Read the passage from chapter 17 of The Prince. That it is true his other virtues would not have been sufficient for him may be
proved by the case of Scipio, that most excellent man, not only of his own times but within the memory of man, against whom, nevertheless, his army rebelled in Spain; this arose from nothing but his too great forbearance, which gave his soldiers more license than is consistent with military discipline. For this he was upbraided in the Senate by Fabius Maximus, and called the corrupter of the Roman soldiery. The Locrians were laid waste by a legate of Scipio, yet they were not avenged by him, nor was the insolence of the legate punished, owing entirely to his easy nature. Insomuch that someone in the Senate, wishing to excuse him, said there were many men who knew much better how not to err than to correct the errors of others. This disposition, if he had been continued in the command, would have destroyed in time the fame and glory of Scipio; but, he being under the control of the Senate, this injurious characteristic not only concealed itself, but contributed to his glory. How does anecdotal evidence in this passage support the claim that cruelty is a necessary part of leadership?
In this passage, Machiavelli wants to demonstrate that cruelty is a necessary part of leadership. In order to do so, he uses the example of Scipio. Machiavelli tells us that Scipio is remembered for having been an exceptionally virtuous man. However, despite this fact, Scipio is remembered as an ineffective leader. Although he was capable of doing no wrong, he was not capable of correcting the wrongs of others. Machiavelli tells us that Scipio was a kind man, but an "easy" one, and that this led him to be an ineffective leader who did not earn enough respect from his soldiers due to his lack of cruelty.
