Military history



The political struggle in Renaissance Italy and the birth of modern diplomacy are described acutely by Garrett Mattingly in Renaissance Diplomacy (Boston: Houghton Mifflin and Co., 1955).


Prince, 26. The new method, Machiavelli believes, combines the advantages both of the Swiss pikemen, effective against cavalry but not against infantry, and of the Spanish short-swordsmen, effective against infantry but not against cavalry.


The following is based largely upon Charles C. Bayley, War and Society in Renaissance Florence: the “De Militia” of Leonardo Bruni (Toronto: The University of Toronto Press, 1961), pp. 240-315; and Roberto Ridolfi, The Life of Niccolò Machiavelli, tr. Cecil Grayson (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul; Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1963).


On the other hand, it is arguable that the condottieri were the first modern military specialists, and that without their expertise the art of war could scarcely have advanced as it did.


J. F. C. Fuller, The Generalship of Alexander the Great (New Brunswick, N. J.: Rutgers University Press, 1960; London: Eyre and Spottiswood, 1958), p. 53.


A similar opinion is also expressed in Leo Strauss, Thoughts on Machiavelli (Glencoe: Free Press, 1958), pp. 162, 291, 293. See my forthcoming essay, “Xenophon’s Theory of Leadership.”


Discourses, II, 2, 13; III, 20, 22, 39; also, Prince, 14.


A view concerning Xenophon that is developed in my forthcoming essay, “Xenophon’s Theory of Leadership.”


L. Arthur Burd, “Florence (II): Machiavelli,” Cambridge Modern History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1931), I, 211-212. One of the best general discussions of The Art of War is Pasquale Villari, Niccolò Machiavelli e i suoi tempi, ed. Michele Scherillo (4th posthumous ed.; Milan: Hoepli, 1927), II, 304-343.


Colonna (d. 1520), who had served both the French and the Spanish in Italy, was evidently a first-rate soldier, a cut above the usual mercenary commander. See Colonel Marie Henri François Élizabeth Carrion-Nisas, Essai sur l‘histoire générale de l’art militaire(Paris, 1824), I, 468 and n. 1.


Felix Gilbert, “Bernardo Rucellai and the Orti Oricellari: a Study in the Origin of Modern Political Thought,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institute, XII (1949), 101-131.


Ridolfi, Life, p. 178.


With regard to the ancient sources, I am particularly indebted to L. Arthur Burd’s invaluable “Le fonti letterarie di Machiavelli nell’ Arte della Guerra,” Atti della Reale Academia dei Lincei, Series V, Vol. IV (1896), Pt. I, 187-261.


The uniqueness of Machiavelli’s battle and its importance is emphasized by Felix Gilbert in his “Machiavelli: the Renaissance of the Art of War,” Makers of Modern Strategy, ed. E. M. Earle (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1944), pp. 16-18. Professor Gilbert’s essay is indispensable to any student of the subject.


Xenophon, Cyropaedia VII. The whole of Book VI is devoted to the preparation of the campaign against Croesus. Undoubtedly Xenophon possessed historical sources that are no longer extant, but it seems unlikely that his meticulous description is an historical account. It seems, rather, to be fiction designed to teach various lessons in the art of war. Herodotus, for example, in the Persian Wars I. 80, provides us with only a fraction of the information about the battle found in Xenophon.


Frontinus is the source for the stratagems enumerated in the following passages of The Art of War: IV, 116-120, 123-124, 128-129; V, 148- 149; VI, 171-179; VII, 192-198.


Polybius, Histories VI. 27-42.


Machiavelli had also undoubtedly read Xenophon’s description of an ideal encampment in Cyropaedia VIII. 5. 2-14.


Compare the following passages in The Art of War with those of the De re militari, given in parentheses: IV, 124-125, estimation of factors (III. 9); V, 143-144, precautions to be taken on the march (III. 6); VI, 166-167, the health of the army (III. 2); VII, 202-204, basic precepts of the military art (III. 26). A translation of the De re militari is in Thomas R. Phillips (ed.), Roots of Strategy (Harrisburg, Pa.: The Military Service Publishing Company, 1940), pp. 73-175.


Art of War, IV, 113.


Still one of the best and most convenient summaries in English of the medieval art of war is Hoffman Nickerson, “Warfare in the Roman Empire, the Dark and Middle Ages, to 1494 A.D.,” Part II of Warfare: A Study of Military Methods from the Earliest Times, by Oliver Lyman Spaulding, Hoffman Nickerson, and John Womack Wright, with a Preface by General Tasker H. Bliss (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1925), pp. 191-411. Much of what follows owes a great deal to this and to Part III, “Warfare, in Modern Times: to the Death of Frederick the Great,” by Spaulding and Wright, esp. pp. 415-496.


Carrion-Nisas, Essai, I, 466-467.


Max Jahns, Geschichte der Kriegswissenschaften vornehmlich in Deutschland (Munich and Leipzig: R. Oldenbourg, 1889), I, 457, 469; Hans Delbruck, Geschichte der Kriegskunst im Rahmen der politischen Geschichte (Berlin: G. Sticke, 1920), IV, 133.


F. L. Taylor, The Art of War in Italy, 1494-1529 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1921), p. 157.


For instance, Friedrich Meinecke, Machiavellism: the Doctrine of Raison D’Etat and Its Place in Modern History, tr. Douglas Scott, Introduction by W. Stark (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1957). This is a translation of Die Idee der Staatsrason in der neuren Geschichte (Munich and Berlin: R. Oldenbourg, 1925). See also Gerhard Ritter, The Corrupting Influence of Power, tr. F. W. Pick, Foreword by G. P. Gooch (Hadleigh, Essex: Towerbridge Publications, 1952).


Sir Charles Oman, A History of War in the Sixteenth Century (London: Methuen and Co., 1937), p. 94.


Jahns, Gesciaichte, I, 468.


This seems to be the only conclusion that can be drawn from the superb examination by Professor Bayley, War and Society, pp. 268-284. Martin Hobohm, especially in the first volume of his two-volume work, Machiavellis Renaissance der Kriegskunst (Berlin: Curtius, 1913), is the first to analyze meticulously the serious military inadequacies of the Florentine militia, and of Machiavelli’s whole concept of a militia. In respect to the Florentine militia, Hobohm’s criticism has been met in Villari, Machiavelli , II, Appendix I, 579-582. The chief point made in the appendix is that much of the military ineffectiveness of the militia resulted from political necessity.


Villari, Machiavelli, II, 335-339; Maurice J. D. Cockle, A Bibliography of Military Books up to 1642, Introduction by Sir Charles Oman (2nd ed.; London: The Holland Press, 1957), p. xxi.


Venice, 1540, 1541, 1546, 1550, 1554; Palermo, 1587.


A description of the edition is found in Victor Waille, Machiavel en France (Paris: A. Ghio, 1884), pp. 164-165. Unfortunately, Albert Cherel’s survey, La pensée de Machiavel en France (Paris: L’Artisan du Livre, 1935) does not deal with the influence of Machiavelli’s military ideas.


