CHAPTER 12

Types of Soldiers and Mercenaries

I have spoken of the good and bad characteristics and causes of the principalities I said I would discuss. I have also detailed the methods by which principalities may be gotten. Now I must explain the methods of offense and defense which go along with each sort of principality.

We saw above why it is necessary for a prince to have strong foundations for his principality. If he does not have those foundations, he will be ruined. The best foundation for all states, new, old, or mixed, are good laws and good arms. Since there cannot be good laws where the state is not well armed, it follows that where they are well armed they have good laws. I shall leave the laws out of the discussion and shall speak of the arms.

I say, therefore, that the arms with which a prince defends his state are either his own, or they are mercenaries, auxiliaries, or mixed. Mercenaries and auxiliaries are useless and dangerous. If one holds his state based on these arms, his rule with be weak and unsafe. Mercenaries and auxiliaries are disunited, ambitious, undisciplined, unfaithful. They are brave when facing friends, and cowardly when facing enemies. They have neither the fear of God nor loyalty to men. The destruction they will cause the prince is held off only so long as they decide not to attack. In peace, they rob the prince. In war, they allow the enemy to rob him. The fact is, they have no reason to fight than a little bit of money, which is not enough to make them willing to die for you. They are ready enough to be your soldiers while you are at peace, but when war comes they desert or join the enemy. I have little trouble proving this, since the ruin of Italy has been caused almost entirely by the fact that she has rested her hopes for many years upon mercenaries. Although they sometimes proved to be brave when fighting other mercenary armies, the arrival of foreigners caused them to show their true colors. Consequently, Charles, King of France, was allowed to seize Italy with chalk in hand [to write out new borders]. Charles explained that our sins were the cause of his invasion, but they were not the since that he imagined. Instead, our since were those which I have explained. And since our sins were the sins of princes, it is the princes who have also suffered the penalty.

I want to demonstrate further how useless mercenaries are. The mercenary captains are either capable men or they are not. If they are skilled, you cannot trust them, because they always look to promote themselves. They will either overthrow the prince or cause him trouble by doing harm to people he does not want harmed. If the captain is not skilful, you are ruined in the usual way.

It could be argued that any armed men, whether mercenary or not, will act in the same way. I do not think so. When arms are required, either by a prince or a republic, then the prince should serve as captain himself. In the case of a republic, it has to send one of its citizens to be captain. If the citizen captain doesn’t perform, then the republic must replace him. Experience has shown that princes and republics, single-handed, can make great progress. Mercenaries do nothing but damage. Additionally, it is difficult to overthrow a republic armed by it own soldiers than it is to overthrow one armed with mercenaries or foreign troops. Rome and Sparta stood for many ages armed and free. The Switzerlanders are completely armed and quite free.

A good example of the ancient use of mercenaries is that of the Carthaginians. They were oppressed by their mercenary soldiers after the first war with the Romans. This happened despite the fact that the Carthaginians had their own citizens for captains. After the death of Epaminondas, Philip of Macedon was made captain of their soldiers by the Thebans, and after victory he took away their liberty. Similarly, after Duke Filippo died, the Milanese enlisted Francesco Sforza against the Venetians. Once he had defeated the Venetians at Caravaggio, Sforza allied himself with the Venetians to crush the Milanese, his masters. His father, the elder Sforza, had been hired by Queen Johanna of Naples, but he left her unprotected. As a result, she was forced to throw herself into the arms of the King of Aragon in order to save her kingdom.

Even though the Venetians and Florentines have built their territories by the use of mercenaries without being controlled by the mercenaries, this does not disprove my point. The Florentines have been lucky in that the skilled mercenaries they hired were either unsuccessful in war, opposed by the Florentines, or moved on to other targets. One of those who did not conquer was Giovanni Acuto. Since he never conquered anything, his loyalty cannot be proved. Still, every one will agree that if he had been successful, the Florentines would have been under his thumb. In the second case, Sforza had the Bracceschi always against him, so they canceled out each other’s ambitions. For the thrid case, Francesco turned his ambition to Lombardy. Similarly, Braccio turned against the Church and the kingdom of Naples.

But let us look at a more recent example. The Florentines appointed as their captain Paolo Vitelli. He was a careful man who had risen to high status from a modest birth. If this man had taken Pisa, nobody can deny that the Florentines would have had to allow him a great deal of power. The problem is that if he switched sides to serve their enemies, the Florentines would have had no way to stand up against his forces. Since they would have had to allow him power, they would have had to obey him.

