Writers Must Read…April Blood by Lauro Martines

He was seventeen years old and already wore the red. Cardinal Raffaele Sansoni Riario was the grand-nephew of Pope Sixtus IV. Although still studying canon law in Pisa, he had been invested by the Holy Father with the diplomatic powers of a Papal Legate. It was under the Pope’s authority that he was in Florence.

On Sunday, April 26th 1478, the young Cardinal was celebrating High Mass at the Cathedral of Saint Mary of the Flower when violence splattered blood across the sacred floors of the Duomo.

Terrified and confused, the youth threw himself behind the altar and prayed for God’s protection amidst the screams of women, children, and the outraged shouts of “here traitor!”

Not more than thirty yards from where the Host had been elevated, Giuliano de’ Medici was stabbed nineteen times by Bernardo Baroncelli and Francesco de’ Pazzi. Closer to the altar, a pair of Priests attacked Giuliano’s older brother, Lorenzo.

Lorenzo’s employee and close friend, Francesco Nori stepped between him and his attackers, sparing Lorenzo’s life at the cost of his own. Another servant fought off one of the Priests and was wounded. Protected by his friends and servants, Lorenzo escaped into the sacristy with nothing but a small wound under his right ear. 

Trapped in the sacristy of the Cathedral, Lorenzo, known as the Magnificent, had no idea that his brother was dead.

Within just a few minutes the marble mosaic floors of the Florentine Cathedral were slick red with blood.

It was just the beginning. The bloodshed would extend for three days, overtaking the city of Florence in an orgy of violence. Hundreds would be killed in that three-day period, but the retribution for the death of Giuliano de’ Medici and the attempted assassination of Lorenzo the Magnificent would span years.

The glory of the Florentine Republic had long been waning by the time the Pazzi made their ill-fated attempt on the Medici’s lives. Although it would resurge from time to time, the Republic was on its last legs. Lorenzo de’ Medici, a man as brilliant as he was shrewd, would not waste the opportunities that his brother’s sacrifice revealed.

When the Lord Priors or, Signoria, Florence’s top ruling council, heard of the violence they immediately called in the Eight—an inquisitorial office made for rooting out and prosecuting political crimes. Prisoners were taken, including the men who murdered Giuliano and attempted to murder Lorenzo. Laws were suspended and emergency powers were delegated. Justice would be swift and cruel.

Foreign mercenaries who had been brought into the city were immediately massacred, thrown out the windows of the Palazzo della Signoria which they had occupied in the attempted coup.

The first conspirator to hang was Jacopo Bracciolini. A rope was put around his neck and he was thrown out the top window of the Palazzo overlooking the Piazza della Signoria. Two hours later, he was joined by Francesco de’ Pazzi, he had been the one to shout “here, traitor!” and in his fury to slay Guiliano, had stabbed himself in the thigh.

Then, shockingly, the Archbishop of Pisa, Francesco Salviati was hung, as well as an unidentified cleric. More men would hang from the Palazzo windows that day.

In the words of Niccolo Machiavelli, who was a child at the time of the Pazzi Conspiracy, there were “so many deaths that the streets were filled with the parts of men.” (pg. 128)      

The violence began to slow only when someone realized that the mob violence could easily turn on the government elite, especially because the 1470s had been a time of famine. But that didn’t mean that Lorenzo’s vengeance was over.

Cause and Effect

I make no secrets about my fascination with Florentine politics. It started with Dante and a desire to better understand his Divine Comedy by studying the man and the world he belonged to. It turned into a mild obsession that may or may not have contributed to my Conversion.

While the plots, schemes, and drama are mesmerizing, what makes Medieval and Renaissance Florence such a captivating study is the people. Florence is one of those strange places in history where great men all seemed to promulgate.

From Dante to Petrarch to Boccacio and Michelangelo, Donatello, Da Vinci, Botticelli, Giotto, Machiavelli, Brunelleschi, Savonarola, and Amerigo Vespucci, America’s namesake—yes, that’s right. Florence’s influence even endowed the United States with its name. The Renaissance began in Florence and was bankrolled by Florentine gold and Florentine blood.

But why should a writer care? Why should I recommend April Blood, by Lauro Martines?

On a very basic level, a story is about cause and effect. Something happens and a character must commit to an action in response to that event. A very good story layers causes and effects on top of each other. Soon, a story stars looking like ripple in a pond.  

I can think of no better place to meditate on this fundamental building block than in 16th Century Florence. April Blood, like any good tale, is a story about cause and effect. But unlike a novel, the characters and the plot were real. Every man involved in the Pazzi Conspiracy, from the victims to the conspirators, had a reason to act the way they did. Whether those reasons are justifiable is irrelevant. This complex web of money, family, and politics, merely proves my point.

