At first glance, this question seems simple enough. After all, Nicolò Machiavelli more or less wrote an "autocrat's manual" when he wrote The Prince. In this text, Machiavelli explains how an autocrat comes to power, when an autocrat can best come to power, and how an autocrat maintains power. Having said that, it would appear that Machiavelli is a great believer in the autocratic system. Indeed, this question seems to have been all but put to rest during the last chapter of The Prince, in which Machiavelli calls for a strong ruler for Italy, and even goes so far as to say that Italy is prepared for such a ruler to take power, while inviting Lorenzo de' Medici to become prince to save Italy from its continuous invasions. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay However, when you start to look more closely at The Prince, Machiavelli's support for autocracy seems to be much lower than you might think at first glance. Already in the second chapter, Concerning Hereditary Principalities, Maciavelli begins to paint the picture that autocratic rule may not be the best of government. Towards the end of the chapter, Machiavelli states that "...one change always leaves the dentition for another" (Machiavelli, The Prince, ch. 2, p. 2). This could be interpreted simply as saying that any change in governance gives way to subsequent changes; however, as he clearly states in the first line of the chapter, he is talking strictly about principalities, so this can be read as a comment on the instability of autocracy. The first solid statement showing that Machiavelli sees the benefits of the republic can be seen in chapter three, Concerning Mixed Principalities. In this chapter, the most revealing statement in support of the republic is very brief, but revealing nonetheless. In this passage Machiavelli speaks of the subjugation of the newly acquired lands (chap. 3, p. 2). Now I say that those dominions which, when acquired, are added to an ancient state by him who acquires them, are either of the same country and language, or not. When they are, it is easier to hold them back, especially when they are not used to self-government... This last line is incredibly important as it would lead one to believe that a self-governed state (i.e. NOT an autocracy) is harder to subjugate and, as such, it would lead one to believe that it could be more stable than another principality. This can be supported when Machiavelli goes on to say (ch. 3, p. 2): ...to hold [the newly acquired lands] firmly it is sufficient to have destroyed the family of the prince who governed them. This would not be possible in a republic, and this was a fact of which Machiavelli was very aware. The main chapter to consider when examining Machiavelli's feelings on autocracy versus republic is chapter five, Concerning the Way of Governing Cities or Principalities. In this chapter Machiavelli goes on to explain how to govern a conquered republic. It offers three options for the would-be autocrat, one, ruin them, two, reside there in person to exact control, or three, allow them to continue to live by their own laws by creating a friendly oligarchy within the current system and simply pay homage. This chapter is very interesting as it is one of the few times in the book where Machiavelli actually talks about the republic itself, if only briefly. Even if Machiavelli speaks of the republic only as a victim of expansion or a newly acquired territory, he does not hide that the republic could be the form.