Machiavelli, Virtu, and the EU

[Renicus Ferrarius]

Has anyone read Machiavelli's The Art of War?

I recently finished it and was fascinated by his advocacy of a more Roman type of military for renaissance Italy. The most interesting part, however, related directly to the European Union and its current troubles.

To understand what follows, however, I have to explain about what Machiavelli calls "virtu". According to Dr. Neal Wood- Professor of Political Science at York University in Toronto, it is a difficult concept to translate. Dr. Wood describes "virtu" as: a necessary quality of of effective military and political leadership, and it is essential to the survival and well-being of a people in this alien and hostile world... Virtu in the special sense is basically a military quality. There is no synonym for this use of virtu. Machiavelli employs it to characterize masculine and aggressive conduct that is exhibited in a dangerous and uncertain situation of tension, stess, and conflict. The concept entails the idea of tremendous force of will and inner strength that will enable one to overcome the most recalcitrant opposition and to endure the most perilous adversity. Among the attributes included in virtu are boldness, bravery, resolution, and decisiveness."

I had this in mind as Machiavelli wrote the following conversation in The Art of War:

"Cosimo: I should be very happy to learn if you have ever considered how it comes to pass that we are so degenerate, and that not only these exercises, but all manner of military discipline, have now fallen into such neglect and disuse among us.

Fabrizio: I shall give you my opinion on the matter very freely sir. You know, then, that there have been many renowned warriors in Europe- but few in Africa, and fewer still in Asia; the reason for this is that the last two mentioned parts of the world have had but one or two monarchies and only a few republics in them,. and that Europe, on the contrary, has had several kingdoms, but more republics in it. Now men become excellent and show their virtu according to how they are employed and encouraged by their sovereigns, whether these happen to be kings, princes, or heads of republics; so where there are many states, there will be many great men; but where there are few states, there will not be many great men. In Asia, there were Ninus, Cyrus, Artaxerxes, Mithridates, and a few others like them; in Africa (without mentioning the ancient Egyptians), we read of Masinissa, Jugurtha, and some Carthaginian commanders of eminent note. The number of these men, however, is very small in comparison with those Europe has produced; for in this part of the world, there have indeed been numbers of excellent men whom we know about, and doubtless many more whose memories are now extinguished by the malevolence of time; because every state is obliged to cherish and encourage men of virtu, either out of necesity or for other reasons- where there are more states, there must of course be more men of virtu.

Asia, on the contrary, has not produced many men of virtu because, to a great extent, that part of the globe is subject to one monarchy alone- to so great an extent that most parts of it languish in indolence and cannot form any considerable number of men for great and glorious enterprises. The same may be said of Africa, although there have indeed been more commanders of virtu in that region than in Asia, thanks to the republic of Carthage. There will always be a greater number of excellent men in republics than in monarchies because virtu is generally honored in the former, but feared in the latter; hence, it comes to pass that men of virtu are and encouraged in one, but discountenanced and suppressed in the other.

If we consider Europe next, we shall find that it was always full of principalities, kingdoms, and republics which lived in perpetual jealousy of each other and were obliged to maintain good discipline in their armies and to honor and encourage military merit. In Greece, besides the Macedonian monarchy, there were several republics, and every one produced many excellent men. In Italy there were the Romans, the Samnites, the Etruscans, and the Cisalpine Gauls. France, Germany, and Spain abounded with republics and principalities; and if we do not rread of as many excellent men in any of them as among the Romans, that results from the partiality of historians, who generally follow the stream of fortuna, and content themselves with praising the conqueror. It is only reasonable to suppose, however, that there were a great many illustrious men among the Samnites and Etruscans since they defended themselves against the Romans for 150 years. The same may be supposed of France and Spain; but the virtu which most historians fail to celebrate in particular men, they are forward enough to praise in whole nations, when they tell us with what bravery and resolution these nations exerted themselves in defense of their liberties.

