Alexander the Great’s conquest of Persia provides the backdrop for one of Machiavelli’s more insightful observations about how countries are composed and hold together.

Persia had a vast army and a vast amount of territory. Furthermore, the Persian empire was comprised of different ethnic and tribal groups, as well other assimilated civilizations such as Egypt and Babylon. Yet, with an army of between 40-50,000, within ten years Alexander had destroyed all resistance to his control over most of Asia. Alexander died without having the chance to consolidate any of his gains, and we might then expect that Persia would revolt against the Macedonians and reclaim their freedom. But this failed to materialize. In fact, the Macedonians fought amongst themselves for control of the region, and still Persia did nothing. How could this be?

Machiavelli writes:

Considering the difficulties which men have had to hold to a newly acquired state, some might wonder how, seeing that Alexander the Great became the master of Asia in a few years, and died whilst it was scarcely settled (whence it might appear reasonable that the whole empire would have rebelled), nevertheless his successors maintained themselves, and had to meet no other difficulty than that which arose among themselves from their own ambitions.

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 hisfavour and permission; or by a prince and barons, who hold that dignity by antiquity of blood and not by the grace of the prince. Such barons have states and their own subjects, who recognize them as lords and hold them in natural affection. Those states that are governed by a prince and his servants hold their prince in more consideration, because in all the country there is no one who is recognized as superior to him, and if they yield obedience to another they do it as to a minister and official, and they do not bear him any particular affection.

The examples of these two governments in our time are the Turk and the King of France. The entire monarchy of the Turk is governed by one lord, the others are his servants; and, dividing his kingdom into sanjaks, he sends there different administrators, and shifts and changes them as he chooses. But the King of France is placed in the midst of an ancient body of lords, acknowledged by their own subjects, and beloved by them; they have their own prerogatives, nor can the king take these away except at his peril. 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. The causes of the difficulties in seizing the kingdom of the Turk are that the usurper cannot be called in by the princes of the kingdom, nor can he hope to be assisted in his designs by the revolt of those whom the lord has around him. This arises from the reasons given above; for his ministers, being all slaves and bondmen, can only be corrupted with great difficulty, and one can expect little advantage from them when they have been corrupted, as they cannot carry the people with them, for the reasons assigned. Hence, he who attacks the Turk must bear in mind that he will find him united, and he will have to rely more on his own strength than on the revolt of others; but, if once the Turk has been conquered, and routed in the field in such a way that he cannot replace his armies, there is nothing to fear but the family of this prince, and, this being exterminated, there remains no one to fear, the others having no credit with the people; and as the conqueror did not rely on them before his victory, so he ought not to fear them after it.

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. Such men, for the reasons given, can open the way into the state and render the victory easy; but if you wish to hold it afterwards, you meet with infinite difficulties, both from those who have assisted you and from those you have crushed. Nor is it enough for you to have exterminated the family of the prince, because the lords that remain make themselves the heads of fresh movements against you, and as you are unable either to satisfy or exterminate them, that state is lost whenever time brings the opportunity. 

Essentially Machiavelli points out that

• Some countries are hard to conquer but easy to hold once defeated. They have greater unity from the top-down, but once that unity is shattered, it cannot make itself whole again. We might think of such countries akin to a brick wall. It is very hard to put one’s fist through a wall, but once you break the wall, it cannot reconstitute itself.
• Some countries are easy to conquer but make it quite difficult to maintain the conquest. Their internal divisions open the door to the invader, but those same internal divisions will guarantee you will have problems in the future. Such countries resemble water. One can easily put one’s fist through water, but the most one can do is move or scatter it. Given the right conditions, that pool of water can easily return.

We can use Machiavelli’s framework to help explain historical events closer to our time.

During WW II, Germany and Japan functioned much like Persia or the Ottoman Empire of Machiavelli’s day (though it is important to remember that Machiavelli’s categories are not moral categories–one can be bad or good and have strong unity). After their military defeat, both Japan and West Germany rebuilt themselves with extraordinary speed. Neither Nazism or military dictatorship made even a pretense of returning to Germay or Japan, respectively. Their (extreme) unity, once shattered, disappeared into the ether, with an entirely new society emerging.

Our experience recently with Afghanistan highlights Machiavelli’s second category. With its many tribes and difficult geography, we were able to quickly defeat the Taliban and establish a new government. However, all we really accomplished was the scattering of water. In time, the Taliban reemerged and regained control. Our experience mirrored that of England in the 19th century, and Russia, both in the 19th and 20th centuries.

I wanted the students to consider whether America resembled more of ancient Persia, or if we are more like medieval France. The students had different arguments for both sides, which was great to see.

For centralized unity defining America, they argued that

• While a few “weird” states exist (such as Florida and Alaska) for the most part most states function in the same way and have similar cultures.
• We have unified executive control over the military from top to bottom.
• We share common political and cultural events, such as elections, political debates, the Super Bowl, etc.
• We share enough of a common vision of what it means to be an American, such as agreement over our rights as citizens.

For the “water” analogy fitting America, they argued that

• There are a variety of states, scattered throughout the country, that may have similar poltical systems, but very different cultures (Texas, California, Lousiana, etc.).
• We have a great deal of political disagreement. While we technically have one president, a strong minority of Americans will not support him.
• While we agree on our rights, such as the right to vote and free speech, these rights are generally used to divide us and not unite us.

I enjoyed the students’ thoughts on this important question.

It is possible that a country can change its identity. The France Machiavelli mentioned went from the “water” model to the “brick wall” starting in the 17th century under King Louis XIV. By the time of the French Revolution in the late 18th century, what happened in Paris determined everything in France. America may have gone through periods in our history when we functioned in a more centralized or de-centralized manner, and we may change again.

One of Machiavelli’s talents involves letting us know that one can rarely if ever have it both ways. Strong unity, or strong disunity both have their advantages that are somewhat exclusive. We have to own our choices, and understand their consequences.

Enjoy the weekend,

Dave