[3] In the preface to Book I, Machiavelli explains why he wrote the Discourse, noting that he brings new modes and orders—a dangerous task given the envy of men, but one motivated by the desire to work for the common benefit of humanity.
Echoing Aristotle's Politics, He states that there are six main different types of government, three of which are good, but "no precaution will prevent it from slipping into its opposite, so closely are the virtues and vices of the two related.
Machiavelli then tries to determine what type of government Rome was; he says it was a republic, mixing all three functional political systems together, which kept the violent tendencies of one another in check.
And the reason ... is solely the Church, for having acquired and held temporal Empire; she has not been so powerful or of such virtue that she was able to seize the tyranny of Italy and make herself its Prince.
He then conveys that having a dictatorial authority was beneficial for the City of Rome because a republic cannot always make the quick decisions demanded by a crisis, and in these cases one person can do a better job than the rest.
Chapter 23 talks about how much the Romans, in judging subjects for some accidents that necessitated such judgment, fled from the middle way (which he criticizes) in regards to punishments.
"[13] Romans had lost sight of "the other good institutions ordered by Romulus and by other prudent princes than was reasonable and necessary to maintain their free way of life.
This event was necessary "so that all the orders of the city might be regained and that it might be shown to that people that it was necessary not only to maintain religion and justice but also to esteem its good citizens and to take more account of their virtue than of these advantages that it appeared to them they lacked through their works.
"[15] Machiavelli begins Chapter 2 declaring that, "There was never anyone so prudent nor esteemed so wise for any eminent work of his than Junius Brutus deserves to be held in his simulation of stupidity.
"[18] Machiavelli concludes the chapter, writing, "Thus one must play crazy, like Brutus, and make oneself very much mad, praising, speaking, seeing, doing things against your intent so as to please the prince.
Machiavelli believes that since he did not know how to act like Brutus, and eliminate those who opposed the structure of the republic, he lost "not only his fatherland, but his state and his reputation.
Although the mode of seizing the kingdom had been extraordinary and hateful, nonetheless, if he had observed the ancient orders of the other kings, he would have been endured and would not have excited the senate and plebs against him so as to take the state away from him.
"[22] He cites the verdict of Cornelius Tacitus as someone everyone should fellow, as it says that "men have to honor past things and obey present ones; and they should desire good princes and tolerate them, however they may be made.
"[41] From Livy's writing, Machiavelli cites an example when Camillus, already inside of the city of the Veientes with his army, commanded, loud enough for the inhabitants to hear him, that no one should hurt those who are unarmed.
[42] At the end of the chapter, Machiavelli asserts that "a captain who has time to instruct men and occasion to arm them is very much more to be trusted than an insolent army with a head made tumultuously by it.
While dangerous wars had to be made, all the ambition of the other citizens ceased, and in the choice of commissioner and head of the armies he had no competitor..."[49] At the beginning of Chapter 17, Machiavelli asserts that "A republic ought to consider very much not putting someone over any important administration to whom any notable injury had been done by another.
Camillus refused the offer, and after binding the hands of the schoolmaster, gave rods to each of the children and escorted them back into the city while they beat him.
"[56] Machiavelli begins the chapter relating the story of "two excellent captains in Rome at one and the same time, Manlius Torquatus and Valerius Corvinus.
For Manlius commanded his soldiers with every kind of severity...Valerius, on the other hand, dealt with them with every humane mode and means and full of a familiar domesticity.
But whoever is not of this strength of spirit ought to guard himself from extraordinary commands and can use his humanity in ordinary ones..."[58] He concludes the chapter stating that the behavior of Manlius and Valerius fit specific needs: "the proceedings of Valerius is useful in a prince and pernicious in a citizen, not only to the fatherland but to himself: to it, because those modes prepare the way for tyranny; to himself, because in suspecting his mode of proceeding, his city is constrained to secure itself against him to his harm.
So by the contrary I affirm that the proceeding of Manlius is harmful in a prince and useful in a citizen, and especially to the fatherland..."[59] Chapter 23 concerns "For what cause Camillus was expelled from Rome.
"[59] According to Machiavelli, "Titus Livy brings up these causes of the hatred: first, that he applied to the public the money that was drawn from the goods of the Veientes that were sold and did not divide it as booty; another, that in the triumph, he had his triumphal chariot pulled by four white horses, from which they said that because of his pride he wished to be equal to the sun; third, that he made a vow to Apollo the tenth part of the booty of the Veientes..."[60] When the people were denied their part of the loot, they rebelled against Camillus.
"[67] Machiavelli relates it to a moment in Roman history when there was considerable famine and the wealthy man Spurius Maelius planned to distribute grain to win over the favour of the Plebs.
"[69] Chapter 30 pertains to how envy must be eliminated if a man wants to do good work in the republic, and that if one sees the enemy, he must order the defense of his city.
"[70] Machiavelli does think this envy can be eliminated when "either through some strong and difficult accident in which each, seeing himself perishing, puts aside every ambition and runs voluntarily to obey him"[70] or "...when, either by violence or by natural order, those who have been your competitors in coming to some reputation and to some greatness die.
[71] Machiavelli raises the modern example of the Venetians, whose good fortune created a sort of "insolence" that they failed to respect the powerful states around them and lost much of their territorial holdings.
[76] Chapter 34 pertains to "What fame or word or opinion makes the people being to favor a citizen; and whether it distributes the magistracies with great prudence than a prince.
"[81] Pondering this question, Machiavelli writes, "For I consider, on one side, that a good captain ought altogether to avoid working for anything that is of small moment and can produce bad effects on his army: for to begin a fight in which all one's force are not at work and all one's fortune is risked is a thing altogether rash...On the other side, I consider that when wise captains come up against a new enemy who is reputed, before they come to the main battle they are necessitated to make trial of such enemies with light fight for their soldiers..."[81] In Chapter 38, Machiavelli writes of "How a captain in whom his army can have confidence ought to be made.
[92] The final chapter of Book 3 concerns the fact that "A republic has need of new acts of foresight every day if one wishes to maintain it free; and for what merits Quintus Fabius was called Maximus.
He also objected to much of Machiavelli's advice, as he thought that many of his recommendations were too vicious, stating that:[94] Violent remedies, though they make one safe from one aspect, yet from another ... involve all kinds of weaknesses.