2
view both principalities and republics can have expansionary tendencies, hence they both
have imperial potentiality. Machiavelli cannot be seen chiefly as a theorist of freedom
because empires by their nature take away others’ freedom.
As a statesman who wrote historical and literary works marked by innovations in
moral philosophy, Machiavelli assayed the fates of states not from a purely objective
perspective, but also from the point of view of someone concerned with the moral (and
antimoral) implications of political phenomena. Firm in his belief that ethics and politics
are at their root divorced, he abraded the distinction between different forms of
government, for he saw the state as fundamentally driven by a single set of principles
with universal applicability. It is in this light that we must examine his view of states’
expansionism and acquisitiveness.
What is Empire for Machiavelli? An empire is an expanding state that is
successful in its competition with other states; its success is measured mainly by its
military prowess and acquisition of territory abroad. But empires can be properly
effective only to the extent that they maintain a republican form of government in their
domestic policy. Truly effective empires must combine the virtues of principalities and
republics. They must be able to manage the desire for acquisition through a leadership of
the sort that is closer to a principality; and they must be internally organized in a manner
more closely resembling republics. In this manner they may be able to withstand external
threats and internal conflict. Further, this allows for a productive, complementary
relationship between domestic and foreign policy.
The fact that there should be a republican core in empires is not owed to moral
considerations, but because Machiavelli finds two reasons to defend internal
Convention