There is only one way and one way only that Niccollo Machiavelli
believes a war should be conducted: the Roman Way! His obsession with the Roman way of life manifests itself
I don't know whether this opening paragraph begins your paper or not. If it is true that M. cites Roman examples every time when he discusses warfare, that fact should be substantiated thoroughly in your paper.
I will call Machiavelli Nick for ease. Nick is very obsessed with the idea that a country or kingdom should have it's own troops and not hire Mercenaries for battle. A militia is essentially what he believes is the best type of army. He even says in the Discourses that it is an outright shame for a kingdom to not have it's own troops. This statement cries out for a quote from Machiavelli.
transition???
The Romans for a time were under the decemvirs and were defeated more often then when they were free men. Nick believes that a soldier fighting for his own glory is a much better and faithful soldier.
Does M. argue that free soldiers fight better than those who are slaves? What do you mean by free men? Do you mean that they were not governed by tyrants? Your argument is very unclear and muddled here?
Now why is that? Machiavelli saw from his own experiences that hired (hired is different from "free". A mercenary could be free) soldiers do not have that patriotic fire in them that soldiers of today do (is that statement true?). Well at least the stereotypical idea of a modern day soldier. Soldiers in ancient Rome were for the most part Roman citizens and fought very well because they were more than just hired hands. This idea of defending a place goes beyond just the soldiers. A people themselves can also love their land and home and fight very hard to keep it. Nick talks about how difficult it was for the Romans to conquer certain areas and peoples. These people were fighting for the love of their land and country and that is a great advantage in a war. Nick feels that a city must be populous in order for it to build a great empire. Rome did this well by destroying the nearby cities of it's enemies and allowing foreigners to take part in its government. Nick felt that Rome had conquered it's empire through much more ability and prudence than through sheer fortune alone. War after war was fought between the Romans and their neighbors. Nick saw that when a power becomes as great as Rome did that it was possible to pick and chose its wars at will. Every state or kingdom near Rome was not strong enough to attack Rome on its own so the neighboring states would only attack if they were driven to it out of necessity. According to Machiavelli the Romans always fought short and conclusive wars. After Rome had defeated a land they would build a colony on ceded land. Rome kept spreading out and using this same tactic over and over again. Rome divided the spoils of war and kept their empire rich and productive by doing this.
The argument in the preceding paragraph might be true, but you provide no evidence from any of M.'s writings to justify your statements.
*He believes that guarding passes is not necessarily in an Army's best interests because it could possibly jeopardize all of ones forces which is a cardinal rule Machiavelli believes should not be broken.* Transition??
Machiavelli's notion that princes should lead their forces personally is rather outdated today. In the US the President is technically the commander and chief but he would not take direct command of the Army in a battle situation. The circumstances of that just are not possible in this day and age.
You skip from one idea to another without developing or justifying your arguments.
The Roman notion of not punishing commanders for mistakes on the battle field is highly praised by Nick. Having a commander on the battlefield fearing every decision he makes that it will be the wrong one is not a good way to boost morale (whose moral?).
According to Nick, "War either breakes out by chance or it is provoked by the power wishing to start the war. "("The Discourses", 308). Good quote but you don't develop it.
The reasons why war begins: this idea deserves detailed treatment. The next sentence treats a different topic.
Nick believes that a prince should not deceive himself by believing his forces are stronger then what they really are. He will deceive himself if he measures his forces in terms of wealth, their location, and their goodwill if they are not troops of his own. Without faithful troops a great deal of money is useless. Nick says, "Wealth not only will not defend you, it will cause you to be plundered all the sooner. "("The Discourses", 310). Nick believes that a poorly armed country should keep the enemy far away from it's own lands and take the fight to him. To allow the fight to come to their own territory would be devastating to a poorly armed country. On the other hand countries which are well armed have the luxury of waiting for the enemy to come to him because their strength resides in their troops and not in wealth. Well armed countries should allow the enemy onto their own land to fight according to Machiavelli. Nick observes that modern day commanders, i.e. commanders of his day, no longer follow the rule of putting their troops together in three ranks to resist repeated frontal attacks.
These are interesting statements but you have to prove that M. wrote them.
