Machiavelli Chose Loyalty Over Power - Ada Palmer
Ada Palmer discusses how Machiavelli, after being exiled by the returning Medici following his service in the resistance regime, chose to remain loyal to Florence despite his harsh banishment. Unlike other exiled Florentine intellectuals of the period, Machiavelli stayed in his countryside exile and continued to express his willingness to serve Florence, sacrificing potential power he could have gained by working for other rulers.
Summary
Ada Palmer analyzes a crucial period in Machiavelli's life that reveals his character and priorities. After serving in the resistance regime that governed Florence while the Medici were in exile, Machiavelli found himself on the wrong side when the Medici returned to power. The returning Medici viewed him as an enemy, leading to his arrest, torture, and exile. Palmer explains the typical Florentine exile system, where banished individuals were usually sent to specific locations with diplomatic duties and the possibility of eventual return if they remained compliant. However, Machiavelli's punishment was harsher - he was banished to an insignificant hamlet in the Tuscan countryside with no meaningful role, essentially told to 'go sit in the country and rot.' The Medici expected Machiavelli to break his exile terms and leave, which would have been the normal response. Instead, Machiavelli chose an unusual path of loyalty, remaining in his countryside exile and continuing to write letters expressing his willingness to serve Florence. Palmer emphasizes that this behavior was abnormal compared to other Florentine intellectuals who experienced similar banishments during the same period. She highlights the significant sacrifice this represented - Machiavelli could have gained much more power and influence in his later years if he had been willing to work for rulers other than Florence, but he chose loyalty over personal advancement.
Key Insights
- The Medici banished Machiavelli to a hamlet in the Tuscan countryside and told him to 'go sit in the country and rot,' expecting him to break his exile terms and leave
- Machiavelli's behavior of staying in exile and continuing to write letters saying 'I will serve you or nothing' was abnormal compared to other Florentine intellectuals who experienced similar banishments
- Typical Florentine exile involved sending banished individuals to specific places with diplomatic duties and potential for return, but Machiavelli received harsher treatment with no meaningful role
- Machiavelli could have gained much more power in the last chunk of his life if he had been willing to work for rulers other than Florence
- Machiavelli served in the resistance regime that ruled while the Medici were in exile, making him an enemy when the Medici returned to power
Topics
Transcript
[0:00] Late in Makavel's life, he was part of the resistance regime that ruled while the Meduchi were in exile. They were in power. They were kicked out. When they returned, they viewed him as an enemy. He is arrested, tortured, exiled. When Florence exiles you, they tell you, "Go to ex place and wait. Be good. Send us letters informing us what's going on. When we have diplomatic needs to talk to the king, we're going to send letters to you, and you're going to forward them, and if you're good, you get to come back." That's not quite what they did with Machaveli. with Machaveli. They banished him to a hamlet in the middle of the Tuscan countryside…
Full transcript available for MurmurCast members
Sign Up to AccessMore from Dwarkesh Patel
The Army Sent to Stop Cortés Joined Him Instead - Si Sheppard
Spanish conquistador Cortés faced a threat from Governor Velázquez of Cuba, who sent Don Narvaez with a larger force to arrest him for exceeding his authority. Rather than being defeated, Cortés defeated Narvaez in battle and persuaded the expeditionary force to join him by promising shared wealth from the empire, turning potential enemies into reinforcements.
How 168 Men Captured the Inca Emperor - Si Sheppard
Francisco Pizarro, with only 168 men, captured the Inca Emperor Atahualpa in 1532 at Cajamarca by using psychological tactics with horses and an ambush strategy. Despite Atahualpa's show of dominance and his large army, Pizarro's surprise attack and capture of the emperor allowed him to control the entire Inca social hierarchy.
The Myth of the Helpless Aztecs and Inca - Si Sheppard
Si Sheppard argues that the Aztecs and Incas were not helpless victims but actively developed countermeasures and adaptive strategies against Spanish conquistadors, including terrain manipulation, weapon improvisation, and tactical learning—though they lacked sufficient time to fully master foreign technologies.
How Conquistadors Conquered the Aztecs - Si Sheppard
Conquistador success against the Aztecs relied primarily on steel weapons, horses, and psychological tactics rather than firearms. Steel armor and swords proved far more effective than indigenous weapons made of wood, stone, and obsidian, while horses—animals unknown to the Aztecs—provided decisive military and logistical advantages.
How did a few hundred Spanish soldiers topple two empires? – Si Sheppard
Military historian Si Sheppard explains how a few hundred Spanish conquistadors were able to conquer the Aztec and Inca Empires within just a few years through a combination of technological advantages (horses, steel weapons), psychological warfare, diplomatic manipulation of existing divisions among indigenous peoples, and the catastrophic impact of disease. The conquests were contingent on individual leadership decisions and geographic factors, but were fundamentally enabled by the conquistadors' ability to exploit internal rifts within empires that appeared monolithic from the outside.