Complex Characters

Lorenzo de’ Medici was raised to inherit his father’s patrimony. That patrimony was “the head and heart of a tightening oligarchy,” a tangled web of banking interests, political machinations, and marriage alliances (April Blood, pg. 88).

Lorenzo was 20 when a delegation of Florentine politicians offered him the reins of the state. Which, he took. The power that his grandfather, Cosimo, had gathered was so weighty that, even if the Medici had wanted too, they would not have been able to set it down without great personal risk.

“Lorenzo…aimed to hold power like his grandfather Cosimo, ‘with as much civility as he could manage’, which of course meant vote-rigging and ‘handling’ (that is, fixing) the purses for high office.”

April Blood pg. 95

Purse handling is an unfamiliar term for those unacquainted with Florentine Republicanism. In Florence, the Signoria, a council of nine men, led by the Gonfaloniere were selected randomly for two-month terms. By “handling the purse,” Lorenzo ensured that the random officials selected for office were the correct random officials.

Under the control of the Gonfaloniere and the Signoria were several different councils and committees—the Cento, the dreaded Eight, the Committee of War, etc.

Lorenzo indirectly controlled the Florentine government by ensuring that people friendly to the Medici were in power. This didn’t always work, so, naturally, after loosing control of the Signoria, Lorenzo resolved to ensure that it didn’t happen again. The moment Lorenzo regained control of the government; he pushed forth a series of:

“beautifully- orchestrated ‘reforms’ [that] had been a matter of timing, numbers, disinformation, intimidation, bribery, and electoral machinations. This was Renaissance statecraft as art: the paradigm of what it was to rule by ‘civil’ and ‘constitutional’ means in Medicean Florence.” April Blood, pg. 96

Somewhere along the line, Lorenzo, who was related to the Pazzi family through his sister’s marriage to Guglielmo de’ Pazzi, began to sense the ambitions of the Pazzi Family, particularly, those of Jacopo, the Pazzi Patriarch. With his control over the purse, Lorenzo began to halt their political advancements, barring the Pazzi from entry into high political office.

We may never know what the final straw was for the Pazzi family, all of them seemed to have had their own motivations, but one motive does come into sharp focus. In an act of pure spite, Lorenzo, against even the advice of his most trusted advisors including Guiliano, pushed forth a law that deprived daughters of major inheritances if they had no brothers and were flanked by one of more male cousins.

This law purposefully disinherited Beatice Borromei, the wife of Giovanni de’ Pazzi and barred the Pazzi from taking control of her large fortune.

Of course, this move was not done in a vacuum. Lorenzo forced that bill through because the Pazzi had been disrupting his imperialistic diplomatic plans.

The Pazzi, against Florentine (read: Lorenzo’s) diplomatic program, fronted Pope Sixtus IV a loan so that he could purchase a piece of land for his nephew, land that Lorenzo had wanted for Florence. To punish Lorenzo for not lending him money, Sixtus removed the Medici bank as Papal Bakers and gave the contract to the Pazzi bank.

To make matters worse, the Pope then elevated Francesco Salviati to the Archbishopric of Pisa. Pisa, at the time, belonged to Florence, and Salviati was a Pazzi relative. Lorenzo had good reason to believe that Salviati would be elevated to Cardinal and he was furious that he had not been given a say in the selection.

But that’s just the master of realpolitik.

“He was to have two souls always, two sides: one for literature and the other for callous action in the world.”

April Blood, pg. 91

I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that without Lorenzo the Magnificent, the Renaissance might have gone very different. Although he was a poet himself, his most important contribution to the West was his patronage.

The network of patronage went beyond bankrolling some of the greatest artists the world has ever seen (Leonardo de Vinci, Michealangelo, Sandro Botticelli). He was instrumental in connecting artists and earning them commissions. I think it’s safe to say that Lorenzo spent all this capital (social and monetary) out of a pure love of art.

But Lorenzo was not the only Patron of the Arts in Italy. There was one man in Rome to whom all Christendom owed their allegiance.

He was born Francesco della Rovere and entered into Church life as a Franciscan. When he was elected Pope, he took the name Sixtus IV. He would complete three mighty achievements: the construction of the Sistine Chapel, the creation of the Vatican Library, and the founding of the Spanish Inquisition. But even those accomplishments paled in comparison to his nepotism.

Sixtus IV raised nepotism to an art form. He was surrounded by nephews, nieces, grand-nephews, brothers, etc. Cardinal Raffaele Sansoni Riario the seventeen-year-old boy mentioned above, was his grand-nephew! The land that he secured with a Pazzi loan was for his other nephew, Girolamo Riario.

