Machiavelli’s Critique of Expansion
According to what is more or less the received view, Machiavelli is the first
thinker who openly argues that imperialistic expansion is a necessary component of the
foreign policy of any successful republic, and in this regard he is ultimately a champion
of the Roman Empire, which engaged in such expansion to a greater degree than any
Close study of Machiavelli’s explicit treatment of Roman
expansion (Discourses on Livy, II.4-5), however, reveals quite a different story. It reveals
that Machiavelli was in fact a harsh critic of both Roman imperialism and expansion
more generally, and that he prefers instead an arrangement of small republics under
conditions of equality in a league, an arrangement, by the way, which allows for little or
no expansion.
Our study will follow Machiavelli’s presentation and will fall roughly into two
parts. In the first part we shall make clear that he is indeed offering a critique of Roman
imperialism and expansion, and is in fact arguing for the league structure. In the second
part we shall attempt to make clear his reasons for doing so.
Machiavelli’s Introduction of Leagues
Machiavelli begins Discourse II.4, entitled “Republics Have Taken Three Modes
of Expanding” by pointing out that “the ancient histories” – that is, more than just Livy’s
history -- tell us that “republics have taken three modes of expanding” (135).
1
I wish to thank Constance Hunt, Wayne Ambler, and especially Eric Buzzetti for their comments on an
earlier draft of this paper.
2
See, for example, the introduction by Harvey C. Mansfield and Nathan Tarcov to their translation of the
Discourses on Livy (citation next footnote), pp. xxxii and xxxviii.
3
All citations refer to Machiavelli, Niccolo, Discourses on Livy, translated by Harvey C. Mansfield and
Nathan Tarcov, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996.
1
Page 1 of 38 
Convention