XXIV. Why the Princes of Italy Have Lost Their States
The things set out above, if prudently observed, make a new prince seem old, and quickly make him more secure and more firmly established in his state than if he had grown old in it. For a new prince is watched much more closely in his actions than a hereditary one; and when his actions are recognized as able, they win men over and bind them to him much more than ancient blood does. For men are much more taken by present things than by past ones, and when they find good in the present, they enjoy it and do not look further; indeed, they will take up every defense of the prince, as long as he does not fail himself in other things. And so he will have a double glory: that of having founded a new principality and adorned and strengthened it with good laws, good arms, good friends, and good examples; just as the one who was born a prince and has lost his principality through his lack of prudence has a double shame.
And if one considers those lords in Italy who have lost their states in our times, like the king of Naples, the Duke of Milan, and others,1 one will find in them, first, a common defect in arms, for the reasons discussed at length above; and then one will see that some of them either had the people as enemies, or, if they had the people friendly, did not know how to secure themselves against the great. For without these defects, states that have enough sinew to keep an army in the field are not lost. Philip of Macedon (not the father of Alexander, but the one who was defeated by Titus Quinctius)2 did not have much of a state compared with the greatness of the Romans and of Greece, who attacked him. Nevertheless, because he was a military man who knew how to keep the people friendly and secure himself against the great, he sustained the war against them for many years; and if in the end he lost his dominion over a few cities, he still kept his kingdom.
Therefore these princes of ours, who had been in their principalities for many years, should not blame fortune for having lost them afterward, but their own sloth. For never having thought in quiet times that things could change (which is a common defect of men, not to reckon with the storm in fair weather), when adverse times came they thought of running away and not of defending themselves, and hoped that the people, annoyed by the insolence of the victors, would call them back. This course is good when others are lacking; but it is very bad to have left aside the other remedies for this one. For one should never fall in the belief that someone will be found to pick you up. Either this does not happen, or if it does, it is not to your security, because that kind of defense is cowardly and does not depend on you. And the only defenses that are good, that are certain, that are lasting, are those that depend on you yourself and on your own ability.