It would take more ink and time to list every relative that Sixtus IV raised and enriched. The two mentioned above are merely the most important for the purpose of this essay.

Girlamo Riario, along with the Archbishop of Pisa, were probably the originators of the plot to kill the Medici brothers. Perhaps sensing an opportunity to tighten his nepotic hold on Italy, the Holy Father agreed that Florence needed a change in government.

“His Holiness definitely wants and change in the government in Florence, but without anyone’s death…His Holiness said to me I want no death not for any reason. It is not part of our office to consent to any person’s death, and though Lorenzo is a scoundrel and behaves badly with us, yet on no account would I wish to see him dead…I tell you I want no man dead but a change in government, this yes.” April Blood, pg. 158

Here was a man devoted to his family while simultaneously committed to the Franciscan order. He had taken a vow of personal poverty, yet he poured out money like water to build one of the most glorious devotions to God. He was the Pope, the Vicar of Christ, the Prime Minster of Christ’s Kingdom on earth, yet he connived to see men murdered—surely, he knew what he was saying? He could not have been that naive. A man does not become Pope by being naïve.       

If You’re Going to Kill a King 

It goes without saying that if you plot an assassination, you better not fail. The April plot was more than just a disgruntled family looking for vengeance. It was a cadre of angry, ambitious men ranging from a banker, to an archbishop, to a duke, to a king.

Lorenzo learned the details of the plot, including Pope Sixtus IV’s involvement, through the confession of one of its conspirators—Giovan Battista, Count of Montesecco. The Count was a mercenary

Date eight days after the attempted assignation of Lorenzo, Giovan Battista penned his confession, pinning the plan on three major players: Archbishop Salviati of Pisa, Francesco de’ Pazzi, and Count Girolamo Riario, the Pope’s nephew. His confession went on to implicate the Holy Father, the Duke of Urbino, and the King of Naples.

Lorenzo hardly needed the confession to know that the Pope was involved. Afterall, his would-be killers were hidden among the courtiers of his grand-nephew, Cardinal Raffaele Sansoni Riario! I doubt the seventeen-year-old had any idea that his train of servitors was carefully choreographed to get the conspirators into Florence.

Regardless, the boy made a fine hostage, keeping the Papal Army at arm length.     

Of course, the Pope has more tools than an army. Sixtus ordered an interdict upon Florence. In lay-speak, the Pope was ordering all Priests to withhold the Sacraments from Florence and her client cities. He further excommunicated Lorenzo and the Signoria.

An interdict was designed to level pressure on a ruler from the bottom up. A city under Papal Interdict was denied the Source and Summit of Christian Life (the Eucharist), and furthermore, the Sacraments of Baptism, Confession, Last Rites, etc. For the poor of Florence, this was a terrible, painful blow.

It wasn’t a complete blow, because there were plenty of Archbishops and Priests who sided with the Medici, but this pressure would surely build until it blew.

Giovan Battista’s confession, spread through a newfangled device called a printing press, became a powerful arrow in Florence’s quiver.

“Florentine political leaders printed and circulated the confession, in a campaign to denigrate and subvert the interdicts Sixtus has imposed on Florence, Pistoia, and Fiesole…[the Count’s] confession, however, has large shadows; it implicates only the ringleaders; information about the King of Naples and the Duke of Urbino is suppressed; motives are either ignored or made too general; all minor confederates in the web of secrecy are passed over in silence; and the solider himself…keeps hinting that the plot was harebrained.”

April Blood pg. 164-165

The King of Naples, called Ferrante, had a bone to pick with Florence over various diplomatic agreements and was willing to take any excuse to side against the city. Neapolitan and Papal armies began to range the borders of Florence, attacking peasants, hijacking trade routes, and causing general mayhem.  

The Pope and his nephew, Girolamo, insisted that peace was impossible until Lorenzo reported to Rome and begged the Holy Father’s forgiveness.

Under Spiritual threat from the Pope and physical threat from Ferrante, Florence was faced with a terrible decision: hand over Lorenzo, or face destruction.

“The crisis peaked and Lorenzo was driven to the wall. Day after day, for months, working on the maestro of the war office Ten, he did nothing but direct policy, sweat out decisions, and write of dictate countless letters. He was desperately overworked. Complaints and murmurings against the regime gained momentum. Trade in wool and silk, the backbone of local industry, had declined sharply. Business travel and employment suffered. The premise of Florentine cloth merchants and banks had been shut down in Rome and southern Italy. To top it all, bread prices had been rising since about 1473. Rioting broke out in the streets of Florence.”

April Blood, pg. 186

Facing riots, raids, and spiritual despair, Lorenzo moved in the only way left to him.