If we consider the case of the Venetians, it is clear that they acted safely and gloriously when they went to war with their own men When their soldiers were Venetian gentlemen and commoners, they fought valiently. This was before they turned their attentions to the Italian mainland. When they began to fight on land, they abandoned their citizen soldiers and followed the custom of Italy [hiring mercenaries]. Even though they did not have much territory when they began their expansion on land, they had not much to fear from their mercenary captains because of the Venetian’s reputation for power. However, when they expanded, as under Carmignola, they learned their mistake. Carmignola proved to be successful, (they beat the Duke of Milan under his leadership), but he clearly was lukewarm about heavy fighting. As a result, the Venetians feared that he would not be so successful the next time. Still, they were stuck with him, so they assassinated him in order to make sure they held on to what they had gained without fear of him. Afterwards, they used captains such as Bartolomeo da Bergamo, Roberto da San Severino, the Count of Pitigliano, and the like. Under each of these men, they were more worried about what they would lose than what they might possible gain. Their fears proved to be well-founded at Vaila, where in one battle they lost in a day that which had taken them eight hundred years and much trouble to acquire. Mercenary conquests come slowly and in small portions, but the losses from mercenaries are sudden and huge.

These examples have all been Italian, which has been ruled for many years by mercenaries. Since mercenaries are so important, I wish to say more about them so that one may be better prepared to counteract them. You must understand that the empire [Germany] has recently lost all its power in Italy. Moreover, the Pope has acquired more worldly power. And, Italy has been divided up into more states because many of the great cities revolted against their nobles. These nobles were previously supported by the [German] emperor, and were oppressing the cities. At the same time, the Church was supporting the rebellious cities so as to gain authority in wordly power. In many cities, citizens became princes. As a result of this process, Italy fell partly into the hands of the Church and of republics. Since the Church consists of priests and republics are made up of citizens who are not used to arms, both decided to hire foreign mercenary troops. The first famous soldier of this type was Alberigo da Conio, a native of the Romagna. Da Conio in turn trained others, such as Braccio and Sforza, who, in their time were the power brokers of Italy. After these two came all the other captains who till now have controlled the various armies of Italy. The result of all of these mercenaries’ actions has been that Charles overrun part of Italy, Louis robbed Italy, Ferdinand of Spain raped Italy, and soldiers from Switzerland insulted Italy.

The mercenaries main philosophy has been that infantry [foot soldiers] are unimportant, while cavalry are crucial. They adopted this philosophy because if fit into the kind of troop they are. Since the mercenaries survive on their pay without any territory, they cannot support many soldiers. Since a few infantry did not give them any authority, they decided to concentrate on cavalry. A small force of cavalry is relatively easily maintained and is honored. As a result, in an army of twenty thousand soldiers not even two thousand were foot soldiers. The mercenaries also did everything they could to lessen the fatigue and danger they faced. They were careful not to do much killing when fighting, Instead, they took prisoners, whom they traded back and forth with the other mercenaries. They did not attack towns at night, nor did mercenaries in the towns attack out at night. They refused to build fortifications, and they would not campaign in the winter. All these things were permitted by their military rules. They were set up to avoid, as I have said, both fatigue and dangers. Thus, they have brought Italy to slavery and contempt.

CHAPTER 13

Concerning Borrowed Troops, Mixed Troops, And One's Own Soldiers

Borrowed troops are another useless sort of soldiers. They are used when a prince is called in with his forces to aid and defend another prince. This was done by Pope Julius in the most recent times. His own mercenaries proved useless when attacking Ferrara, so he borrowed troops from Ferdinand, King of Spain. These arms may be useful and good in themselves, but they always put the person who borrows them at a disadvantage. If the borrower loses, he is undone. If he wins, he is a captive of the borrowed troops.

Ancient history is full of similar examples, but I want to concentrate on this recent one of Pope Julius II. It is impossible to miss the danger of the situation. Julius wanted to take Ferrara, and as a result, he threw himself entirely into the hands of the foreigner. Fortunately for him, something unexpected happened to save him from his bad choice. His borrowed troops were beaten at Ravenna, but at the same time the Switzerlanders unexpectedly defeated his other enemies. Consequently, he got what he wanted without owing his mercenaries anything, but was also rid of his dangerous borrowed soldiers. As an opposite example, the Florentines borrowed French troops to take Pisa since they had no troops of their own. By doing this, the Florentines put themselves in more danger than at any other time of their troubles. Another negative example is when the Emperor of Constantinople sent ten thousand Turks into Greece to fight. Once the war was finished, the Turks were not willing to quit. As a result, Greece fell into the hands of the infidels.

