# CHAPTER 21 — How It Came About that Hannibal, With a Different Mode of Conduct from that of Scipio, Achieved the Same Results in Italy that Scipio Achieved in Spain

I think some will be amazed to see that certain commanders, notwithstanding the fact that they have led completely different lives, have nevertheless achieved results similar to those of men who have lived in the way described above; thus, it seems that the reason for their victories does not derive from the previously mentioned causes, but rather, it seems that these methods do not bring you any more power or fortune, since it is possible to acquire glory and renown through contrary methods. Hence, in order not to avoid discussing the men mentioned above and to clarify more precisely what I tried to say, let me say that when Scipio invaded Spain it is evident that his humanity and mercy immediately made that province his friend and made him adored and admired by the people. On the other hand, it is evident that when Hannibal invaded Italy and with completely opposite methods—that is, with cruelty, violence, pillage, and every kind of treachery—he achieved the same result that Scipio had achieved in Spain, because all the cities of Italy revolted in Hannibal’s favour and all the peoples followed him.

In thinking about what might have caused this to happen, several reasons are evident. The first is that men are desirous of new things to such an extent that those who are faring well wish for change as much as those who are faring badly, because, as was mentioned on another occasion *—and it is the truth—men become bored with the good and grieve for the bad. This desire, then, opens the gates to anyone in a province who makes himself the leader of some reform; if he is a foreigner, everyone pursues him, and if he is a fellow-citizen, they crowd around him, increasing his strength and granting him their favour to such an extent that, in whatever way he proceeds, he succeeds in making great progress in those places. Besides this, men are driven by two principal impulses, either by love or by fear, so that anyone who makes himself loved can command them just as easily as anyone who makes himself feared; on the contrary, anyone who makes himself feared is in most cases more readily followed and obeyed than anyone who makes himself loved. *

It matters very little, therefore, which of these two paths a commander takes as long as he is an extremely able man and this exceptional ability makes him esteemed among men, because when his ability is great, as it was in Hannibal and in Scipio, it cancels all those errors that he commits in order to make himself either loved or feared too much. Thus, from both of these two methods great difficulties can arise that are apt to cause the downfall of a prince: the man who has too great a desire to be loved becomes despicable every time he strays from the true path; the other man, who has too great a desire to be feared, becomes odious each time he exceeds the mean. Keeping to the middle course is not possible precisely because our nature does not allow us to do so, but it is necessary to mitigate those things that are in excess with enormous ability, as did Hannibal and Scipio. None the less, it is evident that just as both one and the other were damaged by their different ways of life, so both of them were glorified as well. *

The glorification of both men has already been mentioned. With respect to Scipio, the harm he experienced was that his troops in Spain mutinied along with some of his allies, a matter that arose from nothing else but the fact that he was not feared; for men are so restless that once the smallest door is open to their ambition, they immediately forget all the love they bore for their prince because of his humanity, as did his previously mentioned soldiers and allies, to the extent that, to remedy this problem, Scipio was obliged to employ some of those cruel measures he had avoided. With respect to Hannibal, there is no particular example of his cruelty and deceitfulness harming him, but one can certainly presume that Naples and many other cities which remained faithful to the Roman people did so out of fear of his cruelty. It was certainly evident that his merciless way of life made him more odious to the Roman people than any other enemy that republic ever had, to the extent that when Pyrrhus was with his army in Italy the Romans denounced the man who wished to poison him, but they never pardoned Hannibal, even when he was disarmed and in exile, until they brought about his death. Thus, these disadvantages arose for Hannibal because he was considered merciless, faithless, and cruel; but his behaviour resulted, on the other hand, in a great advantage for him, one admired by all the historians: that is, in his army, although composed of various kinds of men, no dissension ever arose either among the men or against Hannibal himself. This could not derive from anything other than the terror inspired by his own person, which was so great that, mixed with the reputation his exceptional ability gave him, it kept his troops subdued and united. I will conclude, therefore, that the method of conduct a commander employs is of little importance, provided that he harbours within himself a very great ability that conditions either one of these different ways of life, because as was mentioned, in both methods exists a defect and a danger when it is not corrected by extraordinary ability. If Hannibal and Scipio, one with laudable deeds, the other with detestable ones, accomplished the same result, I would prefer not to omit here a discussion of two Roman citizens who, with different methods but both praiseworthy ones, attained the same glory.