In a courageous act of pure patriotism that struck even his enemies as praiseworthy, Lorenzo left Florence on a diplomatic mission to Naples.

“The move struck contemporaries as sensational, and it has often been the occasion for awe and praise of Lorenzo’s courage, patriotism, genius, luck, and statecraft. None of these can be taken away from him: he was a vastly gifted man…”

April Blood, pg. 188

It difficult to overstate to the modern person just how dangerous a decision this was. Lorenzo was walking into a situation in which he would be totally under the power of the King of Naples, sure, it was under a diplomatic flag, but Ferrante wasn’t the kind of man to let that stop him—he once convinced the Turkish Sultan (a Muslim) to attack Venice (a Christian city) because it was politically convenient to him. If he wanted to bundle up Lorenzo and send him on to Rome and certain death, then he most certainly would have.

But that didn’t happen. Instead, the Neapolitan King got to know Lorenzo, and in getting to know him, began to like him. Concessions were made, but Lorenzo’s charm remained his most impeccable weapon.

And with the slide of a silver tongue and a dash of luck, the Pazzi War came to its end.          

That Bitch, Fortune

The hidden character behind the whole bloody scene is a force the medieval and renaissance mind knew all too well.

The modern mind often dismisses the concept of “luck” as mere superstition, but the fact of the matter is that fortune is a lively factor in the movement of the world, even now. I thoroughly believe in the medieval concept of fortune and April Blood does a good job of showing fortune in action.

For all it’s changes, mistakes, and fumbles, Florence was politically ready for a change of leadership. Lorenzo was popular, but he wasn’t that popular.

“Despite the failure…it may be easily argued that the plot was driven by an accurate sense of what was practical and feasible. If Lorenzo had been killed along with Giuliano, or if Archbishop Salviati and Messer Jacopo [de’ Pazzi] had managed to take the government palace…would have forced a change of government in Florence; and change made, to be sure, with the zeal and assistance of hundred of alienated citizens and returned exiles.”

April Blood, pg. 173               

It was Dame Fortune who spared Lorenzo that blood-soaked day in April. It was Dame Fortune who turned Ferrante from a foe into a friend. Then, Dame Fortune would come to Lorenzo and Florence’s rescue again:

“Lorenzo’s luck held out. ‘Dame Fortune’ – as many contemporaries would have said – came to his aide less than five months later [after leaving Naples]. Early in August the Turks stormed Otranto in the far south of Italy, killing about 12,000 people and taking another 10,000 into slavery. All at once Ferrante faced a military crisis…and Pope Sixtus was forced to organize action against the infidel…Dropping his hard line against Florence.”

April Blood, pg. 196

Final Thoughts

Sometimes writers put themselves in a jam. They back their characters into a wall and to get them out, they have to rely on a deus ex machine. What a cheap ending! The reader says in their review.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a fan of cheap endings, but let’s face it—history is full of cheap endings. Lorenzo talked himself out of a war with Naples and the Pope. There was no great last stand, no clash of arms, no falling on swords. Lorenzo won through a series of charming conversations made at quiet dinner parties held in the Naples Branch of the Medici Bank.

The single most important rule of fiction is that it must make sense and real life is under no such obligation.

Still, I think it’s a good idea to think about fortune and the way it affects our lives, and the lives of our characters. Cause and effect must ultimately make room for “Dame Fortune.” When she turns her wheel, we have no choice but to turn into the skid, for good or ill.

April Blood is a great book; it really highlights the tangled web of family, money, and politics that was the lifeblood of Renaissance Florence. I glossed over a lot of details to get to my point, but I hope it encourages you to pick up the book yourself. It’s these real-life examples that I think can really provide a framework for fiction.       

As to the Medici and the Pazzi, Machiavelli, I suspect, would call both tyrants. Different sides to the same autocratic coin. He might also say, that sometimes, you get what you deserve and that Fortune is a real bitch.

I wrote a Writer’s Must Read on Machiavelli, check it out here.

Like weird tales? I write my own, you can find them here! You can also follow me on Twitter/X!

Above: Tile floor of the Cathedral of Saint Mary of the Flower (the Duomo) in Florence, Italy.

Writers Must Read…the Prince

Niccolò Machiavelli’s the Prince

Someone once told me that Machiavelli’s little treatise, the Prince, was “baby’s first political theory.” It was a lame attempt to convince me not to read it, in leu of what, I never found out. Ultimately, I’m glad I disregarded such ignorant advice.

The Prince is probably one of the most useful, practical handbooks for vicious politicians who want to get things done. That quality alone makes it worthy of a writer’s attention. 

