Machiavelli needs to be looked at as he really was. Hence: Can Machiavelli, who makes the following observations, be Machiavellian as we understand the disparaging term?
1. …So it is that to know the nature of a people, one needs to be a Prince; to know the nature of a Prince, one need to be of the people.
2. …If a Prince is not given to vices that make him hated, it is ususal for his subjects to show their affection for him.
3. Opportunity made Moses, Cyrus, Romulus, Theseus, and others; their virtue dominated the opportunity, making their homelands noble and happy. Armed prophets win; the disarmed lose.
4. Without faith and religion, man achieves power but not glory.
5. Prominent citizens want to command and oppress; the populace only wants to be free of oppression.
6. A Prince needs a friendly populace; otherwise in diversity there is no hope.
7. A Prince, who rules as a man of valor, avoids disasters,
8. …Nations based on mercenary forces will never be solid or secure.
9. …Mercenaries are dangerous because of their cowardice
10. …There are two ways to fight: one with laws, the other with force. The first is rightly man’s way; the second, the way of beasts.