Since it is obvious, then, that where there are many states there will always be many men of virtu, it is certain that when the number of those states is diminished, the number of such men will likewise decrease by degrees- just as the effect must cease when the cause is taken away. Thus, when the Roman Empire had swallowed up all the kingdoms and republics in Europe and Africa, and most of those in Asia, virtu met with no countenance anywhere but in Rome; so that men of virtu began to grow more scarce in Europe, as well as in Asia, until at last there were hardly any to be found. Just as all virtu was extinguished, except among the Romans, so when they became corrupt, the whole world was similarly corrupted, and the Scythians poured by swarms into an Empire that, having extinguished the virtu of most other nations, was not able to preserve its own."

So, perhaps Europe is better off with smaller, independent states than a large union.

What do you think?

[Kegluneq]

So, perhaps Europe is better off with smaller, independent states than a large union.

What do you think?

Firstly, thank you for an interesting OP. I have not read Machiavelli to that extent so appreciate your inclusion of the full passage.

However, I have to say the definition of 'great men' is not exactly fixed. The continent of Africa is full of leaders of independent states, who, demonstrating their virtus, wage war against civilian populations using child soldiers and foreign mercenaries. Their charismatic leadership, bravery, and effectiveness in battle is without question, but so is the fact that they are inevitably guilty of gross crimes against humanity. No one would rather be the Gaul than a Roman when it comes to a conflict between the two, and we know the boasts that Caesar made.

Modern warfare is a far cry from the almost ritualised warfare of the ancient world (small countries can't be nuclear powers) and I think it is extremely dangerous to view the current economic crisis in Europe as requiring a military solution. That is pretty much exactly the logic of the pre-war Nazi party, I'm sorry to say. There may be democratic arguments for devolving political powers to smaller states (with logic that would never have occured to the ancients or Machiavelli) but doing so in order to promote violent conflict seems extremely counterproductive.

Military command and the display of virtus in the ancient world legitimised the political power of aristocratic elites. The bond between the three is rapidly diminishing, as few politicians see military service (this November sees the first election in the US without a veteran in the POTUS or VeeP position), and the idea of restricting military command to a perpetual aristocracy is now abhorrent. Small states nowadays rely either on exclusive access to resources such as oil, gas or a low-tax banking network, or they are geographically restricted to begin with.

[Renicus Ferrarius]

Firstly, thank you for an interesting OP. I have not read Machiavelli to that extent so appreciate your inclusion of the full passage.

You're very welcome. I can't take credit for being quite so well-read, as I got the book as a gift and just decided to finally read it one day.

Modern warfare is a far cry from the almost ritualised warfare of the ancient world (small countries can't be nuclear powers) and I think it is extremely dangerous to view the current economic crisis in Europe as requiring a military solution. That is pretty much exactly the logic of the pre-war Nazi party, I'm sorry to say. There may be democratic arguments for devolving political powers to smaller states (with logic that would never have occured to the ancients or Machiavelli) but doing so in order to promote violent conflict seems extremely counterproductive.

I apologize if I gave this impression. I certainly didn't mean to say that any problems that Europe was having today required military solutions. I was more concerned with Machiavelli's idea that smaller states fostered greatness (presumably through competition). Jared Diamond also alluded to this in Guns, Germs, and Steel as one of several reasons that Europe rose to dominance.

In the aftermath of two World Wars, however, we see a Europe terrified of disunity, yet I wonder if in the long run, integration has led, or may lead to a loss of verve and 'virtu'.

[Lyceum]

This is fascinating! Incidentally I'm only now really starting to read M's work so this is very well timed. Great topic. I kind of want to answer but I really can't without giving a Hellenocentric answer, which would be stupid.

We need the Renaissance background here to really understand this and modern Europe I think. I personally think the answer is "no".

[Kegluneq]

In the aftermath of two World Wars, however, we see a Europe terrified of disunity, yet I wonder if in the long run, integration has led, or may lead to a loss of verve and 'virtu'.

