The works of the famous Nicholas Machiavel, citizen and secretary of Florence written originally in Italian, and from thence newly and faithfully translated into English.

About this Item

Title
The works of the famous Nicholas Machiavel, citizen and secretary of Florence written originally in Italian, and from thence newly and faithfully translated into English.
Author
Machiavelli, Niccolò, 1469-1527.
Publication
London :: Printed for John Starkey, Charles Harper, and John Amery ...,
1680.
Rights/Permissions

To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.

Subject terms
Machiavelli, Niccolò, 1469-1527.
Political science -- Early works to 1800.
Political ethics -- Early works to 1800.
War.
Florence (Italy) -- History.
Link to this Item
http://name.umdl.umich.edu/A50274.0001.001
Cite this Item
"The works of the famous Nicholas Machiavel, citizen and secretary of Florence written originally in Italian, and from thence newly and faithfully translated into English." In the digital collection Early English Books Online. https://name.umdl.umich.edu/A50274.0001.001. University of Michigan Library Digital Collections. Accessed April 29, 2025.

Pages

CHAP. XIII.
Whether we are more safe in a good General with a bad Army, or a good Army with a bad General.

MArtius Coriolanus being banished from Rome, retired to the Volsci, where having got an Army together, he returned to Rome to revenge himself for the injury his fellow Citizens had done him, and he had done it effectually, had not the Prayers and Piety of his Mother prevailed more upon him, than all the power of the Romans. From which passage Titus Livius observes, that the Roman Commonwealth encreased more by the virtue of their Commanders, than by the excellence of their Soldiers; because though the Volsci had been always beaten before; yet when they got a Roman General, they were too hard for the Romans: But though Livy was of that opinion in that place, yet in many parts of his History there are instances, where the private Soldiers have done great things, and sometimes fought better and in better order, after their Consuls were killed, than they had done whilst they were living. Thus it happened in the Army which the Romans had in Spain under the Command of the two Scipio's, which, when both their Comman∣ders were slain, behaved it self so well, that it not only defended it self, but defeated the Enemy, and preserved that Province to the Romans, So that in the whole, there are examples on both sides, where the Soldiers have done bravely, and got the Victory by their valour, and where the Conduct of the General has done as much as a whole Army; from whence it may be concluded that they are mutually useful, and that the Soldier is as much advan∣taged by the excellence of his General, as the General by the courage of his Army. How∣ever, this I think will not be unworthy our consideration, whether is most formidable, a good Army under a bad Commander, or a good Commander with a bad Army: In the opinion of Caesar neither of them was considerable; for when he went into Spain against Afranius and Petreius, who had a good Army under their command, he went with much confidence; because, as he said himself, Ibat ad exercitum sine duce, He went against an Army without a head; reflecting thereby upon the insufficiency of their Generals. Again

Page 399

when he went into Thessaly against Pompey, his expression was Vado an ducem fine Exercitu. I go now against a General without an Army. It remains now that we consider whether it be most easie for a good Captain to make a good Army, or a good Army to make a good Captain. But to this, in my opinion, it is easily answered; for many good men in an Army can sooner select one out of their number, and instruct him so, as that he may be fit to command the rest, than the best General in the world can make an Army expert and ready. Lucullus when he was sent against Mithridates, was utterly unexperienced in mat∣ters of War, yet being in a good Army, where his inferior Officers were good, he quickly became a good General. The Romans for want of men, were forced to arm their Ser∣vants, and having referred them to be disciplin'd by Sempronius Graccus, in a short time he made them excellent Soldiers. Pelopidas and Epominandas after they had rescued their Country from the Tyranny of the Spartans, in a short time made their Country-men so good Soldiers, that they were not only able to contend, but to conquer the Spartans. So that the case is equal, and which soever is good, may make the other so too. Nevertheless a good Army, without a good Commander, grows insolent and dangerous, as it hapned in the Macedonian Army after Alexander was dead, and as it is in civil Wars among all old Soldiers; so that I think if there be more confidence to be reposed in the one than in the other, it is to be rather in the General, than the Army, especially if he has time to instruct and discipline his Men; for an Army without a head, is insolent and mutinous. Those Captains therefore are worthy of double honour, who have not only the Enemy to over∣come; but are to instruct, and prepare their Forces, before they bring them to engage. And in doing so, they do highly recommend the Conduct of their General, which is so rare a thing, that if the trouble were laid upon many, they would be much less esteemed and respected than they are now.

Do you have questions about this content? Need to report a problem? Please contact us.