# 19. A Weak Prince who succeeds an Outstanding Prince can hold his own, but a Weak Prince who succeeds another Weak Prince cannot hold any Kingdom

The virtue and the methods of Romulus, Numa and Tullus, the first three kings of Rome, show how extremely fortunate Rome was to have had first a fierce and warlike king, then a peaceful and religious one, and thirdly a king with the military ardour of Romulus and a lover of war rather than peace. For it was essential to Rome in its early days that there should arise a legislator to give it a civic constitution, and it was also necessary that there should be others who would again display the virtue of Romulus, since, otherwise, the city would have become effeminate and have fallen a prey to its neighbours. In which connection it may be noted that a prince who is less virtuous than his predecessor can hold a state thanks to the virtue of its previous ruler and can enjoy the fruits of his labours; but, should he happen to live a long time or should there not arise another who again displays the virtue of the first, the kingdom must needs be ruined. And, conversely, if of two princes who come one after the other both are conspicuous for virtue, it is frequently found that they perform magnificent exploits and that their fame reaches to the uppermost limits of the heavens.

David no doubt was a very fine man, alike as soldier, teacher and judge; and his virtue was such that, having beaten and conquered all his neighbours, he left to his young son, Solomon, a peaceful kingdom, which he could maintain by peaceful instead of warlike methods, and there enjoy happily the fruits of his father’s virtue. He could not, however, leave it just so to Rehoboam, his young son, who, since he lacked his grandfather’s virtue and also his father’s good fortune, with difficulty remained heir to a sixth part of the kingdom.18

Bajazet, Sultan of the Turks, a man who loved peace more than war, was able to enjoy the fruits of his father, Mahomet’s, labours; for the latter, like David, had defeated his neighbours, and left to him a strong kingdom which he could easily maintain by peaceful methods. Had, however, his son, Selim, the present ruler, been like his father, not like his grandfather, this kingdom would have been ruined. Actually, however, he seems to be out to excel the glory of his grandfather.

I claim, then, in view of these examples, that a weak prince who succeeds an able prince can hold his own; but that if a weak prince succeeds another weak prince, he cannot keep any kingdom going, unless, as in France, there are ancient institutions which keep things going. By ‘weak’ princes I mean those who are not prepared for war.

I conclude with these remarks. The virtue of Romulus was so great that he made it possible for Numa Pompilius to rule for many years by peaceful methods. He was then succeeded by Tullus whose repute for ferocity rivalled that of Romulus. Then came Ancus whose natural talents were such that he could avail himself of peace and also carry on war. At first he was inclined to keep to the ways of peace; but when one fine day he discovered that his neighbours thought him effeminate and held him in little esteem, he at once decided that, if he wanted to keep Rome, he must resort to war and emulate Romulus rather than Numa.

From these examples let all princes who have dominions learn that, if they emulate Numa, they will hold them or fail to hold them according to the times or the fortune that befalls them. Whereas if they emulate Romulus and, like him, rely both on prudence and on arms, they will hold them in any case, unless some obstinate and overwhelming force takes them away. It is highly probable that if it had not been Rome’s lot to have in her third king a man who knew how to use armed forces to maintain her reputation, she would never, or would with the utmost difficulty, have established her position, nor would she have succeeded in effecting what she did effect. Thus, while Rome was subject to kings, she was exposed to dangers that might have ruined her had she been under a weak or malevolent king.