When, if ever, are Principalities to be preferred to Republics according to Machiavelli?

Answer 1

In spite of the popularity of 'The Prince', I can't actually think of a time when Machiavelli actually overtly called a republic better than a prinicpality. There's a number of times in the 'Discources' when he seems to suggest that the monarchy of France is good... but even then it seems to be only good -for a monarchy-.

Still, if we look at some of the assumptions he makes about citizenry, me might be able to infer times when he might have though a principality to be superior.

I think he saw one of the biggest drawbacks of a prinicpality being the need to compromise liberty for security, specifically in the form of arming the citizens. It is only an entrenched nobility, after all, that needs to fear an armed revolt of the lower class. And if you can't arm your own citizens, then that means relying on mercanaries and foreign troops which, having no reliable allegiance, aren't a whole lot safer than no military at all (I believe he forecasts little more than a few decades for countries that try to do without a military).

He mentions that some citizens want freedom and arms simply to dominate their neighbors, but he suggests that these are a small minority that have to be dealt with no matter what government you have. But what if he's wrong? If your country is teeming with would-be dictators, then even Machiavelli might have to concede that a disarmed and peaceful but dependant principality might be better than constant open internal strife in a republic which bore greater resemblance to anarchy.

So too with other assumptions he tends to make about the average citizenry. He opines, "A people are more prudent, more stable, and of better judgement than a prince...". But again - what if they're not? If we kick his assumptions out from under his work, then none of his conclusions necessarily hold. If the citizens are foolish, then it might very well be better to have a freakishly wise prince lead them.

Of course, whether people actually are either wise or foolish, stubborn or facile, peace-loving or violent is the subject of a MUCH more protracted discussion, I'm sure. And Machiavelli's writings at least hint (if not overtly state) that a principality might be best for SOME groups of people, depending on their natures...

That's my take, anyway. For what it's worth.