Cockle, Bibliography, no. 41; G. Dickinson (ed.), The Instructions sur le Faicl de la Guerre of Raymond de Beccarie de Pavie, Sieur de Fourquevaux (London: University of London, The Athlone Press, 1954), pp. v, cix. The various sixteenth-century editions are as follows: French, 1548, 1549, 1553, 1592; Italian, 1550, 1571; Spanish, 1567; English, 1589; German, 1594.


Dickinson, ibid., pp. cxx-cxxii, cxxvi-cxxix.


Michel de Montaigne, “Observations on Julius Caesar’s Method of Making War,” in The Essays of Michel de Montaigne, tr. and ed. Jacob Zeitlin (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1935), II, 387.


Voltaire, François-Marie Arouet, “Battalion,” A Philosophical Dictionary, tr. from the French (London: W. Dugdale, 1843), I, 198. The remainder of the article is an attack upon Machiavelli.


The consensus of the most serious historians of the subject since the French Revolution. For example, see Carrion-Nisas, Essai, I, xliii-xliv; 231, n. 1; General Étienne Alexandre Bardin, Dictionnaire de l’armée de terre, ed. General Oudinot de Reggio (Paris, 1841-1851), I, 440, 462; Jähns, Geschichte, I, 456-457, 468-469; Delbruck, Geschichte, IV, 117, 132-133; Gilbert, “Machiavelli,” pp. 20-25.


Oman, History, pp. 93-94.


Max Weber, From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, tr. and ed. H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills (New York: Oxford University Press, 1946), pp. 256-257. The selection is from Weber’s Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft (Tübingen: Mohr, 1922). A penetrating criticism of the “technocratic theory of history” is to be found in the essay of David Rapoport, “Military and Civil Societies: the Contemporary Significance of a Traditional Subject in Political Theory,” Political Studies, XII (June 1964), 178-201.


See Hobohm, Kriegskunst, II, 191 ff., 399, 402-403; Delbruck, Geschichte, IV, 117 ff.; Werner Hahlweg, Heeresreform der Oranier und die Antike (Berlin: Junker und Dünnhaupt, 1941), esp. pp. 26-29. Also of importance in this connection are the two articles by Gerhard Oestreich, “Der römische Stoizismus und die oranische Heeresreform,” Historische Zeitschrift, CLXXVI (1953), 17-43; and “Justus Lipsius als Theoretiker des neuzeitlichen Machtstaates,” ibid., CLXXXI (1956), 31-78.


Dickinson, Instructions, pp. lxxvi, lxxxix.


Tavole brevissinae per sapere con prestezza quante file uanno à formare una giustissima battaglia (Brescia, 1563). The full title of the English translation of 1574 is Most briefe tables to know redily howe manye ranckes of footemen armed with Corslettes, as unarmed, go to the making of a iust battayle, from an hundred unto twentye thousande. Next a very easye, and approved way to arme a battaile with Harkabuzers, and winges of horsemen according to the use at these daies Newlye increased, and largelye amplified both in the tables, as in the declarations of the same, by the Aucthour himselfe.


Thomas Digges had also collaborated with his father, Leonard, upon a treatise concerned with military applications of mathematics, A Geometrical Practise, named Pantometria (London, 1571). A second edition was published in 1591. The subjects are topography, artillery, and military and naval architecture.


Cockle, Bibliography, no. 25.


Gilbert, “Machiavelli,” pp. 17-18, asserts that Machiavelli “conceived of a battle as functioning like a well-oiled mechanism, because this concept corresponded to the course of a real battle.”


Patrizi, Parralleli MilitariNe’ quali si fa paragone delle Milizie antiche, in tutte le parti loro, con le moderne (Rome, 1594).

For the relation between Machiavelli and Maurice see the two essays of Oestreich cited above p. xxxiv, n. 39, and Jähns, Geschichte, I, 471; Delbruck, Geschichte, IV, 181-183; Hahlweg, Heeresreform, p. 185, n. 197.


Revival of interest in Lipsius in regard to these matters is largely due to the two essays of Oestreich. See also the informative analysis of Lipsius in Rapoport, “Military and Civil Societies.”


Oestreich, “Justus Lipsius,” esp. p. 46.


Ibid., pp. 66-67.


Ibid., p. 41. On Lipsius and Machiavelli, see also Giuseppe Toffanin, Machiavelli e il “Tacitismo” (Padua: Draghi, 1921), pp. 174-178.


Oestreich, “Justus Lipsius,” pp. 61-63, for his comparison. In addition, see his “Römische Stoizismus,” pp. 25-27.


Gustavus Adolphus’ demands upon his commanders are: virtue, knowledge, prudence, authority, and success. Virtue consists of uprightness of life, zeal in enterprise, diligence in service, valor in danger, hardiness in action, swiftness in execution. Nils Ahnlund,Gustav Adolf the Great, tr. Michael Roberts (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1940), p. 142.


Jähns, Geschichte, I, 471-472, is a useful guide, as are the various articles in Bardin, Dictionnaire.


Rudolf Stadelmann, Scharnhorst: Schicksal und geistige Welt (Wiesbaden: Limes Verlag, 1952), p. 95.


Ibid., pp. 91-99, for the influence of Montecuccoli upon Scharnhorst.


Raimond de Montecuccoli, Mémoires (Amsterdam and Leipzig, 1756), IV, 1-2.


Ibid., IV, 7, 216-222.


Jean-Charles Folard, Histoire de Polybe avec un commentaire (Amsterdam, 1774), I, 222-223. The citations from Machiavelli are, Prince, 14; Discourses, III, 39.


An excellent English translation is in Phillips, Roots, pp. 189-300.


Ibid., pp. 210, 276, 300.


Ibid., pp. 193-201, 210-224, 243, 245-249, 270, 294-300.


According to Cockle, Bibliography, no. 12.


Reprinted in Phillips, Roots, pp. 311-400.


Ibid., p. 346.


Ibid., pp. 338-342.


Carrion-Nisas, Essai, I, 382.


Jacques Antoine Hippolyte Guibert, Essai general de tactique (London, 1773), I, iii-xliii.


Carrion-Nisas, Essai, I, 483.


Guibert, Essai, esp. I, xxxiii.


Ibid., I, xxiii-xxiv.


Ibid., I, xx-xxii, xxxvi-xxxvii.


Louis Madelin, Napoléon (Paris: Dunod, 1935), p. 447.


Ibid., p. 40; Waille, Machiavel, pp. 142-143, 153; Cherel, La Pensée de Machiavel, pp. 249-253.


Waille, Machiavel, pp. 142-143; Spencer Wilkinson in The Rise of General Bonaparte (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1930), p. 149, is less positive than Waille that Napoleon had read The Art of War. He feels that in all likelihood he did so.


