Machiavellis Lessons on Creating New Principalities via Cesare Borgias Career

Niccolò Machiavelli uses the portrayal of Cesare Borgia’s career to teach readers about establishing new principalities through others’ arms and fortune, which are gained with little to no trouble but are maintained with great difficulty. Borgia gained land through his father, Pope Alexander VI, and did not account for the fact that the Church owned the land once his father met an untimely end. Machiavelli goes on to Borgia’s dependency throughout his career was the main cause for his failure in maintaining his state.

Yet to begin, Machiavelli deems Borgia’s actions praiseworthy and says that he does not “judge [them] superfluous to discuss” (VII, pg. 27) and beyond “reproach.” (VII, pg. 32) To elaborate his own consideration, Machiavelli shows the steps that Cesare Borgia took to set down the “great foundations for future power.” (VII, pg. 27) Machiavelli first shows how Cesare Borgia’s resources of arms evolve throughout his career, from being very dependent to having his own arms. Machiavelli shows this when he writes, “[Cesare Borgia] came into Romagna with auxiliary arms, leading there entirely French troops… he turned to mercenaries… he hired the Orsini and Vitelli… and turned to his own arms.” (XIII, pg. 55) Machiavelli is saying that Cesare Borgia turned to his own arms after eliminating the Orsini leaders, who were conspiring against him, helping him step away from the dependence he has relied on.

Get quality help now

KarrieWrites

Verified writer

Proficient in: Pope

5 (339)

“ KarrieWrites did such a phenomenal job on this assignment! He completed it prior to its deadline and was thorough and informative. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

This transition helps ameliorate Borgia’s power to a more reputable standard. It should seem that Machiavelli would again praise and uphold Borgia’s strong position as he “was the total owner of his own arms” (VIII, pg. 55) after he rid those conspiring against him. Borgia put Messer Remirro de Orco in charge, who “restored the Romagna” (XVIII, pg. 65) by employing cruel and severe measures to bring law and order to the once lawless land.

Cesare Borgia delegated this arduous task, but when it was considered that this display of excessive power and cruelty was no longer needed, he publicly executed Remirro de Orco. Borgia then leaves him in two pieces with the knife alongside him to help show that it is disposed to be raised again. This action “satisfied” the soldiers and “stupefied” the people. Rather, this kept the people from conspiring against him, while mollifying the need for the appearance of justice. Machiavelli is showing that displaying acts of cruelties as needed is necessary and if one analyzes the calculated implementation that left the Romagna orderly and united, one sees it left Cesare Borgia blameless of Remirro de Orco’s actions. Machiavelli notices the manipulations of power, the use of Orco as a tool to divert hatred from Borgia. This calculating undertaking kept him feared, which is understood to be better than to be loved. Machiavelli notes that this is because the prince holds control over the fear he instills, and while it is better to be both, it is unrealistic. Machiavelli allows the readers to come to acknowledge the power dynamics that Cesare Borgia utilizes to gain the people’s fear.  Deviating from previous praise, Machiavelli states that he would “only accuse him in the creation of Julius as pontiff” (VII, pg. 33) Machiavelli helps to outline a failure to recognize and understand the full extent of gaining one’s own arms on Cesare Borgia’s behalf. Through the same fortune of his father that allowed him to gain the state did he lose it. After his father, Pope Alexander VI died, Borgia made a mistake by not using his power to keep Julius II from the papacy. In summary, Borgia’s mistake led to “cause of his ultimate ruin.” (VII, pg. 33) Machiavelli is portraying Borgia’s inaction as a reliance and dependence on his father’s resources that have just run out. Machiavelli even goes as far as to say that Borgia would have been successful “if Alexander had lived,” although the author leaves it unexpressed as to how this could have been accomplished. Cesare Borgia fell ill at the time of his father’s death, seems to further mimic his own ill-fortune in his downfall. Given the circumstances, Cesare Borgia is a study of a failed prince, even though Machiavelli depicts many of his actions as good, virtuous, and beyond reproach. His rise and fall are both attributed to the fortune of others’, particularly his fathers. Machiavelli also contributes Borgia’s failure to his lack of understanding of the need to have one’s own arms and his own inherent mortality.