Prince - Machiavelli in Nicolo's

¶ … Prince - Machiavelli In Nicolo's Machiavelli's the Prince, in chapters six and thirteen, Machiavelli talks about the strengths of a prince in terms of his abilities vs. his birthright, and his strength as a prince in terms of those who back him. To this end, Machiavelli introduces into his discussion of princely character Agathocles the Siclian whose humble beginnings as the son of a pottery maker did not adversely impact Agathocles' ability to become the King of Syracuse (Machiavelli, 30).

Also, along the same line of men who are able to achieve their princely status not by fate, but by ability, Hiero, who became prince of Syracuse. Even by Machiavelli's own account, the two were very different men; one, Hiero, a man of charismatic persuasion, we would suspect in that he did not just command his army, but he endeared himself to them. The other man, Agathocles, was ruthless and aggressive in the pursuit of that which he wanted, and that which would ensure his own survival.

These traits, Machiavelli says, raises questions about the characters and ambitions of both men, but not about their ability and capabilities to rule as princes. Hiero, Machiavelli says, was a man suited to being king, and a man whose ability to assess a situation and make decisions was in part how he created opportunity to for himself.

Hiero was pursued by the citizens of Syracuse, who were oppressed, and saw in Hiero the ability of a man who could face the challenge of their oppressors, and bring together the army of Syracuse as an army that would fight and bring about the needed changes for the citizens of Syracuse. They measured Hiero accurately, and Machiavelli says that Hiero won the loyalty of the army, and, as the citizens rightly saw in Hiero's character, Hiero was a man who won the loyalty of the army.

So not only did Hiero lead the army to win over the oppressors, but he also maintained that loyalty and the army supported him in the aftermath of the war. Hiero, Machiavelli said, recognized that he had won not just because of the loyalty of his own army, but because his opposing force had enlisted mercenaries to fight against Hiero. Mercenaries, Machiavelli says, have no loyalties, because they are not enlisted for love of country or to protect their own family, but for the love of money (47).

Often times, too, they are a foreign force, and the lack of love for the country they are being paid to fight for is a lack of motivation to win (47).

Of mercenaries, Machiavelli makes his point when he writes: wise prince has always avoided these soldiers and has relied upon his own men; and he has chosen to lose with his own troops rather than to conquer with those of others, judging no true victory one gained by means of foreign armies (47)." So, when Hiero overcame the forces of suppression, freeing Syracuse from tyranny, he looked to the remaining mercenaries and quickly realized that they had no loyalty to him (47).

Without loyalty, they posed a danger, because they would forever be motivated by their self-interest (47). For that reason, Hiero slew the mercenaries, and then took the glory that was his, a glory supported by his own army of citizens of Syracuse (47). Backed by his army, whose devotion Hiero had won, he was able to secure his place as prince of Syracuse (47). This is not to say that Hiero ruled with a love for the people, or that he was known as a good prince.

Quite the opposite, Machiavelli says, that Hiero was a tyrant, but he was a tyrant whose army was devoted to him (97). Hiero's good will need extend no further than his army to keep him secure. Although it was not Hiero's goal to engage in prolonged war, and he, therefore, negotiated a peace with Carthage, and allied himself with the power of Rome (97). It was not so different for Agathocles, who freed Sicily from Carthage (30).

Of a humble beginning as a potter's son, Agathocles rose to be King of Syracuse because he was able to take the reins of power and to defend himself and his sphere of control (30). His win over Carthage demonstrated that Agathocles was a tactician, capable to assessing a defensive and offensive military strategy (30). Agathocles won his place in Syracuse, by confronting the opposing forces and winning over them with sheer force and strategic attack (30).

He did not let loyalty, friendship, faith, or family stop him from winning the prize upon which he had set his mind on having; Syracuse (30). Machiavelli says that Agathocles cannot be judged a poor military tactician, but he was, like Hiero, was a ruthless and murderous leader (31). With these backgrounds, Machiavelli still puts both of these men in the ranks of men of greater morals, like Moses, Cyrus, Romulus, and Theseus (20).

How, the question is raised, can Machiavelli do this? The answer is simple, because the measure used by Machiavelli is not a moral one of princely capability and ability. Like these other leaders, both Hiero and Agathocles were capable and able to overcome opposing forces no less great than those faced by Moses, Cyrus, Romulus, and Theseus. Also, not so different than their more moral counterparts, Hiero and Agathocles came into their princely right by ability, not fortune.

Who, Machiavelli says, can say that because Hiero and Agathocles were less moral, that they were less deserving as they came into their princely rights the same way as the others; that it is a perhaps a question of where one's loyalties lay in assessing their rise to their princedoms that might cause one to judge them by their morals rather than by their abilities (20-21). Actually, as Machiavelli points out, there were commonalities between the more moral and Hiero and Agathocles.

That is that each man understood the need for to stand amongst his own kind when doing battle; or that to wear the armor of another nation or another warrior was to wear a weight that could bring one down (23).