Machiavel commenté par NonBuonaparte; Manuscrit trouvé dans le carrosse de Buonaparte après la Bataille de Mont-Saint-Jean, Le 18 Juin 1815 (Paris, 1816). The book consists of a new French translation of The Prince with Napoleon’s comments. Annotated excerpts from The Discourses are also included. The preparation of the volume and the introduction were the work of the Abbé Aimé Guillon. Neither Waille, Machiavel, p. 251, nor Cherel, La Pensée de Machiavel, pp. 251-253, 335, nor item 443 under Napoleon I in Bibliothèque Nationale: Catalogue Générale des Livres Imprimés, Vol. XXII, indicates that this work is spurious.


J. Colin, L’Éducation militaire de Napoléon (Paris: R. Chapelot, 1900), pp. 115-116.


William Milligan Sloane, The Life of Napoleon Bonaparte (New York: The Century Company, 1912), I, 150.


Correspondance de Napoleon I (Paris, 1854-1869), XVII, no. 14207, as quoted in J. M. Thompson, Letters of Napoleon (Oxford, Basil Black-well, 1934), pp. 223-225.


Antoine Guillois, Napoléon, l‘homme, le politique, l’orateur d’après sa correspondance et ses œuvres (Paris: Perrin, 1889), II, 578.


Colin, L’Éducation, pp. 114-118, 371.


Waille, Machiavel, p. 141.


Carrion-Nisas, Essai, I, 231, n. 1; Jähns, Geschichte, I, 472, concurs in general with the high estimate of Machiavelli by Carrion-Nisas.


Carrion-Nisas, Essai, I, 462. Delbruck, Geschichte, IV, 133, also compares Machiavelli to Polybius.


Bardin, Dictionnaire, I, 462.


Karl von Clausewitz, On War, tr. J. J. Graham, Introduction and notes by F. N. Maude (London: K. Paul, Trench Trübner and Co. Ltd., 1911), 3 vols.


Clausewitz, Principles of War, tr. and ed. Hans W. Gatzke (Harrisburg, Pa.: The Military Service Publishing Company, 1942), p. 12. This is a new translation of Clausewitz’s memorandum to the Prussian crown prince. The memorandum is also included in vol. III of the Graham translation of Vom Krieg.


Clausewitz, Principles, p. 61.


Ibid., p. 46.


Clausewitz, Strategie (Hamburg: Eberhard Kessel, 1937), p. 41, as quoted in Gilbert, “Machiavelli,” p. 25.


Clausewitz, On War, esp. I, 46-75, 177-192.


Ibid., I, 50.


Ibid., 186-187.


Clausewitz, Principles of War, p. 69.


Art of War, I, 30.


Prince, 12.


Prince, 14.


Ibid., and Discourses, III, 39. Machiavelli, like Xenophon, to whom he refers in both passages, emphasizes the value of hunting in military education. Machiavelli may have read Xenophon’s treatise on the chase, Cynegeticus, the twelfth chapter of which is particularly relevant. More probably he was following Xenophon’s views on the subject in the Cyropaedia I. 2. 9-11; 3. 14; 55. 5-15; II. 4. 25; VIII. 1. 34-38. The recommendation of hunting for a military education is traditional. See Plato, Laws I. 633; VI. 763; VII. 823-824. Oliver Lyman Spaulding in Pen and Sword in Greece and Rome (Princeton: Princeton University Press; London: H. Milford, Oxford University Press, 1937), p. 146, refers to the appendix of the Strategicon, by the sixth-century Byzantine Emperor Maurice, which describes the organization of a mass hunt to be used for training an army. At least as late as the eighteenth century, the chase was prescribed as an important means of acquiring coup d’oeil. See Folard, Histoire, I, 221; Guibert, Essai, II, 97.


Prince, 18; also, Xenophon, Cynegeticus I.


Discourses, I, 4; III, 36.


Art of War, I, 40-41.


The following ideas are discussed in far greater detail in my forthcoming book on Machiavelli.


Discourses, I, 10.


For state, Prince, 24; for army, Discourses, III, 13.


Prince, Epistle Dedicatory; Discourses, I, Introduction, 11; Art of War, VII, 209-210.


Discourses, I, 11.


Art of War, VII, 209-210.


Machiavelli’s concept of statecraft as creative activity is in the classical tradition. On cosmic and creative activity see the discussion of Plato as “political demiurge” in Glenn R. Morrow, Plato’s Cretan City: An Historical Interpretation of the Laws (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1960), pp. 10-13, 568-569, 571-572, 591-592. Also see the brief, excellent comparison of the three orders of creativity—cosmic, political, poetic—in Richard Kuhns, The House, the City, and the Judge: the Growth of Moral Awareness in the “Oresteia” (Indianapolis and New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1962), pp. 100-101, 145. Michael Oakeshott in The Voice of Poetry in the Conversation of Mankind: an Essay (London: Bowes and Bowes, 1959), p. 15 and n. 1, distinguishes between the modern view of politics as “practical activity” and the classical view as “poetic activity,” the object being the achievement of glory, a tradition to which he assigns Machiavelli.


The problem of virtù in Machiavelli is much too complicated to be treated adequately here. See my forthcoming study, “Machiavelli’s Concept of Virtù Reconsidered.” Important references to virtù in Machiavelli’s writings are as follows: Prince, 6-8, 17, 19, 24-25;Discourses, I, 9-11; II, 1-2; III, 1, 21, 36; Art of War, II, 76-81.


Art of War, III, 102.


See Herbert Deane’s illuminating discussion of Augustine’s concept of human nature, and of some of the parallels in the views of modern thinkers, including Machiavelli, but especially Hobbes, in The Political and Social Ideas of St. Augustine (New York: Columbia University Press, 1963), pp. 39-77, 221-243,


Among the most important in chronological order from the 4th century B.C. to the 4th century of the Christian Era are: Aeneas Tacticus, Xenophon, Polybius, Asclepiodotus, Onasander, Aelian Tacticus, Frontinus, Arrian, Modestus, and Vegetius. Xenophon and Polybius were also political theorists. Unfortunately the technical military treatises of Polybius have not survived.


Frontinus, Strategemata, tr. Charles E. Bennett [Loeb Classical Library] (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press; London: W. Heinemann, 1925). Topics 1-12 are discussed in Book I; topics 13-25, in Book II; and topics 26-43, in Book III. The topics in Book IV have been omitted because it is usually not attributed to Frontinus.


The subsequent summary is not intended to be a complete statement. It does indicate the more important elements and is derived from American and British military manuals, the views of Clausewitz, and the lucid account of Major General Fuller, Generalship of Alexander the Great, pp. 284-305.


Prince, 3, 6-7, 22-25; Discourses, I, 30, 33, 52; III, 2, 6.

In all that has preceded and in all that follows, I certainly do not mean to deny that Machiavelli’s rational, calculating attitude toward politics owes much to the commercial spirit of his times. I am simply arguing that the “counting-house” ideology does not alone seem to explain adequately his style of political thought.


Prince, 18-19; Discourses, I, 44; II, 13; III, 6. Both works, of course, are filled with examples.


Prince, 25; Discourses, III, 6, 8, 9.


Prince, 3, 21, 25; Discourses, I, 26; II, 23; III, 2, 6.


Prince, 8; Discourses, I, 33, 45; II, 27; III, 6.


