[This is a first draft–work in progress– expect an update by 5/9/2026]
After a long morning of browsing all genres at the bookstore the other day, I wound up buying a paperback copy of Machiavelli’s “The Prince” on an impulse. After reading and beginning this essay, I thought to myself how I could devote the rest of my life to reading and reviewing literature for its architectural implications. Not sure if that is a good idea but it is entirely possible.
Concerning Machiavelli, I had a lot of preexisting thoughts about him and his work for some reason, more about philosophies of politics and power and less about architecture as I had previously understood it. But why would architecture not be about politics and power? Why should my privately formulated views of how things should be override the predominance of the outside world and how they are, even if they should not be.
Machiavelli wrote in the historical years at the heart of the Italian Renaissance. He was more concerned with the “Art of War” and was a humanist even though he described some of the more unfortunate human tendencies. I know I associate Renaissance architecture with museums and religious facilities, mostly, but the culture’s production spanned the gamut of program.
In “The Prince”, the term “architecture” is not invoked directly. There is some logic of order and disorder, which I think of as a kind of architectural idea, some mentions of foundations, some discussion of cities, and some ideas about fortifications. The personalities involved, in “The Prince” Machiavelli’s hypothetical princes, whether they are principled or not, are completely memorable and do seem inflected in an architect kind of way. Maybe seeing Machiavelli as an architectural mind, sure if that is associated with ego, he could be considered.
Overall implications for architecture and urbanism of the Prince are full of animosity and militarism– sounding more destructive than constructive. Cities are either ruled or acquired or conquered, however unpleasant any of these scenarios. I expect much of the same in Machiavelli’s Art of War as well. This is something worth considering even for the peaceful mind. Cities, towns, settlements, communes, any populated area are frequently termed “principalities” in the book to reinforce their princely rule. One cynical line stood out: “a city used to freedom can be more easily ruled through its own citizens, provided you do not wish to destroy it, than in any other way. ” (Machieavelli, p.21)
The chapter “Constitutional Principalities” characterizes cities as such, “two different dispositions are found in every city: and the people are everywhere anxious not to be dominated or oppressed by the nobles, and the nobles are out to dominate and oppress the people. These opposed ambitions bring about one of three results a principality, a free city, or anarchy” (Machiavelli, p.41). Unfortunately whole populations of cities are at risk of domination or oppression by these misguided rulers, and Machiavelli sees this as unavoidable. Nobility should not behave this way or they cease to be noble, any kind of oppression runs contrary to what is suggested in their name.
Further along, Machiavelli discusses “foundations of any state” which he decides are “good laws and good arms”– again resorting to arguments for belligerence included along the way. Apparently, foundations have long been useful in supporting buildings but are also as enduring as a supporting literary device.
Fortresses in their efforts at impenetrability, can be used keep the outside out or the inside in. Depending on the powers that be, a fortress might function as a castle to defend against marauders or as a prison to keep individuals from getting the public world.
Machiavelli noted the “independence” of German cities on p.46, and their “excellent moats and walls” obviously aware of parallel ideas in northern Europe, seeming a little competitive, or envious. Polymath artist Albrecht Durer was also interested in fortifications at the time, wrote a whole treatise on the topic (see illustration).
Machiavelli maintains militarism throughout the book, insisting that a ruler should only think and know “the art of war”, I wonder is he being serious or facetious? So cynical. He suggests suppressing imagination of “dreamed up republics or principalities” for “real truth” which can only be inflected by his combative, and competitive disposition. He is aware that extreme and harsh rulers are at risk of “losing their state” (Machiavelli p.65-66).
In closing, I am unsure of the sincerity in “The Prince”. The author must be indulging in hyperbole. Their reasoning and justification for bad leadership cannot be genuinely made in good faith.
My main takeaway in all this fortification and walling away of towns and cities is that it all hinges on the ruler or noble or prince as they may be “not being hated”. Popular opinion is much more powerful and Machiavelli recognizes that no matter how the prince “makes a town into a bastion” they can still lose their state and power by low approval.
NOTES
As time passed and the Renaissance ran its course, the pointed polygonal approach continued through the centuries. Here is a geometrical analysis of many more star fort examples. https://www.nature.com/articles/s40494-025-01632-y
The translation of Machiavelli’s “The Prince” that I read was translated by George Bull and was published by Penguin Books, Great Ideas.
drdrr.work 