Friday, October 11, 2013
Machiavelli on the Dutch Revolt
In Machiavelli's The Prince, he talks about how to conquer and control a city if they used to live under their own laws before the conquer. Machiavelli writes, " And no matter what one does or foresees, if the inhabitants are not separated or scattered, they will forget that name and those institutions, and they will have recourse to them instantly at every opportunity" (22). What would Machiavelli think about the Duke of Alva only killing 1/9 of the accused heretics? What would Machiavelli have done different if he were in charge? According to Machiavelli, if the Duke of Alva had killed more people at the "Council of Blood", would this have stopped/prevented the revolt?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that Machiavelli would have thought the Duke of Alva did not do a good enough job, Machiavelli would have killed more people. If the Duke of Alva had killed almost half I think that would have prevented or stopped the revolt.
ReplyDeleteMachiavelli would not have simply punished the other 8/9 and let them go. He might have either killed them or punished them so severely that they could not recover to rebel. If the Duke of Alva had killed many more of the people, I think the revolt would not have occurred.
ReplyDeleteI think that according to Machiavelli, the problem was already too big by the time the Duke of Alva came around. If Philip had really cared about avoiding insurrection, he would have had more contact with the Low Countries, first of all. After that, the next problem is that he sent the Duke of Alva, who was hated and who was not feared enough. I think that for the Duke of Alva to have stopped the Dutch Revolt with the Council of Blood, he would have had to inspire fear in the protestants. Killing a larger amount of people probably could have achieved this. Maybe if he made it really scary, like coming to houses in a city at night, and killing all the men in one quarter while they are asleep?
ReplyDelete