Machiavelli's The Prince has the reputation of being a master treatise of power politics, and because it is considered a core component of the Western canon, students of politics should be familiar with it. But from the standpoint of logic and method Machiavelli's text repeatedly reveals itself as an exercise in unreliable induction. From individual historical examples he draws sweeping generalizations and conclusions about the nature of power relations between states, rulership, and those who are ruled. This essay will examine Machiavelli's structure of argument in The Prince and, with reference to the components of argumentation, describe problems of reasoning reliability and logical fallacy that arise with it.
The Prince reflects Machiavelli's "continued study of ancient history" and continually refers to the actions of princes and others in history, and from these examples he makes generalizations about power politics and human nature. His reasoning is flawed, however, because one or even many historical cases do not necessarily support a general rule. In the chapter "Of Mixed Principalities," Machiavelli explains that the people of Burgundy, Brittany, Gascony, and Normandy, which belong to France, have similar language and customs. On that basis he concludes that when a conquering prince annexes such a state, all he has to do to keep power is murder the former prince and all his family and maintain the existing institutions, and "the inhabitants will submit." The end (retaining power) justifies the means (murder), in other words. Thus the new state may "be thoroughly incorporated with the ancient state" (5). In this case, the observation that people of like culture and language were long attached to France is linked to the conclusion that a French-speaking, murderous conqueror will have an easy time of ruling, not because of his murderousness, but because of the people's cultural similarities with him. Machiavelli gives a wrong...