Niccolò Machiavelli is the man of our times, and if that sounds scary to you, its because you don’t know much about Machiavelli. That’s not your fault. Cultural references to Niccolò paint him as the mastermind of tyranny. He is the eminent philosopher on cruelty; a wicked, unscrupulous, conniving historical villain whose writings helped spawn the likes of Robespierre, Stalin, and Hitler.

The English nickname for the devil, “Old Nick” is thought to derive from Niccolò. Even now, the word, Machiavellian is used to describe those who excel in the use of calculating, unprincipled tactics whether in the Boardroom, on the House Floor, or in the office. A Machiavellian man is a crafty social climber, sophisticated only so far as it helps him achieve his ambitions, maybe he’s even sociopathic?

Niccolò Machiavelli has been painted with the same broad brush that we’ve come to expect when we hear the adjective bearing his name.

But the truth is far more complicated and far more interesting. The Prince is just one small piece of the fascinating life of Niccolò Machiavelli’s life.

Niccolò, as Aristotle said of all men, was a political animal. Politics was his bread and butter, literally, it was how he paid his bills, which were always growing larger as his income grew smaller. The Prince was written as a last-ditch effort to reenter the universe of politics that he loved so much.

This effort failed so catastrophically that this stalwart defender of republican liberty became synonymous with tyranny and realpolitik.   

Born in Florence in 1469 during one of the most tumultuous eras in Western history, Machiavelli, like most of his fellow Florentines, almost seemed destined to collide with greatness. He was born during a short period (1494 to 1512) when the Medici Family were deposed and the republic re-established.   

Our history books tend to refer to the Renaissance as one enormous event making it seem as if it occurred simultaneously across all of Europe. The truth is, it began in Florence generations before it ever reached France and England, or even her nearby neighbors of Venice and Milan.

The world seemed to revolve around Florence in the 15th Century; for example, the Florin was the most trustworthy currency in Europe at the time and saw wide acceptance and commercial use.  

But most importantly, Florence was a bastion of liberty. Florence was a republic and had been a republic since the 12th century. She wasn’t perfect, because no nation is perfect, and a citizen of modernity would have much to complain about regarding her Signoria, councils, and guilds.

Not all denizens of Florence were citizens, but the chosen few who were citizens, were granted unparalleled rights and responsibilities. In Modernity we tend to believe that liberty is do what you want. In Florence, a citizen was meant to do as they ought.

I won’t bog you down with anymore 15th Century Florentine politics, but by the time Machiavelli was born, twilight was upon the Republic of Florence and its political machine was an elaborate dance of payoffs, patronage, and surrogacy.

The Medici were expelled from Florence when, Piero, the son of Lorenzo de’ Medici the Magnificent, squandered all his father’s hard work by making a bad deal with the French. The Medici were forced to flee Florence. Florence resumed its tradition of republican government.

Machiavelli held many posts during this short period of the reassembled republic. He was a diplomat, a messenger, and even started a proper citizen-lead militia for the defense of Florence which, under his command, recaptured the rebellious city of Pisa.     

But, in 1512, the Medici returned at the head of a Papal-Spanish Army and Florence crumpled. The republic was dissolved by the victors and Machiavelli was deprived of office and exiled.

A year later, Machiavelli was accused of plotting against the Medici rulers. He was seized by the government and tortured. Despite the government’s best efforts to force his arms out of their sockets in a torture method known as corda, Machiavelli never broke. If he knew who was part of the conspiracy, or even if he himself was a conspirator, he refused to say and was released a few weeks later.

He returned to his exile, and it’s hard not to assume he was a different man after that. The man who once wrote bawdy plays, Discourses on Livy (the republican version of The Prince), and corny, lewd poetry, retired to the countryside and wrote The Prince.       

“Men who are anxious to win the favor of a Prince nearly always follow the custom of presenting themselves with the possessions they value most, or with things they know especially please him; so we often see princes given horses, weapons, cloth of gold, precious stones, and similar ornaments worthy of their high position.”

[The Prince, Niccolò Machiavelli, letter from Machiavelli to Lorenzo de’ Medici]

The Prince was written to help revitalize Machiavelli’s career and help him reenter the political realm.

To an urbane Florentine like Machiavelli, exile was the worse than death. It’s very difficult to categorize exile to a modern mind. Part of what makes it so terrible is the danger that the “out there” represented to people before the invention of modern firearms, inexpensive maps, and waterproof matches.

While Machiavelli spent his exile in the genteel countryside, it was far from the wild, debauched nights he’d spent with the friends of his youth and even further from the palace intrigue of Florentine politics.   

He dedicated the Prince to Giuliano di Lorenzo de’ Medici, the third son of Lorenzo de’ Medici the Magnificent, in hopes of gaining entry to the old, but newly reestablished, halls of power.

The book would go unpublished and, presumably, unread, until after Machiavelli’s death.