I think you're overemphasising the level of unity within the EU, to be honest. Each member nation still has a clearly distinctive economy, culture, system of politics etc. (If the lines are being blurred between states, it's at the level of the multinational company rather than through mutual trade agreements between countries). Unless you want to regress that further - to individual city-states and economically autonomous fiefdoms? I think it's worth bearing in mind that Europe's rise to greatness (if that's how we want to describe imperialism) came with nationalism and the centralisation of political power. That saw the surge in innovation that became the industrial revolution and the modern democratic state. So there's quite a lot to dispose of if you aspire to a Machiavellian society.

There are plenty of arenas in modern society in which people compete on a regular basis - sport, politics, the job market. Arguably if the banking sector wasn't so focused on the quick profit and self-aggrandisement, we wouldn't be in the economic situation we are in now.

Incidentally, if you want a good discussion of the concept of virtus in the Roman world, I recommend Sara Elise Phang's Roman Military Discipline. Like Machiavelli, Tacitus and other imperial writers also saw an apparent decline in aristocratic 'manliness' following the centralising of power, but I think in both cases this was mainly wistful nostalgia.

[john m roberts]

This sort of historical discussion always reminds me of the film "The Third Man", (script by Graham Greene). In it, Harry Lime explains why he is a war profiteer (I paraphrase here),
"Sixteenth century Italy was a patchwork of warring states and squabbling princes. It gave us Michelangelo and Raphael and all the glories of the Renaissance. Switzerland, in four hundred years of peace and neutrality, has given us the cuckoo cloc."

[Epictetus]

Interesting concept, but I might twist this a bit. If “virtu” is described as a quality of effective military and political leadership, which characterises a masculine and aggressive conduct that is exhibited in a dangerous and uncertain situation of tension, stress, and conflict, where do we find this today in high stakes situations? In business.

In ancient times, and in more recent times, European states and men competed in military matters. Today, they compete in economics. I think it could be argued that the “tremendous force or will and inner strength that will enable one to overcome the most recalcitrant opposition and to endure the most perilous adversity” is today most visibly displayed in the board room, not the war room.

Both Machiavelli and Sun Tzu's The Art of War are required reading in many (most? all?) business schools, so I think this helps to illustrate that those old military virtues have evolved into business virtues.

Now if this first premise is accepted, one could argue that the European Union has fostered virtu, because it is now easier to nurture that quality in competition anywhere in the EEA. Capital controls have been lifted, licensing is accepted cross-border via passporting, there is a free movement of labour, tariffs have been lifted, import restrictions abolished, etc. etc. etc.

So if the nature of virtu has shifted, Europe would be better off with a large union which allows cross-border competition than with small, independent states which protect domestic markets and forbid international competition.

[Robert Vermaat]

I like the discussion, especially where ancient sources are concerned, but take care folks, no modern politics please. :wink:

[richsc]

Good point about business. While we concentrate on military in this forum, far more Romans were engaged in business across the empire. The tools of standardized calendars, currency and contract law underwrote the economies of mass manufacturing and distribution across the empire, undercutting local businesses, as in pottery, glassware, wine and other items that became commodities. I will bet there were ruthless Roman businessmen that fit the virtu mold.

[Renicus Ferrarius]

Good point about business. While we concentrate on military in this forum, far more Romans were engaged in business across the empire. The tools of standardized calendars, currency and contract law underwrote the economies of mass manufacturing and distribution across the empire, undercutting local businesses, as in pottery, glassware, wine and other items that became commodities. I will bet there were ruthless Roman businessmen that fit the virtu mold.

My understanding was that Crassus built his staggering wealth through Sulla's proscriptions. I can picture him looking at the lists hours before they were published, and staging his men in advance to take over once the proclamation was made. He also bought fire damaged properties on the cheap, and had slaves who were trained architects and builders which allowed him to fix up a place for rent for a minimal cost.

I also read in the book The Romans for Dummies (okay, so I'm a plebe... Hey, we all start somewhere in this study.) that around 300 AD, a Roman official in Egypt heard through the grapevine that Diocletian was going to devalue the currency. He wrote to his staff to spend all of his money on goods and cargo, and on the following day, those who sold him the items suddenly found that they had unwittingly given him a major discount.