Therefore, let those who do not want to conquer use borrowed troops, because they are even more hazardous than mercenaries. With borrowed troops ruin is ready made; they are united yet obey others. At least with victorious mercenaries, they need some added time and good opportunity to overthrow you. Mercenaries are a bit weaker since they are not loyal to each other and because you hired and pay them. Additionally, you hired the captain, so at the beginning he doesn’t have enough authority over the troops to get them to turn on you. In conclusion, cowardice and unwillingness to fight are what you have to fear most in mercenaries. The most dangerous thing about borrowed troops is when they are brave and effective. The wise prince, therefore, has always avoided these troops and turned to his own. A wise prince is happier to lose with his own soldiers than to conquer with others’ soldiers. He does not see a victory gained with other peoples’ troops as a real victory.

I shall never hesitate to use Cesare Borgia as an example. This duke entered the Romagna with borrowed French soldiers. With them he captured Imola and Forli. However, he did not think these troops were reliable, so he turned to less dangerous mercenaries. He hired the Orsini and Vitelli. As Cesare worked with these troops, he found them to be doubtful, unfaithful, and dangerous. So, he destroyed them and turned to his own men. It is easy to see the differences between these forces when one looks at the changing reputation of the duke. His reputation steadily improved as he moved from the French to the Orsini and Vitelli, and from them to his own trustworthy soldiers. His reputation was never higher than when every one saw that he was complete master of his own forces.

I do not need to go beyond Italian and recent examples, but I am unwilling to leave out Hiero, the Syracusan. He is the man I spoke of before. This man, as I have said, was put in charge of the army by the Syracusans. He soon found out that a mercenary soldiery, constituted like our Italian condottieri [name for Italian mercenaries], was of no use. He saw that he could neither keep them nor let them go, so he had them all cut to pieces. Afterwards, he made war with his own forces and not with mercenaries or foreigners.

The Old Testament also has a useful example on this subject. David offered himself to Saul to fight with Goliath, the Philistine champion. In order to give David courage, Saul armed him with his own weapons. David rejected these weapons as soon as he had them on his back, saying he could make no use of them. Instead, David wanted to meet Goliath with his sling and his knife. In conclusion, the arms of others either fall from your back, or they weigh you down, or they tie you up.

Charles VII, the father of King Louis XI, liberated France from the English through some good luck and some bravery. Still, he recognized the necessity of being armed with his own forces. So, in his kingdom he made laws requiring service as men-at-arms and infantry. Afterwards his son, King Louis, abolished the infantry and began to hire Swiss troops. This mistake, along with a few others, has caused France many problems. Because this action raised the reputation of the Swiss, Louis lowered the value of his own soldiers. Indeed, he destroyed his infantry altogether. At the same time, he made sure that his men-at-arms cannot fight alone. They are so used to fighting alongside the Swiss, that it does not appear that they can now conquer without them. So, the French cannot stand against the Swiss, and without the Switzers they cannot do well against others. The armies of the French have thus become mixed, partly mercenary and partly national. This mix is much better than mercenaries alone or borrowed troops alone, but it is still inferior to having one's own forces. The kingdom of France would be unconquerable if Charles’s laws had been continued or built upon.

When a situation looks good at the beginning, men are too unwise to see any hidden poison. If a prince cannot recognize evils until they are upon him, he is not truly wise. Few princes are so wise. If we look at the first disaster of the Roman Empire, we see that it started when Rome began to hire the Goths to serve in the army. From that point on, the life force of the army dissapated and the Roman Empire began to decline.

I conclude, therefore, that no principality is safe unless it has its own forces. If a principality does not have its own arms, it is entirely dependent on good luck since it does not have the power to defend itself. Wise men have always seen that nothing can be so uncertain or unstable as fame or power not founded on one’s own strength. And one's own forces are those which are made up of either subjects, citizens, or dependents. All other troops are mercenaries or borrowed. The way to build one’s own forces can best be seen in the example of Philip, the father of Alexander the Great, and in that of the many republics and princes who have armed and organized themselves.

CHAPTER 14

A Prince’s Duties in the Art Of War

A prince should think and study nothing but the rules and discipline of war. War is the only art that belongs exclusively to rulers. Moreover, it is so important that it not only upholds those who are born princes, but it often enables men to rise from a private station to become princes. And, on the contrary, when princes have thought more of ease than of arms they have lost their states. The first thing that will cause a prince to lose his state is to neglect this art. You will be able to gain a state if you study this art.

Francesco Sforza, rose from being a private person to become Duke of Milan because of his military skill. On the other hand, his sons avoided the hardships and troubles of arms and fell from being dukes to become private persons. Being unarmed will bring you the serious problem of being despised, and this is one of those insulting weaknesses against which a prince ought to guard himself, as is shown later on. There is not comparison between being armed and unarmed. He who is armed never obeys willingly an unarmed man. Similarly, an unarmed man will never be safe around armed servants. The armed man will have no respect and the unarmed man will always be suspicious, so it is impossible for them to work well together. Therefore, a prince who does not understand the art of war cannot be respected by his soldiers, nor can he rely on them. He should never, therefore, cease thinking about the subject of war. In peace he should spend more time on exercises than if he was at war. A prince can follow this path in two ways, one by action, the other by study.

