# CHAPTER 9 — That It Is Necessary for Those Who Wish Always to Enjoy Good Fortune to Change With the Times

I have considered on many occasions * that the cause of the bad and good fortune of men lies in how well their mode of conduct fits the times. Because it is evident that in their works some men proceed with impetuosity, others with care and caution; and because either of these methods may exceed the proper limits, being unable to follow the true path, one may err in employing either one. But an individual comes to make fewer mistakes and to enjoy a favourable fortune, as I have said, when his methods fit the times, and he always proceeds as nature compels him. Everyone knows how carefully and cautiously Fabius Maximus advanced with his army, far removed from any impetuous act and Roman daring, and good fortune caused his method to fit well with the times. * Thus, when Hannibal had invaded Italy as a young man and, with fresh fortune, had already defeated the Roman people twice, and when that republic was almost completely stripped of its good militia and terrified, Rome could not have enjoyed a better fortune than having a general who, with his deliberateness and caution, held the enemy at bay. Nor could Fabius have encountered times any more suitable to his methods than those from which he emerged in glory. It is evident that Fabius did this by nature rather than by choice, because when Scipio wished to move into Africa with his armies to conclude the war, Fabius strongly opposed him, being unable to detach himself from his methods and his habits. Thus, had it been up to Fabius, Hannibal would still be in Italy, for Fabius was a man who did not see that the times had changed and that it was necessary to change the methods of warfare. And if Fabius had been king of Rome, he could easily have lost the war, because he would never have known how to vary his conduct in accord with the variation of the times. But he was born in a republic, where there are different citizens and different humours, and just as Rome once had Fabius, who was the best leader in those times requiring a prolonged war, so it later had Scipio in times requiring a victory.

Thus, it happens that a republic has a longer life and much greater fortune than a principality, because it can more easily adapt itself to the diversity of circumstances than can a prince, through the diversity of the citizens who inhabit it. Accordingly, a man who is used to conducting himself in one way never changes, as we have said, and of necessity, when the times change and are at variance with his methods, he comes to ruin.

Piero Soderini, already cited several times, proceeded in all his affairs with humanity and patience. When the times were in conformity with his mode of conduct, he and his native city prospered, but when later times arrived in which he had to break with his patience and humility, he did not know how to do so, so that, along with his native city, he came to ruin. Pope Julius II conducted himself during the entire period of his pontificate with impetuosity and fury, and because the times fitted him perfectly, all his undertakings were successful. But if other times had arrived requiring different qualities, he would of necessity have come to ruin, because he would never have changed either his methods or his system of managing his affairs. And there are two causes for our inability to change: the first is that we cannot oppose our natural inclinations; the other is that, when a man with one mode of conduct has been very prosperous, it is impossible to persuade him that he can do as well by proceeding in a different manner; it happens in this way that fortune varies for a single man, because she brings about the changes in the times while he fails to modify his methods. The downfall of cities also arises from their failure to modify the institutions of their republics over time, as we discussed at length above. But they move more slowly, finding it more difficult to change, because to do so brings times that shake the entire republic, and for this to happen, it is not enough for one man alone to change his mode of conduct.

And since we have mentioned Fabius Maximus who kept Hannibal at bay, it seems fitting to discuss in the following chapter whether the commander who insists on fighting a battle with the enemy under any circumstances can be prevented by someone who refuses to do so.