mode of expansion that Machiavelli cites is that of the ancient Tuscans, and this was “a
league of several republics together, in which none was before another in either authority
or rank” (135). When the league acquired other cities, it made other cities full-fledged
partners, as do the Swiss in Machiavelli’s time and as “the Achaeans and the Aetolians
did in Greece in ancient times” (135). There are thus both ancient and modern examples
of this mode.
Machiavelli follows up his introductory remarks by saying that “since the Romans
made war with the Tuscans very often, I will expatiate in giving knowledge of them
particularly to show better the qualities of this first mode” (135; my italics). Machiavelli
thus seems particularly interested in leagues and in showing their qualities: while “the
ancient histories” present three modes of expansion, Machiavelli himself takes
responsibility for “giving knowledge” of leagues in order “particularly to show better”
their qualities. At the same time, however, he thinks it necessary to justify his interest in
the Tuscan league. And, when we consider this, we see that he does need to justify this
account, for he does not begin his discussion of the modes of expansion with Rome’s
mode, and for several reasons this is odd. To begin with, Machiavelli has just completed
the previous Discourse (II.3) by promising that he would discuss Rome’s modes of
expansion, modes that made Rome “great and very powerful” (II.3.1, 135). Since
Machiavelli has promised to discuss Rome’s method of expansion, why would he, at the
outset of II.4, suddenly decide to discuss three modes of expansion, and show particular
interest in the Tuscans’ mode of expansion? Furthermore, although in this second book of
the Discourses Machiavelli has begun to voice a criticism of Rome – namely, that “the
Roman Empire, with all its arms and greatness, eliminated all republics and all civil ways
of life,” hence rendering the world weak and paving the way for the success of
2
Convention