Prince, 19; Discourses, I, 46; III, 6.


Discourses, I, 52; III, 6.


Cf. Prince, 16-21 and Discourses, III, 19-23.


This achievement has seldom been acknowledged by commentators. The articles, “Political Conspiracy” and “Coup d‘État,” in the Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1930- 1935) do not refer to Machiavelli. Neither does his name appear in connection with a theory of conspiracy in either of two recent books on the subject: Donald J. Goodspeed, The Conspirators: A Study of the Coup d’État (New York: Viking Press, 1962); Feliks Gross, The Seizure of Political Power in a Century of Revolutions (New York: Philosophical Library, 1958). Goodspeed is interested in developing a general theory of conspiracy on the basis of a number of recent coups which he has studied. His conclusions (pp. 208-238) do not differ substantially from those of Machiavelli in Discourses, III, 6.


For instance, see the only surviving work of the first western technical military writer, Aeneas Tacticus, On the Defense of Fortified Positions , tr. The Illinois Greek Club, “Loeb Classical Library” (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press; London: W. Heinemann, 1923).


Substantially the same opinion as that of Goodspeed, The Conspirators, p. 238.


Discourses, II, 23.


Prince, 16-22.


Discourses, III, 19-23.


For a few of these analogies, see Discourses, I, Introduction; II, 5, 30; III, 1, 49.


Machiavelli’s definition of public law is in Discourses, I, 18.


Machiavelli’s feeling for Scipio is expressed by a lengthy eulogy in his poem, Ingratitude.


Since this book has gone to press, a new translation has appeared in Niccolo Machiavelli, The Chief Works and Others, tr. Allan Gilbert (3 vols.; Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1965).


In most instances virtù has been left untranslated. See the Introduction, pp. liv-lvi, for a brief discussion of Machiavelli’s use of the word.


As in the case of virtù, the Italian fortuna has been retained in most instances. Usually Machiavelli identifies fortuna with the incalculable and fortuitous; sometimes, with a cosmic force like destiny. In both usages he often personifies it. Throughout The Art of War, he employs the word primarily in the former sense. Human life is conceived in terms of a struggle between fortuna and virtù. Fortuna may place us in particular circumstances, but whether we exert some control over our lives, instead of becoming the plaything of chance, depends upon our virtù. Also see the Introduction, pp. liv-lvi.


The Hapsburg Charles I of Spain (1500-1558). In 1519 he became Emperor Charles V of the Holy Roman Empire.


The Florentine ruler, Lorenzo de’ Medici (1492-1519), duke of Urbino, grandson of Lorenzo the Magnificent and nephew of Pope Leo X, to whom Machiavelli dedicated The Prince.


See the Introduction and notes, pp. xviii-xix. both for these men and for Bernardo Rucellai, mentioned below.


Diogenes (ca. 400-325 B.C.), founder of the Cynic school of philosophy. See Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers VI. 2.


C. Fabricius Luscinus, consul in 282 and 278 B.C. and censor in 275; noted for his uprightness. See Discourses on the First Ten Books of Livy, III, 1 and 20.


Reference is evidently to the mercenary companies in operation during the Hundred Years’ War (1337-1453).


This mutiny touched off the so-called Libyan War against Carthage (241-238 B.C.). A detailed account is found in Polybius, I. 65-88. For Machiavelli’s reference to the episode, see Prince, 12; Discourses, III, 32.


Francesco Sforza (1401-1466), a famous condottiere who seized power in the city he served, becoming duke of Milan in 1450. Lauded by Machiavelli; see Prince 7.


Muzio Attendolo Sforza (1369-1424), also a noted condottiere.


Giovanna II (1414-1435).


Andrea Fortebracci (1368-1424).


June 2, 1424. See Prince, 12 for a passing reference to these events. A detailed account of the developments in Naples is given by Machiavelli in his History of Florence, I, 39.


M. Claudius Marcellus, who conquered Syracuse in 212 B.C.


218-201 B.C.


M. Atilius Regulus in 256 B.C. The source is probably Valerius Maximus, IV. 4. See Discourses, I, 1; III, 25.


The reference is to the brothers C. Sempronius Gracchus (153?—121 B.C.) and Tiberius Gracchus (163?-133 B.C.), reformers and leaders of the Roman populace. From their period on, social unrest and class conflict increased. See Discourses, I, 4 and 37.


A point stressed by Machiavelli in Discourses, II, 18.


Delectus, from the Latin deligo, to choose, select; the context in Machiavelli refers primarily to the selecting of recruits, and is analogous to our Selective Service System.


Vegetius, De re militari I. 2.


An expression of Machiavelli’s belief that the quality of a people depends largely upon art—i.e., upon education and conditioning—rather than upon nature, inborn traits. Man is raw material to be molded. Cf. similar remarks below, pp. 61, 64, 151, 169, 202, 209-210, and Discourses, III, 36.


Vegetius, I. 3.


A reference to Machiavelli’s militia ordinance of 1506.


An allusion to the inglorious defeat of the Florentine militia by the Spanish professionals at Prato on August 29, 1512. See the Introduction, pp. xxvii-xxviii.


Gianfrancesco Gonzaga I (1366-1407), a Mantuan captain general who developed a pro-Venice policy to free Mantua from the domination of the Milanese Visconti. This policy subsequently involved commanding the Venetian forces against Francesco Novello da Carrara, who had taken over Verona, Brescia, and Vicenza at the death of Gian Galeazzo Visconti in 1402. The war resulted in Vincenza becoming a part of Venice in 1404. Although he did not use the title of marquis, it was conferred upon him in 1403; he is not to be confused with Gianfrancesco Gonzaga II (1407- 1444), who was made marquis of Mantua by Emperor Sigismund in 1433.


Evidently reference is to the French use of Swiss mercenaries, a practice begun by Louis XI (1423-1483). See Prince, 13.


Traditionally the sixth king of Rome, who reigned from 578 to 534 B.C. According to Livy, I. 42-43, Servius instituted a census that divided the Romans into six classes based upon their property holdings. The class to which a citizen belonged determined the kind of weapons he would furnish, and hence his particular military role. See Discourses, I, 49 and 11,3.


Vegetius, I. 7. Machiavelli follows Vegetius in believing that recruits, should be selected for moral uprightness rather than for military skill alone.


Vegetius, I. 6-7.


Tirones, from the Latin tiro, a recruit or novice; the origin of our word “tyro.”


C. Julius Verus Maximinus, twenty-sixth Emperor of Rome (A.D. 235—238). The source may be his life in Herodian, VI. 17. See Burd, “le Fonti letterarie di Machiavelli nell’ Arte della guerra,” Atti della Reale Accademia dei Lincei, Series V, Vol. IV (1896), Pt. I, 191, n. 1. For Machiavelli’s views about the emperors, see Prince, 19; Discourses, I, 10.


Polybius, VI. 19-20.


The idleness or indolence (ozio) that arises in times of peace and prosperity saps a people of their virtù and leads to civic corruption. See the Introduction, p. lv.


