This paper examines Machiavelli's understanding of the populace as presented in The Prince and the Discourses. It explores how Machiavelli characterizes ordinary subjects as obedient, self-interested, and inconstant, and how a prince must manage their loyalty through fear, benevolence, or force. The paper also compares the populace of Machiavelli's sixteenth-century Florence with those of ancient societies — including Rome, Athens, and Syracuse — arguing that despite historical and geographic differences, populations universally resist tyranny and seek liberty. Machiavelli's use of broad generalizations about human nature as a basis for political prescription is analyzed throughout, alongside his preference for republican government over princely rule.
The paper demonstrates comparative textual analysis: it reads two distinct works by the same author side by side, tracing consistencies and contradictions in Machiavelli's treatment of the populace across different genres (a political manual versus discursive commentary). This technique requires the writer to synthesize multiple sources into a coherent argument rather than summarizing each text separately.
The paper opens with a focused research question, then proceeds chapter-by-chapter through The Prince to establish Machiavelli's core assumptions about subjects. It pivots at the midpoint to the Discourses, using them to complicate and extend the earlier picture. The conclusion resolves the comparison by arguing that ancient and contemporary populations share the same fundamental drive toward liberty under tyranny. The structure is roughly chronological within each text, then comparative across them.
This paper examines Niccolò Machiavelli's understanding of the populace as presented in The Prince and the Discourses. Two central questions guide the analysis: what makes the populace of Machiavelli's contemporary era different from that of other places and times, and how does Machiavelli compare his own era's populace with those of past societies and republics?
Machiavelli states in The Prince, Chapter Three, that when dealing with the public it is better to either caress or crush them, because if only minor damage is done they will seek revenge. However, as Machiavelli puts it, "if you cripple them there is nothing they can do" (pp. 9–10). In his view, a prince may take one of two directions in ruling his people: he can act out of benevolence or out of ruthlessness. When the prince chooses ruthlessness, Machiavelli argues he must ensure that the populace is sufficiently crushed so that no potential for revolution remains.
The prince, from Machiavelli's perspective, should seek first and foremost to preserve himself. In Chapter Five, Machiavelli writes that a leader who takes power over a city accustomed to living under its own laws — and who fails to bring the populace to heel — will himself be brought to heel by that populace. When such a city rebels, great strength is found in the talk of liberty, and its citizens will desire to return to their ancient form of rule. As Machiavelli writes: "Neither the passage of time nor good treatment will make its citizens forget their previous liberty. No matter what one does…if one does not scatter and drive away the original inhabitants, one will not destroy the memory of liberty or the attraction of old institutions. As soon as there is a crisis they will seek to restore them" (p. 17).
Machiavelli views subjects as fundamentally self-oriented. While subjects are for the most part obedient to the prince, they are at all times waiting for an opportune moment to revolt against a new ruler. The populace is presented as static, two-dimensional characters. In Chapter Five, Machiavelli states that when "cities and provinces are used to being ruled by a monarch…they are used to being obedient. Their old ruler is gone, and they cannot agree among themselves as to who should replace him. They do not know how to rule themselves" (pp. 17–18).
The natural state of the populace, according to Machiavelli, is one of being ruled — an obedient condition requiring a rigid set of rules to guide behavior. A contemporary parallel might be drawn to Iraq under Saddam Hussein's totalitarian regime. While the Iraqi people desired freedom from Hussein's rule, once that rule was removed they struggled to realize the benefits of freedom, as the country remained characterized by power struggles, violence, and political crises. In Chapter Three, Machiavelli attributes such outcomes to the population's inherent tendency toward traditional modes of living, illustrating his view that the populace is composed of followers rather than leaders.
According to Machiavelli in Chapter Five, individuals are characterized by an inconstant nature: they are easily persuaded, and great difficulty is encountered in keeping them constant and dedicated, as their minds change very easily. The prince must therefore prepare for the moment when belief is lost, at which point the populace must be forced to believe (paraphrased). This illustrates how Machiavelli employed broad generalizations about human behavior to justify political decisions — a formula he repeats throughout both The Prince and the Discourses, reflecting his view of the sixteenth-century Florentine populace.
In Chapter Nine, Machiavelli writes: "He who comes to power with the help of the elite has more difficulty holding onto power than he who comes to power with the help of the populace" (p. 31). This reflects the ongoing power struggle between the nobility and the common people. Machiavelli stresses that when a prince has gained his power from the populace, he is largely uncontested and better able to retain that power. The support of the populace is critical because the sheer numbers of the common people represent a strength far exceeding that of the small noble class.
In Chapter Ten, Machiavelli writes that "people are always reluctant to undertake enterprises that look as if they will be difficult, and no one thinks it will be easy to attack someone who is well-fortified and has the support of the populace" (p. 34). The prince's strength, in other words, derives not only from military fortification but from the visible backing of his people, which deters external enemies. Machiavelli does not argue that a prince should improve the well-being of the populace because it is morally right; rather, he should do so in order to secure their support should the state face external attack.
Later in Chapter Ten, Machiavelli argues that the populace "will be all the more ready to rally to their ruler, believing him to be in their debt, since they have had their houses burnt and their possessions looted for defending him. It is in men's nature to feel obliged by the good they do to others, as by the good others do to them. So if you consider all the factors, you will see it is not difficult for a wise ruler to keep his subjects loyal during a siege, both at the beginning and as it continues" (p. 35). Machiavelli views this dynamic as a necessary mechanism for securing the city under attack, not as an acknowledgment of any inherent value in the populace's happiness.
In The Prince, Machiavelli regards the city as shaped to serve the ruler. The populace is seen as ordinary, simple-minded people who serve a functional purpose. Their well-being is not an end in itself but a means of strengthening the state when it is threatened from outside. The prince must convince the populace that their hardships are temporary — not to ease their suffering, but to rally them in support of the state. Machiavelli does, however, acknowledge that the state's true strength is built upon popular support.
Machiavelli writes: "One ought to be both loved and feared; but, since it is difficult to accomplish both…I maintain it is much safer to be feared than loved…For men…are ungrateful, fickle, deceptive and deceiving, avoiders of dangers and eager to gain. As long as you serve their interests, they are devoted to you…But as soon as you need help, they turn against you…Men are less nervous of offending someone loveable than someone who makes himself frightening" (Chapter 17, p. 51). There are two ways to interpret this. First, the prince should not be overly concerned with public opinion. However, this reading conflicts with Chapter 19, where Machiavelli acknowledges that rulers must consider the potency of conspiracies among the public. His best defense against such conspiracies, Machiavelli holds, is to be well liked among the populace — a position that sits in productive tension with his preference for fear over love.
The answer to how the populace of different places and times differed from that of Machiavelli's contemporary populace is, ultimately, that there is no fundamental difference. When a population is ruled by tyranny, it will seek to gain freedom and liberty. This is as true of ancient Syracuse and republican Rome as it is of post-Hussein Iraq or sixteenth-century Florence. Machiavelli's generalizations about human nature — the inconstancy, the self-interest, the attachment to familiar institutions — apply across time and geography precisely because he views them as universal features of the human condition rather than characteristics unique to any particular era.
Throughout both The Prince and the Discourses, Machiavelli presents the populace as a force that must be managed, persuaded, or contained. Yet in his comparative analysis of republican and princely governments, he ultimately acknowledges that republican governance, grounded in law and attentive to popular will, produces more durable and stable societies than rule by a prince acting on personal ambition. The populace, for all its inconstancy, remains the foundation upon which lasting political power must be built.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.