The Prince · Chapter
IV: Why the Kingdom of Darius, Conquered by Alexander, Did Not Rebel Against the Successors of Alexander at His Death explained
Machiavelli explains why Alexander the Great's successors easily held the vast Empire of Asia after his death, contrasting centralized states like the Turk's (and Darius's) with decentralized feudal states like France.
What happens
Machiavelli explains why Alexander the Great's successors easily held the vast Empire of Asia after his death, contrasting centralized states like the Turk's (and Darius's) with decentralized feudal states like France. He argues that in a centralized state, once the ruling family is eliminated, there are no other powerful lords to lead rebellion, making conquest difficult but retention easy. In feudal states, conquest is easier due to internal malcontents, but retention is fraught with challenges from remaining barons.
Themes in this chapter
Acquisition and Maintenance of Power
The chapter analyzes how the structure of a conquered state affects the ease of holding power, contrasting centralized and feudal systems.
Military Strength and Self-Reliance
Machiavelli emphasizes that attacking a centralized state like the Turk requires relying on one's own strength rather than internal revolts.
Human Nature and Its Exploitation
The discussion of malcontents and those desiring change in feudal states highlights the exploitation of human ambition and discontent.
Characters to notice
- Alexander the Great
Conquered the Kingdom of Darius, and his successors held it easily due to the centralized nature of the state.
- Darius
His kingdom was similar to the Turk's centralized monarchy; after his death and defeat, the state remained secure to Alexander.
- The Prince
The chapter discusses the two types of principalities—centralized (like the Turk) and feudal (like France)—relevant to a prince's strategy.
- Louis XII
Referenced indirectly as the King of France, whose kingdom exemplifies the feudal model with ancient barons.
Key passages
“I answer that the principalities of which one has record are found to be governed in two different ways; either by a prince, with a body of servants, who assist him to govern the kingdom as ministers by his favour and permission; or by a prince and barons, who hold that dignity by antiquity of blood and not by the grace of the prince.”
Machiavelli states that historical principalities are either ruled by a prince with appointed ministers or by a prince alongside hereditary barons.
This introduces the central dichotomy of the chapter between centralized and feudal states.
“Therefore, he who considers both of these states will recognize great difficulties in seizing the state of the Turk, but, once it is conquered, great ease in holding it.”
Conquering a centralized state like the Turk's is very hard, but holding it afterward is easy.
Key insight on the paradox of conquering versus retaining different types of states.
“The contrary happens in kingdoms governed like that of France, because one can easily enter there by gaining over some baron of the kingdom, for one always finds malcontents and such as desire a change.”
In feudal kingdoms like France, entry is easy by exploiting disgruntled barons, but holding it afterward is difficult.
Contrasts the ease of conquest with the difficulty of retention in feudal states.