The following is the only full and explicit statement of one of Machiavelli’s fundamental theses, that a citizens’ militia is an important instrument of civic education. By the establishment of a militia, an unruly people may be disciplined, imbued with a respect for law and authority, and given a sense of dedication to the common good. See Discourses, I, 4.


Hadrian reigned from A.D. 117 to 138; Marcus Aurelius from 161 to 180. Severus is probably Septimius Severus, the exceptionally cruel and ruthless general who seized power in 193 and ruled until his death from natural causes in 211. Another member of the Severan dynasty, Alexander, a good and just if somewhat feeble emperor (A.D. 222-235), is also mentioned by Machiavelli, but as “Alexander” rather than as “Severus,” as Septimius is always called. Machiavelli specifically applies the term virtù to only two Roman emperors: Marcus Aurelius and Septimius Severus, the one good, the other wicked. Hadrian is referred to only as good. See Prince, 19; Discourses, I, 10.


Polybius, VI. 20. For Machiavelli’s view of cavalry in modern warfare, see Discourses, II, 18.


Polybius, VI. 22.


Polybius, VI. 23.


Polybius, XVIII. 12-16.


At Pydna, 168 B.C.; as a result of the Roman victory, Macedonia was divided into four leagues. Thus Perseus was the last king of Macedonia. Consequently L. Aemilius Paullus, who typified the Hellenized Roman, ended the Third Macedonian War; seeDiscourses, III, 16, 25, 35.


Livy, IX. 17, 19.


Although Farneworth translated scoppietto as “musket,” Machiavelli apparently had in mind the harquebus. The two terms have always been employed in a rather imprecise and confused fashion. The harquebus, probably of German origin, differed from the crude hand guns that had been used since the latter part of the fourteenth century in that it had a curved stock and matchlock. The new firearm was first used widely in military operations during the Italian Wars, 1494-1525. Technically speaking, the musket is a much heavier and longer weapon, having greater range and requiring a rest. Most authorities agree that the musket first saw service with the Spanish just prior to 1550; some refer to a Spanish musket dating from the early 1520’s. However, the dates given tend to vary.


Charles VIII (1483-1498) of France invaded Italy in 1494.


In this battle of Arbedo, June 30, 1422, Carmagnola’s forces actually outnumbered the Swiss. Francesco Bussone (1390-1432), count of Carmagnola, served Milan and then Venice as a distinguished condottiere. Machiavelli praises him as a soldier in Prince, 12; he describes the battle in Discourses, I, 18.


Gonzalo de Córdoba (1453-1515) was the great general whose skill in defeating the French made possible the Spanish annexation of Naples. See Discourses, I, 29.


Robert Stuart d’Aubigny (1470-1544), Marshal of France.


April 11, 1512. See Prince, 13, 26; Discourses, II, 16, 17.


Cf. Machiavelli’s recommendation in Prince, 26.


Tigranes (94-55 B.C.) had given asylum to his father-in-law, Mithridates VI, the Great, and thereby associated himself with the latter’s test of Roman strength. This particular battle was fought at the Armenian capital of Tigranocerta; it occurred in 69 B.C., and was a part of the Third Mithridatic War, 74-63 B.C.


A transliteration derived from the Greek καταφράκης, a breastplate of iron mail; the word thus refers to soldiers clad in mail.


L, Licinus Lucullus (110-56 B.C.) had driven Mithridates into Armenia in 72 B.C.; until his enemy Pompey began fomenting dissension in his ranks, Lucullus had been reforming provincial finances. The battle at Tigranocerta culminated his military career. Machiavelli’s source for this passage is Plutarch’s Life of Lucullus, XXVI, ff. Plutarch’s figures are: for Tigranes-150,000 infantry, 5,500 cavalry; for Lucullus-24 cohorts with no more than 11,000 infantry and a combined total of 1,000 cavalry, slingers, and archers. See also Discourses, II, 19.


Bernadotte Perrin’s translation of Tigranes’ remark in the Loeb edition of Plutarch’s Life of Lucullus maintains the original’s epigrammatic quality: “If they are come as ambassadors, they are too many; if as soldiers, too few.”


See Discourses, II, 18.


M. Licinius Crassus Dives was to some degree successful in Mesopotamia against the Parthians in 54 B.C., but his infantry was overwhelmed by their cavalry in 53, and he was treacherously slain. Throughout his career, Mark Antony had suffered reverses at the hands of the Parthians, although they were defeated in 39-38 by the general whom he had sent against them, Ventidius Bassus. See Discourses, II, 18; III, 12. Machiavelli’s references are probably derived from Plutarch’s Crassus and Mark Antony.


Caesar, Gallic War I. 25.


Vegetius, I. 9.


Vegetius, I. 18.


Vegetius, I. 12.


Vegetius, I. 13.


Vegetius, I. 10.


Vegetius, I. 18.


Jurati, bound by an oath, from juro, to swear or take an oath. Machiavelli feels that this oath, sanctioned as it is by religion, is of the utmost importance in maintaining good discipline and respect for authority. See Discourses, I, 11; and below pp. 128, 165.


Vegetius, II. 2.


Josephus Flavius, Judaic War III. 4.


Evidently to drill them in precise contraction and extension—like a snail.


See Figure I, diagrams 1 and 2, pp. 216-217.


Vegetius, II. 13.


See Figure II, diagrams 3 and 4, pp. 218-219.


See Figure III, diagrams 5 and 6, pp. 220-221.


See Figure III, diagrams 5 and 7, pp. 220-221.


Roberto Valturio, De re militari, II, 3.


One of the most significant theoretical statements in all of Machiavelli’s works is to be found in Fabrizio’s following two speeches. Machiavelli here clarifies and completes several of the discussions about virtù— and about the relations between virtù, necessity, and religion—from Discourses , I, 1, 3, 6; II, Introduction, 2; III, 1 and 36.


Ninus, a legendary figure whose name is probably a corruption of Ninevah. Artaxerxes II, king of Persia (404?-359 B.C.). Mithridates VI (ca. 136-63 B.C.), king of Pontus; see pp. 52-53, notes 13, 15-16. Masinissa (ca. 238-149 B.C.), king of Numidia, who fought with Scipio against Hannibal. Jugurtha (156?-104 B.C.), king of Numidia, subject of the Bellum Jugurthinum by Sallust.


The Samnites, an ancient people inhabiting central Italy, were finally subdued by the Romans, 272-268 B.C. The Romans conquered the Etruscans, early inhabitants of modern Tuscany, by 264 B.C.


The Scythians were the warlike tribesmen in the area north and east of the Black and Caspian Seas.


Tortona, 1499; Capua, 1501; Brescia, 1512; Ravenna, 1512.


Soldiers of a Roman legion were divided into classes according to their age, experience, and equipment. The triarii, from tres, three, were the third and oldest class; they were stationed in the third rank behind the hastati, in the first rank, and the principes, in the second. See below, p. 84 and n. 1.


