At first glance, this question seems quite simple. After all, Nicolo Machiavelli more or less wrote an “autocrat’s handbook” when he wrote The Prince. In this text, Machiavelli explains how an autocrat gains power, when an autocrat can best gain power, and how an autocrat maintains power. It would therefore seem that Machiavelli is a fervent supporter of the autocratic system. In fact, this question seems to be all but settled during the final chapter of The Prince, in which Machiavelli calls for a strong leader for Italy, and even goes so far as to say that Italy is ready for such a leader. takes power, as he calls on Lorenzo de' Medici to become prince to save Italy from its constant invasions. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay However, when one begins to look more closely at The Prince, Machiavelli's support for autocracy appears to be much less than one might first think. As early as chapter two, Concerning Hereditary Principalities, Maciavelli begins to paint the picture that autocratic governance may not be the best form of government. Towards the end of the chapter, Machiavelli states that "...one change always leaves room for another" (Machiavelli, The Prince, Ch. 2, p. 2). This could be interpreted to simply mean that any change in governance gives rise to subsequent change; however, as he makes clear in the first line of the chapter, he is talking strictly about principalities and so this can well be read as a comment on the instability of autocracy. The first strong statement that shows Machiavelli sees the advantages of the republic can be interpreted as a comment on the instability of autocracy. be seen in chapter three, Concerning the Mixed Principalities. The most telling statement in favor of the republic in this chapter is very brief, but telling nonetheless. In this passage, Machiavelli speaks of the subjugation of newly acquired lands (Ch. 3, p. 2). Now, I say that the domains which, once acquired, are added to an ancient state by the one who acquires them, are either one of the same country and same language, or they are not. When they are, it is easier to retain them, especially when they have not been accustomed to self-government... This last line is extremely important because it would suggest that an autonomous state (i.e. i.e. NOT an autocracy) is more difficult to control and, as such, would suggest that it could be more stable than another principality. This can be supported when Machiavelli goes on to say (Ch. 3, p. 2): ...to keep [the newly acquired lands] secure, it is enough to have destroyed the family of the prince who ruled them. This would not be possible in a republic, and this was a fact of which Machiavelli was very aware. The first chapter to look at when examining Machiavelli's feelings on autocracy versus republic is chapter five, Concerning the Manner of Governing Cities or Principalities. In this chapter, Machiavelli goes on to explain how to govern a conquered republic. He offers three options to the aspiring autocrat: one, ruin them, two, reside there in person in order to exercise control over them, or three, allow them to continue living according to their own laws by establishing a friendly oligarchy in the country. within the current system and simply draw a tribute. This chapter is very interesting in that it is one of the few times in the book where Machiavelli actually talks about the republic itself, even if only briefly. While.