Table of Contents
Conquest has been completely disavowed by modern culture. We are told that expansion is inherently negative, aggression should be chastised, and the only moral justification for attacking another country is defense. However, Niccolò Machiavelli warns us that our modern obsession with peace is far more dangerous than it appears. The prevailing wisdom suggests that peaceful times create a just society, but Machiavelli argues the opposite: easy times make soft men, and soft men inevitably lead to hard times.
To the modern ear, the idea of conquest sounds morally repugnant. We assume that the conqueror’s soul becomes corrupted by violence. Machiavelli flips this logic entirely. He suggests that it is precisely those who know only peace who become morally decadent. For Machiavelli, there is something spiritually and morally healthy in the act of conquering. Danger cleanses the soul, war brings sobriety, and violence acts as a moral teacher.
Key Takeaways
- Peace breeds decadence: Societies that prioritize stability over power eventually suffer from internal division and "effeminacy"—a lack of martial vigor masked as moral superiority.
- Necessity compels virtue: Physical danger, economic scarcity, or harsh laws force individuals and leaders to act with efficiency and meritocracy.
- Stability is an illusion: You are either rising or falling. States that attempt to remain neutral and stable are eventually conquered by those moving upward.
- The Roman Model is superior: The most effective expansion combines force with fraud, using "junior partners" to share the burden before eventually absorbing them.
- Modern adaptation is required: In an age of nuclear deterrence, we must find new frontiers for expansion—specifically through technology, commerce, and "artificial necessity."
The Spiritual Dangers of Peace and the Role of Necessity
We all desire to live in a state that is peaceful, stable, and luxurious. Yet, Machiavelli warns that living in luxury carries grave spiritual dangers. Conversely, there are spiritual benefits to living in danger—living up close and personal with what he calls "necessity."
Defining Necessity
Necessity is not merely about physical survival. It encompasses a range of pressures, including artificial necessity imposed by laws, psychological necessity driven by ambition, and economic necessity. An analytical definition of necessity would be: circumstances which compel virtuous action. It limits your vision to only the virtuous acts—ruthlessness, efficiency, and order—required to succeed.
Consider the difference between a legacy corporation and an early-stage startup. Startups often possess healthy, meritocratic cultures not because of superior values, but because they are exposed to economic necessity. With limited runway and competitors closing in, founders are compelled to hire and fire ruthlessly and work efficiently. They do not have the luxury of hiring based on anything other than merit.
"Virtue gives birth to quiet, quiet to leisure, leisure to disorder, disorder to ruin; and similarly, from ruin, order is born; from order, virtue; and from virtue, glory and good fortune."
The Problem with "Being Good"
When a culture lacks necessity, it becomes morally decadent. This manifests in two ways: internal division and "effeminacy." In Machiavellian terms, effeminacy is not about gender, but about a soft incompetency that moralizes its own weakness. When a society lacks martial vigor, it calls it humanity. When it cannot win glory, it calls it humility.
This decadence is evident when people believe that "goodness" stands on its own, regardless of power. A poignant contrast can be found in the evolution of the character Gandalf from J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings to modern adaptations. In Tolkien’s original work—written by a man who lived through the horrors of WWI and WWII—Gandalf’s battle cry against the Balrog invokes his power as the "wielder of the flame of Anor." In modern adaptations written by a generation that has known only peace, characters simply shout, "I am good."
Machiavelli would argue that the post-war West has forgotten that it enjoys peace not because it is "good," but because it was powerful. To maintain peace, one must focus on power.
"A man who wants to make a profession of good in all regards must come to ruin among so many who are not good."
The Strategic Case for Expansion Over Stability
Beyond the internal spiritual health of a nation, Machiavelli argues that expansion is the only viable strategy for external survival. He contrasts two types of republics: the expansionary (like Rome or the United States) and the stable (like Sparta or Switzerland).
The False Dichotomy of Stability
One might assume a state can simply choose to remain small, neutral, and stable. Machiavelli asserts this is impossible because human affairs are in constant motion. The opposite of conquering is not stability; it is being conquered. You are either moving up or moving down. If a state remains static while its neighbors rise, it is effectively falling.
While countries like Switzerland have managed to remain stable and neutral for centuries, Machiavelli would attribute this to luck—fortune that has not yet turned against them. Grounding the survival of a state on fortune is a dangerous gamble. If a stable power is eventually forced into conflict by necessity, its lack of expansionary infrastructure often leads to ruin.