Here Machiavelli is relying upon Livy, VIII. 8-9, as he specifically states in Discourses, II, 16. What follows is an account of Roman military practice that does not take into account the evolution of the legion and the changes that occurred over the ages, or the reasons for the changes. Livy’s reference is to the time of the war with the Latins (338 B.C.). Between that day and the period of Polybius, in the second century, and the Empire, numerous modifications of organization and tactics had occurred. Hence Machiavelli’s Roman legion is, in fact, one that never actually existed.


The infantry of the auxiliaries did in fact exceed the legionary infantry. The customary strength of such an army was 15,000 infantry, 800 cavalry with two legions consisting of about 8,400 infantry and 600 cavalry. See Burd, “Le fonti letterarie,” p. 206, n. 1.


Polybius, VI. 26.


See Figure IV, p. 222. Artillery classification in Machiavelli’s time was beginning to be expressed in terms of the weight of a cannon ball, since the charge of the powder depended upon the weight of the ball. The Italian reads cinquanta and quindici libbre di portata, respectively. Although the weight of the libbra varied from town to town, the Encyclopedia Italiana says the Florentine libbra, at an unspecified date, was equivalent to 339.5 grams, compared with the 453.6 grams to the avoirdupois pound. The figures in the text compensate approximately for this difference, whereas Farneworth’s translation reads 36 and 38 pounds respectively.


The following imaginary battle is without precedent in previous military literature. See Introduction, p. xxi.


Publius Ventidius in 38 B.C. Frontinus, Strategemata II. 2. 5.


Caesar, Gallic War I. 52.


Epaminondas (ca. 418-362 B.C.), great military leader of Thebes. Frontinus, II. 2. 12.


Discourses, II, 17.


Thucydides, V. 70.


The reference should probably be to the Cretans instead of the Carthaginians. See Burd, “Le fonti letterarie,” pp. 208-209.


Herodotus, I. 17.


For the Romans, Vegetius, II. 22. It is uncertain that Alexander’s army used horns. See Burd, p. 209 and n. 2.


Vegetius, III. 20.


Caesar, Gallic War II. 8; VII. 72.


Vegetius, III. 14.


August 2, 216 B.C. Livy, XXII. 43. 10-11.


The battle of Campi Raudii in 101 B.C. See Discourses, II, 8; III, 37.


April 28, 1503. See Discourses, II, 17.


255 B.C. Polybius, I. 32-35. See Discourses, II, 18.


208-206 B.C. Livy, XXVIII. 14; Polybius, XI. 22.


M. Claudius Marcellus held Nola and resisted an attack of Hannibal in 216 B.C. Livy, XXIII. 16; XXVII. 12, 14. See Discourses, II, 2.


Zama, 202 B.C. Hannibal’s last battle, and the end of the Second Punic War. Livy, XXX. 32 ff.; Polybius, XV. 9 ff.; Frontinus, II. 3. 16. See Discourses, II, 27.


Battle of Cheronea, 86 B.C. Frontinus, II. 3. 17.


Q. Minucius Rufus defeated the Scordiscans and Dacians by this ruse in 109 B.C. The consul, Manius Acilius Glabrio, repulsed the army of Antiochus III of Syria at the Pass of Thermopylae in Greece in 191 B.C. Frontinus, II. 4. 3-4; Livy, XXXVI. 14 ff.


358 B.C. C. Sulpicius Peticus, consul in 364 and 361, was dictator in this year. Frontinus, II. 4. 5; Livy, VII. 12-15. See Discourses, III, 10, 14.


C. Marius overcame the Teutons at Aquae Sextiae in 102 B.C. Frontinus, II. 4. 6. See Discourses, II, 8.


Croesus, king of Lydia, in a battle on the plain before Sardis against Cyrus the Great in 546 B.C. See Frontinus, II. 4. 12. The stratagem, however, is usually attributed to Cyrus, who defeated Croesus and then captured Sardis. See Herodotus, I. 80; Xenophon,Cyropaedia VII. 1. 27. 48-49.


Pyrrhus, king of Epirus, who was fighting for the Tarentines against the Romans at the battle of Heraclea in 280 B.C. Frontinus, II. 4. 13. See Discourses, II, 1.


In 1514, Selim I, called the Grand Turk by his contemporaries, defeated the shah of Persia, Ismail I, in eastern Anatolia. He overthrew the Mameluke dynasty in 1517 by completing the conquest of Syria and Egypt begun by his father, Bajazet II. See Discourses, III, 35.


229 2.3. Frontinus, II. 4. 17.


Tullus Hostilius, third king of Rome, reigned, according to tradition, from 672 to 642 B.C. This incident occurred in 658 against the Veientians. Frontinus, II. 7. 1; Livy, I. 27. See Discourses, I, 22.


Frontinus, II. 7. 2-3 for this and the following anecdote.


75 B.C. Q. Sertorius turned against Pompey. Frontinus, II. 7. 5. The slain general was Hirtuleius.


Battle of Orchomenus in 86 B.C. Frontinus, II. 8. 12.


M. Atilius Regulus, during the Samnite War in 294 B.C. Frontinus, II. 8. 11; IV. 1. 29; and Livy, X. 36.


Philip II of Macedon in 339 B.C. Frontinus, II. 8. 11.


216 B.C., during the Second Punic War, when Hannibal’s cavalry tactics out-maneuvered, surrounded, and defeated the Roman army led by L. Aemilius Paullus and C. Terentius Varro. The reference to the enervating effect of Hannibal’s wintering at Capua—rich, luxurious, lazy—is a standard rhetorical commonplace among moralists.


212 B.C. Machiavelli is relying upon Frontinus., II. 10. 2, who refers to Titus Marcius. However, in Livy, XXV. 37, the praenomen is Lucius. The two Scipios are Gnaeus Cornelius Scipio Calvus, consul in 222 B.C., and his younger brother, Publius Cornelius Scipio, also consul in the same year, and father of Scipio Africanus the Elder.


Titus Didius, consul in 98 B.C., fought in Spain from 98 to 93. Frontinus, II. 10. 1.


Vegetius, III. 19.


Battle of Zama, 202 B.C.


Scipio, while driving the Carthaginians out of Spain, defeated Hasdrubal at Becula in 208 B.C.


See Discourses, I, 22, 23.


Caesar, Gallic War I. 12.


Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus the Elder defeated Hasdrubal in 208 B.C.; Frontinus, II. 1. 1; Livy, XXVIII. 15. According to Frontinus, the other battle (76 B.C.) was between the forces of Caecilius Metellus Pius and of Hirtuleius, a lieutenant of Sertorius. Machiavelli confuses this incident with the one Frontinus describes in his next paragraph. After the defeat of Hirtuleius, Metellus joined Pompey against Sertorius; Metellus decided to withdraw rather than fight because of the enemy’s great spirit and enthusiasm. Frontinus, II. 1. 2-3.


Q. Fabius Maximus Rullianus and Publius Decius Mus the Younger at the battle of Sentinum in 295 B.C. Frontinus, II. 1. 8; Livy, X. 28. See Discourses, III, 45.


58 B.C. Frontinus, II. 1. 16; cf. Caesar, Gallic War I. 50.


The Emperor Vespasian in A.D. 70. Frontinus, II. 1. 17.