During the Middle Ages and Renaissance, humanist writers were obsessed with writing books and philosophizing on “what makes a good prince.” The question became a genre of itself, known as “Mirrors for Princes” and usually focused on how a prince ought to be educated, what virtues make for a good leader, etcetera.  

Machiavelli simply took that idea to its natural conclusion, asking instead, “how does one become a prince” and “how does a prince keep his power?”

While his contemporaries wrote treatises on the best Christian virtues and behaviors to instill in a young king-in-waiting, Machiavelli’s work can be summed up easily as: be a lion, unless you must be a fox.

“So, as a prince is forced to know how to act like a beast, he must learn from the fox and the lion; because the lion is defenseless against traps and a fox is defenseless against wolves. Therefore, one must be a fox in order to recognize traps, and a lion to frighten off the wolves. Those who simply act like lions are stupid.”

[The Prince, Niccolò Machiavelli, Chapter XVIII: How princes should keep their word]

“Those who simply act like lions are stupid.” A lot of writers would do well to heed this line.

One of my least favorite tropes is the over-the-top tyrannical king who rules his people with a bloody iron fist.

Part of my problem with trope of the Tyrannical King is that it is often misused. The writer makes their Tyrant King viciously murder friend and foe alike, they surround him with sycophants and bootlicks, and never consider (beyond the needs of their protagonists and plot) how these actions might affect the ruling ability of a king.

Machiavelli has an entire chapter about those who win their power by crime. He uses an example from antiquity, Agathocles, a man who through treachery and crime, rose to become the ruler of Syracuse. Of this tyrannical king, Machiavelli said this:

“It cannot be called virtue to kill one’s fellow-citizens, betray one’s friends, be without faith, without pity, and without religion; by these methods one may indeed gain power, but not glory. For if the virtues of Agathocles in braving and overcoming perils, and his greatness of soul in supporting and surmounting obstacles be considered, one sees no reason for holding him inferior to any of the most renowned captains. Nevertheless his barbarous cruelty and inhumanity, together with his countless atrocities, do not permit of his being named among the most famous men. We cannot attribute to fortune or virtue that which he achieved without either.”

[The Prince, Niccolò Machiavelli, Chapter VIII: Those who come to power by crime]

The limp, ill-used Tyrant King is a villain, he does villainous things. He tortures little girls for fun and kicks puppies when he’s bored, his life is debauched with wine, women, and blood. He is evil, he is a tyrant and that is the extent of his character. His wickedness stems from the writer’s need to contrast the goodness of their hero with the malfeasance of their villain.  

But one moment of thought and a writer may realize that a king who lets his troops slaughter villages, rape townspeople, and burn farms will soon find his army starving. Starving solider soon turn on that king. This idiot lion, this misused trope, has the potential to be interesting, but much like the tyrant’s strategy, the story is not sustainable and it’s not interesting.

Instead, writers should heed what Machiavelli says next:

“Some may wonder how it came about that Agathocles, and others like him, could, after infinite treachery and cruelty, live secure for many years in their country and defend themselves from external enemies without being conspired against by their subjects…

I believe this arises from the cruelties being exploited well or badly. Well committed may be called those (if it is permissible to use the word well of evil) which are perpetrated once for the need of securing one’s self, and which afterwards are not persisted in, but are exchanged for measures as useful to the subjects as possible. Cruelties ill committed are those which, although at first few, increase rather than diminish with time.”

[The Prince, Niccolò Machiavelli, Chapter VIII: Those who come to power by crime]

Well-committed cruelty—what a concept! Imagine a villain who wins loyalty and love like a hero. Now there’s a story I’d love to read.

“It is to be noted, that in taking a state the conqueror must arrange to commit all his cruelties at once, so as not to have to recur to them every day, and as to be able, by not making fresh changes, to reassure people and win them over by benefiting them.”  

[The Prince, Niccolò Machiavelli, Chapter VIII: Those who come to power by crime]

The chapter concludes, warning would-be tyrants that those who fail to act decisively and craftily (like a lion or fox), should be prepared to always keep a knife in their hands at the ready, because someone will always be trying to shove one into their back.

“…a prince must live with his subjects in such a way that no accident of good or evil fortune can deflect him from his course…”

[The Prince, Niccolò Machiavelli, Chapter VIII: Those who come to power by crime]

Eyes on the prize. Don’t let innate cruelty get in the way of the goal. If you want to write a believable, canny, terrifying Tyrant King, I suggest you take Machiavelli’s advice.

Most of the Prince is like this, salacious advice for how to be cruel without being too cruel. But that’s the easy was to read it. There are some historians and philosophers, like Erica Benner in her book Be Like the Fox, who believes that Machiavelli’s intentions with the Prince were far more noble and far more underhanded than we think.