The Paradox of Success for Stable Powers
Even if a stable power wins a conflict, that victory often destroys it. When a state designed for insularity is forced to expand, it undermines its own foundations. Sparta, for example, was ruined by its own victory over Athens. It was forced to operate puppet governments and maintain expensive garrisons abroad.
The influx of wealth corrupted Sparta's austere culture, and the administrative burden drained its resources. A state whose strategy was insularity was forced into expansion, causing its collapse. In contrast, an expansionary republic like Rome (or the United States) is designed to absorb different cultures, manage overseas territories, and extract resources without changing its fundamental nature.
"When a republic that has been ordered so as to be capable of maintaining itself does not expand, and necessity leads it to expand, this would come to take away its foundations and make it come to ruin sooner."
The Roman Model: How to Conquer Effectively
If expansion is the only path to long-term survival, how should a state conquer? Machiavelli outlines three modes:
- The Tuscan Mode: Forming leagues of equal partners (like the UN or NATO).
- The Spartan Mode: Direct subjugation of subjects.
- The Roman Mode: Creating junior partners who eventually become subjects.
Machiavelli dismisses the Spartan mode as "entirely useless" because holding direct subjects requires immense violence and resources, often leading to rebellion. The Tuscan mode is stable but lacks the incentive structure for infinite expansion; committees urge restraint, not impetuousness.
Force and Fraud
The Roman mode is superior because it utilizes fraud alongside force. Rome invited neighboring states to be "junior partners." These partners retained their laws and rulers but were required to follow Rome’s military command. Rome used these partners to conquer further territories, eventually accumulating enough power to subjugate the partners themselves.
This method is deception at its finest. By framing conquest as partnership, Rome avoided the immediate resistance that comes with direct subjugation. Machiavelli notes that force alone is rarely enough to rise from small fortune to great rank, but fraud alone can be.
Managing People and Money
Rome succeeded because it mastered the unit economics of war. Unlike Sparta, which closed its citizenship, Rome integrated people. It granted citizenship to those who shared its values and completely destroyed those who did not. Rome never took half-measures: "They either benefited them or eliminated them."
Regarding resources, Rome avoided expensive standing armies abroad. Instead, they used colonies—sending poor citizens to settle in conquered lands. These settlers acted as a free guard for the territory. Furthermore, Rome trusted its generals with immense autonomy. As illustrated by the story of Fabius, a general far from home must have the authority to disobey orders to achieve the state's goals, as he alone understands the "infinite particularities" of the battlefield.
Adapting Machiavelli for the 21st Century
Strictly following Machiavelli’s geopolitical advice in the modern age is impossible. The existence of nuclear weapons and Mutually Assured Destruction renders the strategy of constant great-power warfare suicidal. However, the core philosophy of necessity remains relevant.
Artificial Necessity
If modern life guarantees peace and safety, we face the risk of decadence. To counter this, leaders must inject "artificial necessity." This implies maintaining high standards, enforcing strict accountability, and perhaps resisting the urge to make life economically effortless for everyone. Just as a wise founder keeps a company in "wartime mode" even when it is profitable, a state must find ways to keep its citizens sharp and virtuous despite the absence of physical danger.
Technology and Commerce as the New Frontier
Since geographical conquest is largely off the table, the expansionary impulse must be redirected. Today, we do not push against nation-states; we push against the limits of nature through technology. We do not acquire vassals; we acquire companies. We do not defraud junior partners; we manage investors.
While Machiavelli viewed commerce as a source of corruption in his time, it has become the primary domain of conflict and expansion in ours. To avoid the rot of stability, modern "princes" must treat innovation and economic growth with the same martial vigor that Rome applied to warfare.
Conclusion
Machiavelli’s teachings challenge our modern sensibilities, but they offer a stark warning: comfort is a slow poison. When we remove danger and competition from our lives, we do not become more humane; we become weaker and more divided. While we cannot—and should not—replicate the violence of the Roman Republic, we must recognize that the mechanism of "necessity" is essential for human excellence.
We find ourselves in the dark forest of modernity, far from the context of 16th-century Florence. Yet, the goal remains the same: to protect the vitality of our society. To do so, we may need to march against Machiavelli’s specific orders regarding warfare, utilizing technology and commerce instead, all while adhering to his ultimate goal—conquering fortune and preventing ruin.