Much of the advice in the remainder of the speech follows Vegetius, III. 9.


Q. Fabius Maximus Cunctator, so called because of his cautious policy in dealing with Hannibal. He is not to be confused with the Q. Fabius Maximus Rullianus of n. 34 above. See Prince, 17; Discourses, I, 53; III, 9, 10, 40.


For both examples, see Discourses, III, 10. Here, and for the remainder of Book IV, Machiavelli is discussing Q. Fabius Maximus Cunctator. The battle Philip of Macedon fought was at Cynocephalae in 197 B.C.


52 B.C. Not Cingetorex, but Vercingetorix. Caesar, Gallic War VII. 35.


Battle of Agnadello in 1509. See Prince, 20, 26; Discourses, I, 6; II, 10; III, 31.


217 B.C. The cavalry general was M. Minucius Rufus. Livy, XXII. 24 ff.


Vegetius, III. 12. See Discourses, III, 37.




On the oath and religion in general see Discourses, I, 11-15; also p. 60 above and p. 165 below.


Frontinus, I. 11. 13.


Frontinus, I. 11. 11.


Joan of Arc (1412-1431).


Agesilaus II of Sparta defeated the Persians at Sardis in 395 B.C. Frontinus, I. 11. 18; Xenophon, Hellenica III. 4. 19; Plutarch, Agesilaus 9. The incident is most clearly explained by Xenophon. He writes that the Persians had such soft, white skin because they always wore clothes and rode in carriages; hence, seeing them stripped, the Spartans would conclude that their enemies were no better than women.


For Machiavelli’s important concept of necessity, see esp. Discourses, III, 12; also above, p. 76, n. 36; below, p. 175.


Polybius, VI. 40.


See Figure V, p. 224.


Polybius, III. 50 ff.


See Figure VI, p. 226.


Hasdrubal, victor in Spain in 211 B.C., attempted to join his brother Hannibal in Italy and lost his life there during the rout of his army in the Metauro River valley in 207; see p. 163, n. 6.


Cf. Discourses, III, 14.


Polybius, X. 16-17.


Vegetius, II. 20. The dimidia pars of Vegetius, however, becomes la terza parte in Machiavelli’s version, a point noted by Burd, p. 223, n. 1.


Concerning Machiavelli’s doctrine of appearances, see Prince, 18; Discourses , I, 25.


Most of the remainder of the speech closely follows Vegetius, III. 6.


On the importance of a knowledge of topography, see Prince, 14; Discourses , III, 39.


Hanno, one of Hannibal’s generals. Frontinus, I. 5. 27.


Nabis, king of Sparta, in 195 B.C. Livy, XXXIV. 39.


Q. Lutatius Catulus in 101 B.C. Frontinus, I. 5. 3.


This and the following recommendations are found in Vegetius, III. 7.


Caesar, Gallic War VII. 34-35.


Instead of Lucius Minucius, Machiavelli means Q. Minucius Thermus, consul in 193 B.C. Burd, p. 227, n. 1, sees this mistake as evidence that Machiavelli was following Frontinus, I. 5. 16 rather than Livy, XXXV. 11, since the Frontinus manuscript mistakenly referred to L. Minucius.


36 B.C. Frontinus, II. 13. 7. See Discourses, II, 18.


Frontinus, II. 3. 15.


See above, p. 25, n. 21.


The comparison of Greek and Roman encampments relies upon Polybius, VI. 42.


See Figure VII, p. 228.


Machiavelli’s detailed description of the encampment follows Polybius, VI. 27-32, with, perhaps, some reliance upon Vegetius, III. 8. No doubt Machiavelli was also familiar with the account in Xenophon, Cyropaedia VIII. 5. 1-15.


of. Polybius, VI. 31: “The whole camp thus forms a square, and the way in which the streets are laid out and its general arrangements give it the appearance of a town” (trans. W. R. Paton, “Loeb Classical Library”).


C. Claudius Nero and M. Livius Salinator were consuls in 207 B.C. Claudius Nero was fighting Hannibal in Apulia near Lucania, while Livius Salinator was trying to prevent Hasdrubal from coming down through Italy with reinforcements for his brother Hannibal. Claudius Nero secretly hastened north with part of his army, defeated and slew Hasdrubal along the Metauro in The Marches, returned to his army, and tossed Hasdrubal’s head into Hannibal’s camp. Livy, XXVII. 39-50. See Discourses, II, 10; III, 17; also, above p. 137, n. 5.


These offenses are in Polybius, VI. 37.


Decimation is described in Polybius, VI. 38.


For rewards, Polybius, VI. 39.


On running the gauntlet, Polybius, VI. 37.


In 390 B.C. M. Manlius Capitolinus saved the Capitol from the Gauls. For inciting the masses against their creditors, he was charged with treason and condemned to death in 384. Livy, VI. 19-20. See Discourses, I, 8, 58; III, 8.


Once again Machiavelli stresses the importance of religion as a means of social control. See above, pp. 60, 128.


Polybius, VI. 40.


Much of the following speech follows Vegetius, III. 2-3.


The invaders were repulsed in 225-222 B.C.


See Discourses, III, 31, 33, 36.


207 B.C. Frontinus, I. 1. 9. See above, p. 163, n. 6.


Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius went to Spain as proconsul in 79 B.C.; there he carried out the campaign against Sertorius from 79-72. Frontinus, I. 1. 12.


Frontinus, I. 1. 13. M. Licinius Crassus was defeated and killed by the Parthians in 53 B.C.


Machiavelli evidently has in mind a ruse employed by Scipio Africanus in 203 B.C. Frontinus, I. 2. 1; Livy, XXX. 4 ff.


The Carthaginian, Hamilcar Rhodinus, thus supposedly learned the designs of Alexander the Great in 331 B.C. Frontinus, I. 2. 3.


According to Frontinus, I. 2. 5, Marcus Cato the Elder used this method in Spain in 195 B.C.


104 B.C. Frontinus, I. 2. 6.


Scipio Africanus forced Hannibal to do this in 204 B.C. Frontinus, I. 3. 8.


L. Sulla in 92 and 90 B.C. Hasdrubal in 211 B.C. Frontinus, I. 5. 17-19.


217 B.C. Frontinus, I. 5. 28; Livy, XXII. 16-17. See Discourses, III, 40.


217 B.C. Frontinus, I. 8. 2.


489 B.C. Frontinus, I. 8. 1.


Q. Caecilius Metellus Numidicus in 108 B.C. Frontinus, I. 8. 8.


Antiochus III of Syria in 191 B.C. Frontinus, I, 8. 7.


Q. Fabius Maximus Rullianus in 295 B.C. Frontinus, I. 8. 3.


In Spain, 98-93 B.C. Frontinus, I. 8. 5.


See Discourses, III. 12, See above, pp. 76 ff., 129.


See Discourses, III, 21.


Suetonius, Divus Julius 59; see Frontinus, I. 12. 2.


Cf. above, p. 128, n. 45.