What if Machiavelli was writing a book to tell the liberty-minded what to expect and how to treat tyrants? What if Machiavelli’s Prince is actually a handbook for heroes?

I’ll admit that the evidence is found more in the life and other writing of Machiavelli, but within the Prince there are some interesting passages regarding republican government and how an elected Prince can hold onto the power given him by the people.

“A man who becomes prince by favor of the people find himself standing alone, and he has near him either no one or very few not prepared to take orders…

The people are more honest in their intentions than the nobles are, because the latter want to oppress the people, whereas they only want not to be oppressed…

…it is necessary for a prince to have the friendship of the people; otherwise he has no remedy in times of adversity.”     

[The Prince, Niccolò Machiavelli, Chapter IX: The constitutional principality]

Later on, Machiavelli goes on to encourage princes to start citizen-militias! Common wisdom states that a tyrant who arms his civilians will soon find those arms used against him.

Why would a man believed to be as evil as Machiavelli, a supporter of cruel tyrants, advise those tyrants that you can’t have good laws without good arms and that with good arms, good laws follow?

Whether you’re writing heroes or villains, Machiavelli’s little book on Princedom is excellent primer on practical politics. Your tyrants will become savvy, cruel, and clever. Your heroes will be wise, cunning, and vicious. You’ll write lions who easily transform into foxes.

Niccolò Machiavelli’s the Prince is an absolute must read for writers. It’s short, it’s punchy, and its one of my favorite books by one of my favorite historical figures.

I like the Penguin Classics version, translated by George Bull. It’s very readable, dispenses with some of the clunky phrasing, and includes historical notes in the back. However, it is also available from the University of Baltimore for free here. I used both translations for the quotes above.

[More Writers Must Read]

Above: Morte di Niccolò Machiavelli. Cesare Felice Giorgio Dell’Acqua (22 July 1821 – 16 February 1905), Italian Painter. Oil on canvas. Housed at the Revoltella Museum, Trieste, Italy.

Writer’s Must Read…the Art of War

Sun Tzu’s Art of War

Sometimes research can be overwhelming. If you’re a writer who finds themselves intimidated by ancient texts, made easily bored by history, or just simply aren’t interested in a specific research topic, you’re not alone. But the simple fact is, as writers, we have a responsibility to relay interesting worlds, ideas, and characters. While a diet of pure fiction is enough to spark imagination, non-fiction helps us to better understand our topic.

Writer’s Must Read is my attempt to offer a map of non-fiction works that I believe have helped me become a well-rounded writer. The range in topic from history (okay, mostly history), to philosophy, to psychology, and even advice manuals.

The Art of War by Master Sun Tzu is something like all-of-the-above. It’s a fantastic piece of written history as well as a treatise on the philosophy of warfare. It covers a very early concept of war psychology, and of course, its main premise is that by following Master Sun, the reader will claim victory in war.

Chinese history is vast and filled to the brim with bloody conflict. Sun Tzu was probably born in the Easter Zhou Period of China; sometime before the Warring States Period. He served as a general and strategist for King Hëlu in the 6th Century BC. He would write The Art of War during this time.

“Warfare is the greatest affair of state, the basis of life and death, the Way (Tao) to survival or extinction. It must therefore be thoroughly pondered and analyzed.”

[Sun Tzu The Art of War Ch. 1 Initial Estimations, Sawyer translation]

From it’s first sentence, Master Sun makes it abundantly clear what his treatise is about. In the violent turbulence of the Zhou Period, victory is war is the knife’s edge between life and death.

“Warfare is the Way (Tao) of deception. Thus although [you are] capable, display incapability to them. When committed to employing your forces, feign inactivity. When [your objective] is nearby, make it appear as if distance; when far away, create the illusion of being nearby.”

[Sun Tzu The Art of War Ch. 1 Initial Estimations, Sawyer translation]

Master Sun lays out his goal and his main premise within the first chapter of his treatise. The Art of War is not a long book by any means, but it’s dense in content. It’s chock full of advice and observations that are stilled studied and relied upon today by modern armies the world over.

But why is any of this relevant to a writer of fiction?

War is a human experience; no culture has ever escaped war and no culture ever will. It is fertile writing ground. Blood is a terrible ink, yet war remains one of the most useful and popular plot devices.

War is hell, this is true, but the men who fight it are far from devils. All men fight for their own reasons and in their own ways and while it’s easy for a writer to explain why a character is fighting, but I’ve seen some writers struggle with the ways men fight. Sometimes making ridiculous blunders that rip readers out of their suspension of belief. I believe many of these misbegotten ideas come from the way war is portrayed on TV.