The commanders of his days felt that artillery of the day made the ancient techniques of war rather obsolete. With Machiavelli's obsession with everything Roman he of course feels differently. Nick defends the idea that artillery would have changed the amount of battles won by the Romans by saying that the Romans were aggressive attackers and that artillery was used to attack defensive positions. Since the Romans would be on the offensive, artillery would be useless against them. Nick goes even as far to say that the Romans would have had an easier time winning their battles if artillery was in use in ancient times. Nick thinks that a modern Army fashioned after the ancient army's would fare much better in modern warfare. An ancient army emphasizes the infantry instead of the Calvary and the infantry are much better off against artillery. Machiavelli seems to believe that the only way artillery will be useful is if the army deploying it has the bravery of the ancient Romans. Without that bravery artillery is useless when employed against valiant soldiers.
Nick may be alright but there are too many of them in this paragraph. Don't switch back to Machiavelli.
The paragraph above has an iteresting argument but no proof. Remember the purpose of this paper is to marshall evidence.
Now why is Calvary inferior to infantry according to Nick? His explanation for this is lacking. He believes that infantry is superior to Calvary yet does not give a reason why. He says that good troops of infantry can easily break a Calvary charge yet Calvary has a very difficult time in breaking an infantry charge. Nick says that there are many modern day examples of this theory, yet the princes do not change their strategy. Nick should give a much better explanation of why he believes this theory. Actually the best reason why Nick believes this theory is because the Romans favored infantry over Calvary so therefor Nick would favor infantry too. Chapter XIX of the Discourses is in a way amusing. Machiavelli decides that when a republic takes over another land or kingdom that if it is not up to the skill level of the Roman Empire then it will fail.
Can a kingdom or empire have a "skill level"?
Nick even says that kingdoms that do not follow the Roman example do not have an excuse for their mistakes. They have the Roman example in front of them and it is their own fault when they do not follow them. Nick sees many dangers that a prince or republic can incur when they hire mercenary troops or use auxiliary troops. Nick sees auxiliary troops as the most harmful of all because the prince or republic that employs them has no authority over them. The auxiliary troops only follow the orders of the prince or republic that sent them. These troops, many times after a victory, also plunder the one who hired them to fight alongside his own troops. Nick even says that it is better to take whatever agreement a kingdom or republic can get from their enemy than letting auxiliary troops inside their land to defend it.
Transition from auxiliary troops to governing the conquered is not good
Once a city has been conquered, according to Nick, it is best to put as few restrictions on it as possible. Allow the city to govern itself so that there would not be any animosity to the outside rulers. This way at least there would be the perception that the conquered city could affect its own fate.
As to fortress building Nick sees building forts as relatively useless. He believes that they are not a very good defense against outside enemies and that having them to use against ones own subjects is harmful. Having a fortress for the expressed purpose of holding down your own people is just a bad idea. Now republics who build fortresses in lands they conquer is also a fallacy according to Machiavelli. This line that Nick writes best sums up his idea on fortresses. He says, "I would have the authority of the Romans suffice, who tore down walls instead of building them in the lands they wished to hold by force. "("The Discourses", 336). If a prince has a good army then fortresses may be useful in holding off an enemy for a few days. If a prince has a weak army then fortresses are either useless or harmful.
The section on fortresses is important for his thought but does not logically belong here. The transition to the next topic is not elegant.
A kingdom should not try to attack a disunited kingdom or republic during times of internal strife within that kingdom or republic. This type of action will unite the factions and create a very powerful enemy that will be very hard to defeat. Nick instead says that it is easier to try and encourage internal conflicts during time of peace. This will allow for an easier time of defeating the enemy. Republics and kingdoms that win a battle should just be satisfied with winning. If the winning side gets in a sense, cocky, then they are putting themselves up for a big downfall according to Nick. Arrogance leads to stupid actions.
The following paragraph belongs with fortresses and methods of warfare.