In terms of practice, a prince should keep his men well organized and drilled. A prince should hunt often so that he accustoms his body to hardships, and so that he learns something of his surrounding countryside. He needs to find out how the mountains rise, how the valleys open out, how the plains lie, and to understand the nature of rivers and marshes. In all this he must take the greatest care. This knowledge is useful in two ways. Firstly, he learns to know his country, and is better able to undertake its defense. Afterwards, since he knows his local area, he can transfer that knowledge easily into new areas he encounters. Hills, valleys, plains, rivers, and marshes in Tuscany, for example, have a certain resemblance to those of other countries. With a knowledge of one country, one can easily understand others. The prince who lacks this skill lacks the most important skill that a captain should possess. This type of knowledge teaches him to surprise his enemy, to select quarters, to lead armies, to array the battle, and to besiege towns.

Philopoemen, Prince of the Achaeans, is praiseworthy because in time of peace he never had anything in his mind but the rules of war. When he was in the country with friends, he often stopped and discussed with them: "If the enemy should be upon that hill, and we should find ourselves here with our army, with whom would be the advantage? How should one best advance to meet him, keeping the ranks? If we should wish to retreat, how ought we to set about it? If they should retreat, how ought we to pursue?" Philopoemen would explain to them, as he went, all the possibilities his army might confront. He would listen to their opinions and then explain his. Through these continual discussions he reached the point that no unexpected circumstance could arise during time of war with which he would not be able to cope.

In addition, in order to exercise his intellect, the prince should read histories and study there the actions of famous men. He should study how they carried themselves in war and examine the causes of their victories and defeats. That way, he can avoid the latter and imitate the former. Above all, a prince should do as an illustrious man did, who took as an exemplar one who had been praised and famous before him. It is said that Alexander the Great imitated Achilles; Caesar imitated Alexander; Scipio imitated Cyrus. Indeed, whoever reads the life of Cyrus, written by Xenophon, will see how Scipio imitated him. In his chastity, friendliness, humanity, and liberality, Scipio conformed to those things which have been written of Cyrus by Xenophon. A wise prince should follow these rules and never stand idle in peaceful times. In fact, he should build up his resources with hard work in such a way that they will be available when he needs them. That way, if fortune changes it will find him prepared to resist her blows.

Chapter 15

The Things for which Men, and Particularly Princes, are Praised Or Blamed

We still need to look at how a prince should treat his subjects and friends. Since I know that many have written on this point, I suppose I will be considered presumptuous in mentioning it again. Still, I shall depart from the methods of other people in my discussion . But, since my goal is to write a useful book, I will describe realities rather than imagined ideals. Many writers have described unreal republics and principalities. Their descriptions of how one should live are thus far distant from how one really should live. So, he who neglects what is done in reality for what supposedly should be done very quickly brings his ruin rather than his preservation A man who wishes to act according to his professions of virtue soon meets with destruction in a world crowded with evil. As a result, it is necessary for a prince wishing to stay afloat to know how to do wrong, and to make use of bad actions when he needs them.

Therefore, I will put aside those imaginary things a prince is supposed to do, and concentrate instead on the real things he should do. I say that the reputations of all men, and particularly princes, are created by those qualities which bring them either blame or praise. Consequently, one prince is reputed to be generous while another is supposed to be miserly (using a Tuscan term - because a greedy person in our language is still he who desires to possess by robbery, whilst we call one miserly who refuses to spend his own money) One prince is reputed generous, while another is rapacious. One is cruel, while another is compassionate. One is faithless, while another is faithful. One is effeminate and cowardly, while another is bold and brave. One is friendly and down to Earth, while another is pompous and snobby. One is lewd and immoral, while another is chaste. One is sincere, while another is cunning. One is hard, while another is easy. One is grave, while another is frivolous. One is religious, while another is unbelieving. I know that everyone thinks that it would be most praiseworthy in a prince to have all of these qualities that are considered good. However, these qualities cannot be entirely possessed or observed since human conditions do not permit it. As a result, it is necessary for the prince to be careful to avoid being blamed for those vices which would lose him his state or make him disliked. However, when this is not possible, he should abandon himself to those vices. A prince should not be worried about being blamed for having vices that are useful to saving his state. In fact, if you look carefully, you see that something which looks like virtue, if followed, would ruin him. At the same time, something which looks like vice might bring the prince security and prosperity.