We scan new podcasts and send you the top 5 insights daily.
Counterintuitively, when Cesare Borgia conquered cities and wiped out local rulers, he was beloved by the common people. By installing a regime free from local factionalism, he delivered neutral justice for the first time in generations, making his brutal rule seem preferable.
Throughout their violent conquest and feuds, the Spanish were remarkably legalistic. They constantly sought royal charters, had judges pronounce verdicts, handed down indictments, and appealed for pardons. This obsession with legal process coexisted bizarrely with their extralegal violence and betrayal, used to legitimize their actions.
Machiavelli, raised on the ideal that reading Cicero would create good rulers, watched as educated leaders like the Borgias started horrific wars. He concluded the 'education by osmosis' model was flawed and proposed using history as a dataset—a 'casebook of examples'—to systematically analyze what worked, effectively inventing modern political science.
Despite his efforts to remain a neutral historian in 'The Prince,' Machiavelli's personal awe for Cesare Borgia is palpable. He breaks into first-person narration ("He told me..."), revealing the profound, spellbinding effect Borgia had on him as an eyewitness to his power.
The justice system was not about proportional punishment but spiritual performance. An accused person faced a terrifying sentence, only to be saved by a powerful patron's intervention. This process of fear and mercy was designed to spiritually reform the sinner, mimicking divine judgment.
Machiavelli saw Italy's instability as a perfect storm. Most city-states had new, illegitimate governments prone to overthrow, while the papacy acted as a constantly destabilizing force, with each new, unpredictable pope upending the existing political order.
Upstart Italian rulers, lacking noble lineage, adopted Roman art, architecture, and scholarship as propaganda. This created an aura of classical greatness and stability, making them seem like legitimate successors to the Caesars rather than mere tyrants who had seized power through a coup.
Contrary to popular belief, Machiavelli was not a simple utilitarian. He argued a leader's actions should be judged by their probable outcome, separate from luck. Cesare Borgia's plans were sound and should be imitated, even though he ultimately failed due to misfortune.
After executing Inca emperor Atahualpa, the Spanish installed his brother as a puppet ruler. This co-opted the existing power structure, making the conquest seem like a restoration of the natural order to local chiefs and smoothing the transition of power.
Early in his career, Julius Caesar built his anti-establishment brand by prosecuting corrupt governors. While he often lost these high-profile cases, the publicity stunts successfully positioned him as a champion of justice and an opponent of the entrenched oligarchy, winning him crucial popular support.
Facing the unstoppable Cesare Borgia, Florence’s strategy was not to win, but to survive. Machiavelli advised offering abject loyalty to buy time and secure the conqueror’s terrifying promise to “eat you last,” a grim but pragmatic survival tactic.