WHY THE PRINCES OF ITALY HAVE LOST THEIR STATES
The before-mentioned things, if prudently observed, make a new prince
seem ancient, and render him at once more secure and firmer in the
state than if he had been established there of old. For a new prince is
much more observed in his actions than a hereditary one, and when these
are recognised as virtuous, he gains men more and they are more bound
to him than if he were of the ancient blood. For men are much more
taken by present than by past things, and when they find themselves
well off in the present, they enjoy it and seek nothing more; on the
contrary, they will do all they can to defend him, so long as the
prince is not in other things wanting to himself. And thus he will
have the double glory of having founded a new realm and adorned it and
fortified it with good laws, good arms, good friends and good examples;
as he will have double shame who is born a prince and through want of
prudence has lost it.
And if one considers those rulers who have lost their position in
Italy in our days, such as the King of Naples, the Dukè of Milan and
others, one will find in them first a common defect as to their arms,
for the reasons discussed at length, then we observe that some of
them either had the people hostile to them, or that if the people were
friendly they were not able to make sure of the nobility, for without
these defects, states are not lost that have enough strength to be able
to keep an army in the field. Philip of Macedon, not the father of
Alexander the Great, but the one who was conquered by Titus Quinteus,
did not possess a great state compared to the greatness of Rome and
Greece which assailed him, but being a military man and one who knew
how to divert the people and make sure of the great, he was able to
sustain the war against them for many years; and if at length he lost
his power over several cities, he was still able to keep his kingdom.
Therefore, those of our princes who had held their possessions for many
years must not accuse fortune for having lost them, but rather their
own negligence; for having never in quiet times considered that things
might change (as it is a common fault of men not to reckon on storms,
in fair weather) when adverse times came, they only thought of fleeing
from them, instead of defending themselves; and hoped that the people,
enraged by the insolence of the conquerors, would recall them. This
measure, when others are wanting, is good; but it is very bad to have
neglected the other remedies for that one, for nobody would desire to
fall because he believed that he would then find some one to pick him
up. This may or may not take place, and if it does, it is not with
safety to you, as that defence is known to be cowardly and not to be
depended on; and only those defences are good, certain and durable,
which depend only on yourself and your own ability.