Now, there’s plenty of wiggle room in fiction, and there should be. If a story is good, no one will notice small tactical blunders (supply lines, trenches, reinforcement). However, when a writer sets out to write a large set-piece battle, it’s easy to fall into the belief that two opposing sides will simply line up and crash their armies together like children with dolls. While that has certainly happened in the annals of history, the vast majority of warfare is fought in much the way Sun Tzu outlines in his treatise.

For example, in Chapter 3 Planning Offensives, Master Sun says:

“Thus the highest realization of warfare is to attack the enemy’s plans; the next is to attack their alliances; next to attack their army; and the lowest is to attack their fortified cities.”

[Sun Tzu The Art of War Ch. 3 Planning Offensives, Sawyer translation]

What Master Sun is saying here is simple. In warfare, the optimal way to defeat an enemy is to attack his plans or his allies. That is, politics, espionage, sabotage—trickery. The next best way to fight your enemy army to army; ambushes, hit-and-runs, plundering villages/towns. The worst way, Master Sun says, is siege warfare. In fact, he goes on to say the “tactic of attacking fortified cities is adopted only when unavoidable.” [Sun Tzu The Art of War Ch. 3 Planning Offensives, Sawyer translation]

History shows that siege warfare is the worst kind of warfare. At the height of the Middle Ages, fortified stone castles were extremely common. Siege warfare—long, grinding, battles of attrition set before stone walls was the order of the day. Those inside the castle may be safe from the swords and spears of the besiegers, but supplies will be limited. You might be able to wait them out, or you can hope to break the siege and launch a successful sortie or pray your allies (if you have any) arrive in time to crush the besiegers against the castle walls and drive the enemy off. Your soldiers will have to work in constant shifts in order to keep watch for the dangers of siege weapons, wall climbers, sappers, and spies.    

But the besiegers will also have their own supply issues and a general must always keep in mind that his non-professional soldiers will be looking to go home ASAP in order to plant/harvest crops. Lack of water and sickness become serious problems for both sides; food goes bad, men die of dysentery and fever, or are mangled in engineering accidents and useless attacks against the walls. Morale sags. There are defectors and deserters on each side.     

With all this in mind, any writer can see how this is fertile ground for storytelling. But they should know that it’s the worst way to fight war. Seeing characters ply each of Sun Tzu’s strategies only to wind up fighting a crushing siege is far more interesting than reading about them blundering onto a 100-yard field to clash swords and spears.

Don’t get me wrong, that can be interesting but battles were hardly fought that way and they typically devolve into high casualties for little reward. Sun Tzu says: “attaining one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the pinnacle of excellence. Subjugating the enemy’s army without fighting is the true pinnacle of excellence.” [Sun Tzu The Art of War Ch. 3 Planning Offensives, Sawyer translation]

Master Sun goes on to give advice on things like morale, espionage, and terrain. He warns of leaders who interfere too much with the actions of generals. In one potent elucidation he notes the five dangerous character flaws in generals:

“One committed to dying can be slain. One committed to living can be captured. One [easily] angered and hasty [to act] can be insulted. One obsessed with being scrupulous and untainted can be shamed. One who loves the people can be troubled.”

[Sun Tzu The Art of War Ch. 8 Nine Changes, Sawyer translation]

The martyr will seek out his martyrdom; the coward will turncoat; the prideful fool will blunder; the glory hound will be too timid. The overly compassionate will commit to lost causes. These are interesting ideas to play with. Not every general character will make mistakes because he’s a prideful idiot. Maybe your protagonist is overly concerned with the lives of villagers? While wanting to protect the weak and save the innocent is commendable, victory demands meat for the grinder, and sometimes a terrible calculation needs to be made. There’s a great story in that tension.

If you want an example from fiction, look no further than Ned Stark of A Song of Ice and Fire. Stark was blinded by his obsession with honor and right-doing. Concerned with the possibility of shame and dishonor, he is neatly dealt with by the less scrupulous. What a boring character Ned would have been had he decided to be a hot-head and died charging into the Red Keep?

Sun Tzu’s Art of War is not the place to stop when it comes to studying warfare, but it is the place to start. If you’re looking to level up your writing, especially when it comes to war and tactics, the Art of War is an accessible and enjoyable read. There are dozens of translations, even a graphic novel if you feel that pictures would help you understand the concepts laid out. No prior knowledge is needed to understand it and it will improve your writing, from your generals, to your kings, to your CEOs, and politicians.

I believe that Sun Tzu’s Art of War is a must read for all writers.

Above: statue of Sun Tzu, Chinese style gardens in Japan. Enchō-en (燕趙園) are located in Yurihama, Tottori Prefecture, Japan.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