Welcome to week 2 of the Machiavelli Series! This week we will be going through chapters IV-VI in Machiavelli’s book, The Prince.

Chapter IV

In the fourth chapter of Machiavelli's book, The Prince, we are confronted with two main concepts which are put forth by Niccolo Machiavelli, in his book dedicated to Lorenzo de’ Medici who would become duke of Urbino in 1516.

As with last time, this chapter is rather long, but Machiavelli seems to emphasize these two main ideas.

Machiavelli's First Proposal

The first idea emphasized by Machiavelli in this chapter is the idea that, "All kingdoms known to history have been governed in two ways, either by a prince and his servants who, as ministers by his grace and permission, assist in governing the realm; or by a prince and by barons who hold their positions not by favor of the ruler but antiquity of blood."

This is clearly true. These are the two blueprints in monarchy, a kingdom ruled by the king and his nobles, or a kingdom ruled by a king and his appointed advisers or ministers. Any monarchy that comes to mind, whether it be British, French, Russian, or Italian, would fit this structure. Either the king appoints his advisers and they rule by his grace, or they rule by the antiquity and power of their families alongside him.

Machiavelli's Second Proposal

The second idea put forth by Machiavelli coincides with the first. He asserts that, "[it is] difficult to acquire the first[kingdoms ruled by a prince and his servants], but having conquered it, it would be very easy to hold it...[the second kingdom, ruled by a prince and his barons] would be easier to conquer but harder to hold."

This rule is generally true. I would say that it is more difficult to conquer a unified state than a divided state. Thus, it is generally more difficult to conquer a state ruled by a single monarch rather than a monarch who rules with a host of nobles whom he must consult. When only one ruler governs with absolute power, he can give an order to defend or attack and it will be followed. But when there are many nobles that rule alongside their king, it is more difficult to execute a plan without having it be rejected or changed by one or more of the nobles, or a noble going rogue and attempting to seize power for himself. With many rulers, there tends to be division.

Concerning the second part of this proposal, that it is easier to hold the land ruled by the prince and his servants rather than the prince and his barons, I must disagree. Machiavelli makes the argument that the people will be more loyal to their nobles who rule them, rather than the kings appointees, and will rebel. Contrary to his opinion, it has nothing to do with the style or method of government at that point. Whether or not the people will comply and be ruled by their conqueror depends on two things:

1. How their old leaders treated them.
2. How their new leaders treat them.

If the people’s old leaders protected them and treated them fairly, the people will be loyal to them and hard to control regardless of what sort of government they were governed by. If the people were ruled by a government who did not protect them and treat them fairly, the people will most likely not rebel or try to reinstall them, provided their new rulers deal fairly with them.
It truly has nothing to do with whether their rulers were appointed by the king or ruled by antiquity of blood, it has everything to do with how they ruled.

Well, this concludes our analysis of chapter IV. Chapter V will be posted soon. If you enjoyed this, upvote it! If you have a critique or suggestion, let me know in the comments. I'm active fairly often and will try to answer you as soon as I can.
Cheers friends, and remember, keep Steeming!