The war with Messenia occurred sometime after 650 B.C. Caesar’s action was in 49 B.C. during the Civil War. Frontinus, II. 1. 10-11; Caesar, Civil Wars I. 81-83.


Q. Fulvius Flaccus in 181 B.C. Frontinus, II. 5. 8, is mistaken about the war being with the Cimbri. It was evidently with the Celtiberi. See Livy, XL. 30-32.


Alexander II of Epirus. Leptines, brother of the tyrant, Dionysius I of Syracuse, in 397-396 B.C. Frontinus, II. 5. 10-11.


Tomyris, queen of the Massagetae, a Scythian people, in 529 B.C. Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus in Spain in 179-178 B.C. Frontinus, II. 5. 5. Machiavelli may well have used another source for Tomyris. See Burd, p. 237.


Frontinus, II. 5. 16, credits the stratagem to the Arabians, not to any particular military commander.


Frontinus, II. 5. 18.


58-53 B.C. Frontinus, II. 6. 3. Another example of the power of necessity.


L. Licinius Lucullus, 74-66 B.C. Frontinus, II. 7. 8. See Discourses, III, 13.


76-72 B.C. Frontinus, II. 11. 2.


Frontinus, II. 11. 1.


334 B.C. Frontinus, II. 11. 3.


210 B.C. The husband was Allucius, a native chieftain. Frontinus, II. 11. 5. See Discourses, III, 20, 34.


The reference in Frontinus, II. 11. 7, is to the Emperor Domitian in A.D. 83.


The Spanish king, Ferdinand of Aragon, agreed to support Louis XII’s claim to Naples and share it with him, under the terms of the Treaty of Granada in 1500. By July 1502, having successfully asserted their claims, the two kings were arguing over the spoils. After losing ground, Spain won at Cerignola in April 1503, then at Naples, again at Garigliano, and finally forced the French to capitulate at Gaeta on New Year’s Day, 1504. Thus Spain conquered, kept, and controlled Naples and southern Italy, while France controlled Milan and the north. At Garigliano, December 28, 1503, Gonzalo de Córdoba descended upon the French with a surprise attack over difficult terrain during adverse weather conditions.


Vegetius, IV. 1.


The fortress of Santo Leo in the Duchy of Urbino.


Vegetius, IV: 2.


In the winter of 1511 Pope Julius II captured the fortress of Mirandola.


Genoa rebelled in 1506, and the French recaptured the city in 1507. See Discourses, II, 24, and Prince, 20 for Machiavelli’s principal discussions of fortresses. For Roman methods of capturing cities, see Discourses, II, 32.


In 1488 Count Giralamo Riario of Forli was murdered in his palace. His wife, Caterina, tricked the conspirators by retiring to the citadel and holding out until relief came from her uncle, Duke Ludovico Sforza of Milan. However, in December 1499, when Forli was overwhelmed by Cesare Borgia, the Countess was simply trapped in the citadel—no one came to her rescue-and surrendered, January 12. See Prince, 13, 20; Discourses, III, 6; History of Florence, VIII, 34.


Vegetius, IV. 4.


Vegetius, IV. 22.


216 B.C. Today Casilinum is Capua. Frontinus, III. 14. 2.


Frontinus, III. 15. 1. A trick the Romans used when they were besieged by the Gauls in 390 B.C.


Frontinus, III. 15. 5, refers to the Thracians in this regard.


215 or 211 B.C. Frontinus, III. 4. 1; cf. Livy, XXIII. 46; XXV. 13. Frontinus has evidently confused two occasions.


Dionysius I of Syracuse in 391 B.C. Frontinus, III. 4. 3.


266—263 B.C. Frontinus, III. 4. 5, refers not to Alexander the Great, but to Alexander I, son of Pyrrhus and king of Epirus.


“Attacking the city by crown.”


210 B.C., now Cartagena. Livy, XXVI. 44 ff.; Polybius, X. 12 ff. See Discourses, II, 32.


For the following, Vegetius, IV. 25.


June 21, 1502. See Discourses, II, 24.


See above, p. 143, n. 9.


Gnaeus Domitius Calvinus, consul in 54 and 40 B.C. Frontinus, III. 2. 1.


Stratagem of the Arcadians against the Messenians, as related in Frontinus, III. 2. 4.


Ca. 470 B.C. The temple of Diana in Caria, Asia Minor. Frontinus, III. 2. 5.


Employed by Antiochus in besieging the town of Suenda in Cappadocia. Frontinus, III. 2. 9.


202 B.C. Masinissa, king of the Numidians, was an ally of Rome. Frontinus, III. 6. 1.


296—280 B.C. Illyria is now the area northwest of Belgrade. Frontinus, III. 6. 3.


Frontinus offers six examples in III. 7. The next stratagems may have been taken from a variety of passages in Frontinus, for example, II. 3. 1; III. 3. 1, 5.


Tarentum in 212 B.C. Frontinus, III. 3. 6. See Livy, XXV. 8-9; Polybius, VIII. 26.


432 B.C. Frontinus, III. 11. 1.


M. Claudius Marcellus in 216 B.C. Frontinus, III. 16. 1; Livy, XXIII. 15-16.


Vegetius, IV. 26.


During the Peloponnesian War. Frontinus, III. 12. 1.


The Athenian general Iphicrates was holding Corinth in 393—391 B.C. Frontinus, III. 12. 2.


Vegetius, IV. 24.


M. Claudius Marcellus defended Nola against Hannibal after the defeat at Cannae in 216 B.C. Livy, XXIII. 14-16.


57 B.C. Not Caesar, but his legate in Gaul, Servius Sulpicius Galbus. Caesar, Gallic War III. 2—6.


Suetonius, Divus Julius 68.


211 B.C. Frontinus, III. 18. 2-3; Livy, XXVI. 7-8, 11.


The following twenty-seven precepts are taken from Vegetius, III. 26.


Vegetius completed his work with a consideration of naval warfare.


Quintus Curtius, V. 2.


Pelopidas, ca. 410-364 B.C., Theban general, friend of Epaminondas, and leader in the drive to expel the Spartans from Thebes. Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus, the conqueror of Hanno during the Second Punic War.


Marcus Scaurus, consul in 115 B.C., relates in his memoirs that the fruit-laden tree was untouched after the withdrawal of the army. Frontinus, IV. 3. 13.


The distinction between “form” and “matter,” important in Scholastic doctrine, indicates that Machiavelli conceived of leadership as creative. The leader impresses a form upon the raw matter, the people. Cf. Prince, 6; Discourses, III, 8. See Introduction, pp. liii—liv ; and below, p. 210 and n. 45.


See Diseourses, III, 29.


In Discourses, I, 11, a similar metaphor is used in regard to the founder of a civil order. See Introduction, pp. liii-liv; also the terms “form” and “matter” above, p. 209 and n. 43.


Milan, Venice, and Florence.


The Florentine militia ordinance of 1506.


The Venetians in 1509, and Ercole d’Este, duke of Ferrara in 1479.


Philip II, father of Alexander the Great. Plutarch, Pelopidas XXVI.

If you find an error please notify us in the comments. Thank you!