# CHAPTER 19 — After an Excellent Prince, a Weak Prince Can Maintain Himself; but After a Weak Prince, No Kingdom Can Be Maintained With Another Weak One

Considering the exceptional ability and the modes of conduct characteristic of Romulus, Numa, and Tullus, the first three kings of Rome, one may see that Rome enjoyed extremely good fortune, having a first king who was extremely fierce and warlike, a second peaceful and religious, and a third similar in ferocity to Romulus and more a lover of war than of peace. In Rome it was necessary for a founder of its civic institutions to arise during its earliest beginnings, but afterwards it was likewise necessary for the other kings to reclaim the ability of Romulus, since that city would otherwise have become effeminate and prey to its neighbours. From this fact, it can be noted that a successor who possesses less ability than the first ruler can maintain a state through the ability of the man who governed it before him, and can enjoy the fruits of his labours, but if it happens either that this successor has a long life or that after him no other arises who reclaims the ability of the first ruler, that kingdom must, by necessity, come to ruin. Thus, on the contrary, if two rulers, one after the other, possess extraordinary ability, it is often observed that they accomplish the greatest deeds and that their fame reaches as far as the heavens.

David was undoubtedly a man of the greatest excellence in arms, religion, and judgement; his ability was so exceptional that after he had conquered and overcome all his neighbours, he left to his son Solomon a peaceful kingdom, which Solomon was able to preserve with the arts of peace and not those of war; and Solomon was happily able to enjoy the fruits of his father’s ability. But he was unable to leave the kingdom to his son Rehoboam, who, lacking his grandfather’s ability and his father’s good fortune, remained heir to a sixth part of the kingdom only with great effort. * Bajazet, sultan of the Turks, * although a man who was more a lover of peace than of war, was able to enjoy the fruits of his father Mahomet’s labours; * his father, like David, having beaten down his neighbours, left his son a secure kingdom that could easily be maintained with the arts of peace. But if the present ruler, his son Selim, * had resembled his father and not his grandfather, that kingdom would have come to ruin, and it is evident that Selim is about to surpass the glory of his grandfather. Let me say with these examples, therefore, that after an excellent prince it is possible to maintain a weak prince, but after a weak prince, it is impossible to maintain any kingdom with another weak prince, unless it were like France, where the kingdom’s ancient institutions would maintain the state: weak princes are those who are not engaged in preparing for war.

I conclude, then, with this argument: the ability of Romulus was so great that it made room for Numa Pompilius, who was able to rule Rome for many years with the arts of peace, but after Numa followed Tullus, whose reputation for ferocity reflected that of Romulus, and after him came Ancus, * who was endowed by nature in such a way that he was able both to employ the arts of peace and to cope with war. He first tried to hold to the way of peace, but he quickly realized that his neighbours, having judged him effeminate, held him in little esteem, and so much so he decided that in order to try to save Rome, he would have to turn to war and to be like Romulus rather than Numa.

All princes who have a state should take this as an example: that is, anyone who is like Numa will either keep or will not keep his state according to the cycle of time and fortune under which he lives, but anyone who is like Romulus and who is armed both with prudence and with weapons will keep his state in any event, unless it is taken from him by some persistent and extraordinary force. Certainly it can be assumed that if it had been Rome’s lot to have had, as its third king, a man who did not know how to restore the city’s reputation with the force of arms, it would never—or only with the greatest difficulty—have been able to gain a firm foothold later on, or to have had the impact that it had. Thus, while Rome lived under the kings it ran the risk of being ruined under the rule of either a weak or an evil king.