# CHAPTER 10 — Wealth Is Not, Contrary to Popular Opinion, the Sinew of Warfare

Because anyone can begin a war but cannot bring it to a conclusion whenever he pleases, a prince must take the measure of his forces before he undertakes an enterprise and govern himself accordingly. But he must possess enough prudence not to deceive himself about his strength; and he will always deceive himself when he measures it either by money, by location, or by the goodwill of men while, on the other hand, lacking troops of his own. All of these things certainly increase your power, but they do not give it to you, and, by themselves, they are worth nothing and serve no good purpose without faithful troops. Great wealth is insufficient without them, and the strength of the country is of no use to you, nor can the faith and goodwill of men endure, because they cannot remain faithful to you if you cannot protect them. Every mountain, every lake, every inaccessible position becomes a plain, where strong defenders are lacking. Money, moreover, not only will not defend you but will cause you to be plundered all the sooner. Nor could any idea be more false than the popular opinion of wealth as the sinew of warfare. This maxim was enunciated by Quintus Curtius concerning the war between Antipater of Macedonia and the king of Sparta, where he recounts how the king of Sparta was forced to fight and was defeated for lack of money, and how, if he had postponed the battle for a few days, the news of Alexander’s death would have reached Greece and he would have remained the victor without fighting. * But lacking money and fearing that his army would for this reason abandon him, he was compelled to try his luck in battle, causing Quintus Curtius to affirm that wealth is the sinew of warfare. This maxim is cited every day, especially by princes, who follow it without being sufficiently prudent. Basing their actions upon this maxim, they believe that it is sufficient to have a great deal of money to defend themselves, and they do not consider the fact that if money were sufficient to produce victory, then Darius would have defeated Alexander, the Greeks would have defeated the Romans, and in our own times, Duke Charles would have defeated the Swiss and, just a few days ago, the pope and the Florentines together would have had no difficulty in defeating Francesco Maria, the nephew of Pope Julius II, in the war over Urbino. * But all those mentioned above were defeated by those who believed that good soldiers, not money, are the sinew of warfare. Among the other things Croesus, king of the Lydians, showed to Solon, the Athenian, was an immense treasure; when Solon was asked what he thought of the king’s power, Solon replied that he did not consider him more powerful for it, because war is waged with steel and not with gold; and somebody possessing more steel could come along and take his treasure away from him. Besides this, after the death of Alexander the Great, when a multitude of Gauls passed into Greece and then into Asia and sent envoys to the king of Macedonia to negotiate a certain agreement, that king, in order to demonstrate his power and to frighten them, showed them a great deal of gold and silver. As a result the Gauls, who had almost decided on a peace agreement, broke it, because they had been seized by such a strong desire to take that gold away from the king, and, in this way the king was dispossessed of the very thing he had accumulated for his own defence. A few years ago the Venetians lost their entire state even though their treasury was full of money, since it could not be used in their defence. *

I must declare, therefore, that good soldiers are the sinew of war and not gold, because gold is an insufficient means of finding good soldiers, but good soldiers are a more than sufficient means of finding gold. If the Romans had insisted on waging war with money rather than steel, all the treasure in the world would not have sufficed, considering the greatness of their undertakings and the difficulties they encountered in accomplishing them. But by waging their wars with steel, they never lacked for gold, because those who feared them brought it to them even inside their encampments. And if that Spartan king * through a lack of money had to tempt the fortunes of war, what happened to him because of money has often happened for other reasons, because it is obvious that when an army lacks provisions and must either die of hunger or fight a battle, it always chooses to fight, since this is the most honourable course and the one in which fortune may favour you in some way. It has also happened many times that when a leader sees assistance coming to an opposing army, he finds it advisable to engage that army in battle and to test the fortunes of war, rather than waiting until the enemy army grows larger and then be forced to fight in any case with a thousand disadvantages. It has also been observed (as happened to Hasdrubal * when he was attacked in the Marches by Claudius Nero together with the other Roman consul) that when a leader is obliged either to retreat or to fight, he will always elect to fight, believing that even though it is extremely doubtful, this decision might lead him to victory, while the opposite decision would force him into defeat in any case. There are many necessities, therefore, that force a leader, contrary to his intentions, to make the decision to fight, among which may well be, on some occasions, the lack of money; but money should not, for this reason, be judged the sinew of warfare any more than the other things that lead men into such difficulties. Again I must repeat that good soldiers are the sinew of warfare, not gold.

Money is certainly necessary as a secondary consideration, but it is a need that good soldiers overcome by themselves, because it is impossible for good soldiers to lack money, just as it is impossible for wealth alone to create good soldiers. Every history in a thousand places demonstrates that what we are saying is true, notwithstanding the fact that Pericles advised the Athenians to make war upon the entire Peloponnesus, arguing that they could win that war with their industry and the power of their wealth. Even though in that war the Athenians sometimes experienced good fortune, they ultimately lost the war, for the fitness and good soldiers of Sparta were worth more than the industry and the wealth of Athens. But Livy is a better witness to the truth of this statement than anyone else, when he discusses whether Alexander the Great would have conquered the Romans if he had invaded Italy, and demonstrates that three things are required in war: many soldiers and good ones, prudent leaders, and good fortune; upon considering whether the Romans or Alexander would have prevailed in these matters, Livy then reaches his conclusion without ever mentioning money. * When the Capuans were asked by the Sidicini to take up arms with them against the Samnites, they must have measured their power in terms of wealth rather than the quality of their soldiers, because having decided to assist the Sidicini, they were forced, after two defeats, to become tributaries of the Romans if they wished to save themselves. *