MORE ROMANS: Nick believes that taking a city the Roman way is the best way. Besieging a city for months or even years is not very productive. The Romans preferred to take cities by direct assault or by defeating the enemy in the field. Using a combination of force and deceit is also a good way to besiege a city. The Romans gave their commanders as much discretion as possible in the field. This allowed for the speedy implementation of war. Nick believes that this is a very good policy to have. Having military commanders that are worried about making mistakes is not the correct way to conduct a war. Nick sees that the present day problems in the army's of his time are caused somewhat by the fact that every act a commander makes is analyzed and scathed over by the leaders at home. Commanders cannot avoid a battle when his enemy decides to fight according to Nick. Nick sees the modern idea of avoiding at battle at all costs really means to fight on the enemy's terms. Nick says that it is much better to fight right off the bat than to hesitate. Machiavelli puts great faith in the idea of necessity. Leaving an escape route for the enemy and not for your own troops is a great idea according to Nick. The enemy will fight harder if there is no escape so leaving them an escape is a great idea. A commander should tell a city's citizen that they are only attacking a few of their number. Nick once again says that the Romans used these techniques in their battles. New inventions or new sounds can have a great affect on the battle field. Discipline is essential so that these new items do not greatly affect an army. Even such a small thing as a rumor could affect an army so discipline is a plus. Machiavelli believes that there should not be more than one capable commander in the field during a battle. Their should not be rule by committee. The army should be lead by a single supreme commander. He observes that present day army's in France and Italy use more then one commander and have had dire consequences because of it. Nick says that nothing is more worthy in battle than a commander who can foresee the plans of the enemy. Nick says that it is difficult to foresee the enemy's plans so it is a blessing when a commander seems to have that ability. Machiavelli sees two reasons why the Roman republic fell. The disputes connected with the Agrarian Law and the prolongation of military authority. The men who gained great power from all the warring the Romans did could then use that power for their own glory. Caesar was a capable military commander who used the long Roman wars as a springboard for his own political gains. Nick sees that if the Romans had not waged so many wars they would not have gained so great an empire so fast but they would not have lost their liberty so fast either. Confidence is of great value according to Nick. Having a well armed army, a well organized army, and soldiers that know each other gives an army confidence. Their commander must also have confidence along with bravery, alertness, and dignity. Machiavelli says that the Romans used religion to give their men confidence. I would take that as meaning that the best way to give an army confidence would be to use religion according to Machiavelli. He never comes right out and says that but given his penchant for using everything Roman than my theory would seem to make sense. Chapter XXXVI is another chapter that is really funny. The title of the chapter is "The reasons why the French have been, and still are, considered braver than men at the outset of a battle and less than women afterward." Maybe that is just a bad translation but I think the average historian probably still gets a kick out of that one. Nick says there are three kinds of armies in this chapter. One which has both bravery and ability like the Romans, an army which has bravery without discipline like the French, and like the army in Italy which has neither bravery or discipline. Nick says that a good commander should do nothing, no matter how small, that would adversely affect his army. Skirmishes can achieve good results as well as bad ones. They are needed to test the enemy so your army can get an idea of their strength. A drawback is that if your forces are defeated in the skirmishes than they may be afraid to fight the enemy in a large battle. Nick says that if a commander is forced to skirmish he should only do so when he knows he will be certain of victory. Nick says that a man's deeds are the best reason to follow him in warfare. Commanders should use their deeds as a way to motivate their troops. Commanders should train their troops for several months if the troops are inexperienced. It is better of course to have an experienced army going into battle than an inexperienced one. Another good trait of a commander according to Nick is that a commander should be familiar with various terrain's. Nick says that hunting is an excellent way for a commander to become familiar with various terrain's. Discovering all the terrain in your home country can greatly help a commander in other countries besides his own because Nick says that there is a certain uniformity in all countries. Machiavelli says that employing fraud during a war is a great technique in warfare. He detests it otherwise but in warfare it is to be commended. Nick does not mean the kind of fraud where you break an agreement with an enemy but rather the type of fraud you would see on a battlefield. He gives the example where Hannibal feigned retreat at the Lake of Perugia. Machiavelli says that to save one's country by any means is a noble cause. The country's life comes before everything else. Once again Machiavelli's obsession with the Romans comes through when he determines whether it is better to attack first or to wait for the enemy to attack and then counterattack. He decides that the best method is to wait and counterattack because of the Roman commander Fabius. That was his technique and it worked better than his counterparts Decius's technique of attacking first. Machiavelli's pure obsession with everything Roman makes it impossible for him to think about warfare otherwise.
Sources so far: The Discourses Machiavelli and Us, Althusser, Louis, New York, 1999
Your prose, syntax, and spelling need more attention than you have given those items in this draft. Remember the key point: you have to justify your statements with references to M.'s own words. You do not have to quote them, but you must refer to the passages upon which you have built your arguments. Pay special attention to the logic of your arguments and to the transition from one argument to another. You need to think through the topics that you want to cover in this paper:
Machiavelli's ideas about how to wage war
How to raise an army
Composition of the army. etc.
You have not yet brought a coherent structure to the paper or its argument. Your main argument so far is that M. followed Roman examples. That's a good argument. Follow it through!
C+