The Use of Violence in Machiavelli’s Republican Strategy

Niccolò Machiavelli is usually remembered as the thinker who taught rulers how to be ruthless. Yet the same man who advised princes to be feared also dedicated much of his writing to defending republics, civic participation, and the rule of law. His attitude towards violence sits exactly at this tension. Machiavelli never pretended that politics could be free of force, but he also argued that a healthy republic should keep that force tightly controlled. Understanding how he balanced these two ideas helps explain why he remains one of the most debated figures in classical political philosophy.

Violence as a tool of statecraft 🔗

Machiavelli’s starting point was realistic rather than idealistic. He believed that states exist in a competitive world where survival cannot be guaranteed by good intentions alone. For him, the preservation and expansion of the state, what later thinkers called raison d’état or “reason of state,” could sometimes demand actions that ordinary morality would condemn.

This is why Machiavelli is often associated with the doctrine of reason of state, a phrase that historians like Friedrich Meinecke traced directly back to him. The idea is that a political leader operates under a different set of obligations than a private individual. A ruler’s first duty is to protect the political community, and that duty may occasionally require harsh measures such as suppressing a rebellion, eliminating a conspiracy, or waging war to secure the state’s borders.

Violence at the founding of states 🔗

Machiavelli was especially clear that founding or reforming a state often involves force. His favourite example was the founding of Rome. He argued that Romulus, who killed his brother Remus, deserved to be excused because the violence served the common good of establishing the republic. For Machiavelli, the act was justified not by the deed itself but by its constructive purpose.

This points to an important distinction in his thought. Violence used to build lasting institutions and serve the public interest is acceptable, while violence used purely for personal ambition is condemned. He praised founders like Romulus but criticised figures like Julius Caesar, whom he saw as the destroyer of Roman republican liberty. The dividing line was always whether force protected the freedom of the community or simply served the ruler’s private appetite for power.

Why law should replace force wherever possible 🔗

If Machiavelli accepted that violence was sometimes necessary, he was equally insistent that it should be the exception, not the rule. His preferred instrument for regulating behaviour was the rule of law. A well-ordered state, in his view, channels conflict through laws and institutions rather than through constant bloodshed.

In the Discourses on Livy, Machiavelli analysed how Rome managed its internal tensions. He observed that the famous disunion between the common people and the senate did not destroy the republic. Instead, this friction produced good laws that strengthened liberty. Conflict, when filtered through legal and institutional channels, became a source of stability rather than chaos.

This is a striking insight. Machiavelli did not believe that a peaceful society was one without disagreement. He believed that a stable society was one that had built reliable mechanisms, such as courts, assemblies, and constitutional rules, to resolve disagreement without resorting to private violence. Where law functions well, the need for raw force shrinks.

Good arms and good laws together 🔗

One of Machiavelli’s most quoted lines concerns the relationship between law and military strength. In The Prince, he argued that good laws cannot exist without good arms, because where there are good arms there must be good laws. At first glance this seems to prioritise force over law. But the deeper meaning is that the two depend on each other. Laws without the capacity to enforce them are empty, while arms without law produce tyranny.

The goal, then, is not to choose between law and force but to ensure that force always serves the legal and constitutional order. Military power exists to defend the framework of laws, not to override it.

The civic militia and citizen participation 🔗

A central part of Machiavelli’s strategy for reducing reliance on violence was his idea of the civic militia. He deeply distrusted mercenaries and professional standing armies, which he saw as unreliable and dangerous to liberty. Instead, he advocated for a citizen army, drawn from the people who had a genuine stake in defending their own republic.

Machiavelli’s preference for citizen militias over hired soldiers reflected his republican convictions. Broad-based military service was at the heart of the classical Greek and Roman idea of citizenship, where defending the state was both a duty and a right of the free citizen. He even organised such a militia himself for Florence, though it was later defeated when the Medici returned to power.

Why citizen defenders reduce internal violence 🔗

The logic of the civic militia goes beyond battlefield effectiveness. When the people who bear arms are the same people who benefit from the republic, the army is far less likely to be turned against the citizens themselves. A force composed of ordinary citizens has little incentive to overthrow a government it helps constitute. This keeps military power under civilian control and reduces the risk of coups and internal repression.

This principle has clear echoes in modern democracies, where keeping the armed forces firmly subordinate to elected civilian authority is seen as essential to preventing authoritarian takeovers. The deeper point is that participation breeds loyalty. Citizens who actively defend and govern their own community are far less likely to become either the victims or the instruments of state violence.

Civic virtue as the foundation of order 🔗

Behind both the rule of law and the civic militia lies a deeper concept that Machiavelli called virtù, often understood in its civic sense as the willingness of citizens to put the common good above their private interests. A republic stays strong only when its people remain engaged, vigilant, and committed to public life.

Machiavelli placed enormous trust in the political role of ordinary people. In the Discourses, he argued that the popular elements of the community were the best safeguard of civic liberty and the most reliable judges of the public good. He pointed to how the Roman people were free to assemble, protest, and veto laws, and yet still maintained order, because they could recognise the common good when it was clearly presented to them.

When citizens possess this kind of civic virtue, they sustain the republic through participation rather than fear. They support institutions, uphold the law, and resolve disputes peacefully. Violence becomes unnecessary precisely because the people themselves are invested in keeping order through legitimate means. This is why Machiavelli connected liberty so closely with active citizenship: a free people that guards its own freedom rarely needs to be coerced.

Strong republics versus weak regimes 🔗

All of these threads come together in what may be Machiavelli’s most important argument about violence. He drew a sharp distinction between strong republics and weak regimes, and the difference came down to how each relied on force.

Weak governments, in his analysis, lean heavily on violence precisely because they lack legitimacy, effective institutions, and genuine popular support. Without the consent of the governed or the structures to channel conflict, such regimes can only rule through fear and repression. But fear is an unstable foundation. A government that survives only by terrorising its own people is always vulnerable to collapse.

Strong republics work differently. They maintain stability through law, civic virtue, and broad participation, reserving violence as a genuine last resort rather than a daily instrument of rule. Because their authority rests on legitimacy and shared ownership, they do not need to threaten their citizens to maintain order. Paradoxically, the state that is most secure is the one least dependent on naked force.

Liberty and the life of the state 🔗

For Machiavelli, this was not just a question of efficiency but of preserving the very life and liberty of the political community. A republic that minimises internal violence protects the freedom of its citizens, while one that governs through constant coercion gradually destroys the liberty it claims to defend. The capacity to use force exists to safeguard freedom, never to extinguish it.

This is why Machiavelli, despite his reputation for cold realism, is increasingly read as a serious theorist of liberty and self-government. His acceptance of violence was always conditional and reluctant. The ideal he held up was a republic so well-ordered by law, so well-defended by its own citizens, and so animated by civic virtue that it could secure its survival and freedom with the least possible bloodshed.

What do you think? Is Machiavelli right that a state genuinely committed to liberty will rely less on violence than a weak or illegitimate regime? And in a modern democracy, what role should active citizen participation play in keeping the state’s use of force under control?

References

1. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/machiavelli/
2. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/machiavellianism
3. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Niccolo-Machiavelli/The-Discourses-on-Livy
4. https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch11s1.html
5. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/civil-religion/machiavellian-solution/09BF29BE82EFAAB31C1A33328050B526
6. https://constitutingamerica.org/90day-aer-machiavelli-science-of-politics-and-founders-solution-to-prevent-government-fortifying-against-the-american-people-guest-essayist-joerg-knipprath/