Machiavelli didn’t think peace kept republics alive.
He thought conflict did.
Where others praised harmony, he claimed liberty was born from struggle between people and elites.
Why would the “prophet of tyranny” call discord the engine of freedom? 🧵
He thought conflict did.
Where others praised harmony, he claimed liberty was born from struggle between people and elites.
Why would the “prophet of tyranny” call discord the engine of freedom? 🧵
This wasn’t armchair theory.
For 14 years, Machiavelli worked as a diplomat of the Florentine Republic, watching rulers across Europe.
He saw tyrannies look powerful and then crumble.
But republics, noisy and divided, endured.
For 14 years, Machiavelli worked as a diplomat of the Florentine Republic, watching rulers across Europe.
He saw tyrannies look powerful and then crumble.
But republics, noisy and divided, endured.
Then came 1512.
The Medici, with Spanish assistance, regained control of Florence.
Machiavelli was dismissed, arrested, tortured, and exiled.
Cut off from politics, he poured his experience into two books that changed history: The Prince and Discourses on Livy.
The Medici, with Spanish assistance, regained control of Florence.
Machiavelli was dismissed, arrested, tortured, and exiled.
Cut off from politics, he poured his experience into two books that changed history: The Prince and Discourses on Livy.
People read The Prince and saw a handbook for tyrants.
But Discourses shows another side.
There, Machiavelli explains why republics last longer than any monarchy.
And why their survival depends on constant struggle.
But Discourses shows another side.
There, Machiavelli explains why republics last longer than any monarchy.
And why their survival depends on constant struggle.
He turned to Rome as his model.
Not the empire, but the republic.
Rome blended consuls, senators, and tribunes into a system that balanced monarchy, aristocracy, and popular power.
This balance let Rome to adapt instead of collapsing.
Not the empire, but the republic.
Rome blended consuls, senators, and tribunes into a system that balanced monarchy, aristocracy, and popular power.
This balance let Rome to adapt instead of collapsing.
The real insight was that balance came from fighting.
Patricians pushed one way, plebeians pushed back.
Out of these clashes came new laws and institutions that protected liberty.
Without friction, Rome would have rotted.
Patricians pushed one way, plebeians pushed back.
Out of these clashes came new laws and institutions that protected liberty.
Without friction, Rome would have rotted.
But structure alone doesn’t save a republic.
It needs citizens with civic virtue.
Laws should reward people who put the community before themselves.
Once corruption takes hold, no system can survive.
It needs citizens with civic virtue.
Laws should reward people who put the community before themselves.
Once corruption takes hold, no system can survive.
That’s why Machiavelli, accused of atheism later, insisted religion mattered.
Not for heaven, but for discipline and unity.
He praised Rome’s early king Numa Pompilius for using faith to build order and strength.
Not for heaven, but for discipline and unity.
He praised Rome’s early king Numa Pompilius for using faith to build order and strength.
Still, corruption was always a threat.
Power concentrates, citizens grow soft, and leaders put themselves above the law.
The cure was renewal.
Sometimes through external shocks, sometimes through institutions designed to restore the founding spirit.
Power concentrates, citizens grow soft, and leaders put themselves above the law.
The cure was renewal.
Sometimes through external shocks, sometimes through institutions designed to restore the founding spirit.
Rome had a brutal but effective tool for this: the dictatorship.
A short burst of concentrated power to crush corruption and reset the system.
Risky, yes. But Machiavelli thought that without it, republics would decay beyond repair.
A short burst of concentrated power to crush corruption and reset the system.
Risky, yes. But Machiavelli thought that without it, republics would decay beyond repair.
Here, his two works meet.
The Prince wasn’t a betrayal of republican ideals. It was the crisis manual.
Sometimes survival demanded ruthless action.
If the state lived, the ends justified the means.
The Prince wasn’t a betrayal of republican ideals. It was the crisis manual.
Sometimes survival demanded ruthless action.
If the state lived, the ends justified the means.
But he knew the dangers.
Once liberty is destroyed, it is hard to bring it back.
That is why reforms had to build on old foundations instead of wiping the slate clean.
Continuity was just as important as renewal.
Once liberty is destroyed, it is hard to bring it back.
That is why reforms had to build on old foundations instead of wiping the slate clean.
Continuity was just as important as renewal.
Machiavelli’s obsession wasn’t tyranny.
It was freedom.
He believed republics lasted because they fought.
Against enemies abroad, against corruption at home, and even against themselves.
It was freedom.
He believed republics lasted because they fought.
Against enemies abroad, against corruption at home, and even against themselves.
Machiavelli’s name became a symbol of scheming and lies.
But the real Machiavelli thought republics, not princes, held the key to survival.
His lesson still matters.
Because the struggle he saw in Rome has never really ended.
But the real Machiavelli thought republics, not princes, held the key to survival.
His lesson still matters.
Because the struggle he saw in Rome has never really ended.
Thanks for reading!
If you enjoyed this thread, consider following @ModernCeasar for more content like this.
If you enjoyed this thread, consider following @ModernCeasar for more content like this.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
