who are violent in order to build new.” It took hard work for Romulus, Cryrus, Theseus, and others to achieve all they did as each of these leaders was presented with unique opportunities, but they could not have succeeded without also having exceptional personal ability. They had no other favor from fortune but opportunity, which gave them the ability to transform into whatever seemed best for them. As Machiavelli notes “These opportunities made these men lucky; but it was their remarkable political skill [virtu] that enabled them to recognize these opportunities for what they were. Thanks to them their nations were ennobled and blessed with good fortune.” Due to the fact that these rulers were in fact blessed with good fortune and great political skill, they were able to benefit their acquired lands. It is no coincidence that Machiavelli notes that “Those who become rulers through strength of purpose [vie virtuose], as they did, acquire their kingdoms with difficulty, but they hold on to them with ease.”
Taking the example of Rome as Machiavelli notes in The Discourses, “If you become an absolute ruler in a republic you should also consider how much more praise, once Rome was ruled by emperors, was awarded to those emperors who abided by the laws and were benevolent than to those who were the opposite.” Romulus and others proved themselves true by possessing prince like qualities as according to Machiavelli, and Agathocles did not by lacking the support of his citizens as he was overtaking the state. As we look at politics today, lies, deceit, and false campaign promises play into our political process much as they did back then. The politicians do this in order to gain power when they need it and then discard their promises once they have that power. However in our political process, we are able to vote those kinds of people out of office, while it wasn’t as easy in the time of Agathocles.
