The Principle of Choosing Sides

The Principle of Choosing Sides states that a Prince should act openly and decisively when powerful neighbours enter into conflict. Neutrality, though it may appear to offer temporary safety, usually leaves a State distrusted by both camps and exposed to the victor. Taking a side creates obligations, reputation, and strategic influence, but the choice must be governed by prudence: a Prince should not place himself at the mercy of a stronger ally unless necessity makes such a partnership unavoidable.

Definition and Political Reputation

A Prince is esteemed when he proves himself a “stanch friend and a thorough foe,” openly declaring for one side rather than hiding behind neutrality. The principle treats political reputation as a practical instrument rather than a matter of personal bravado. A ruler who refuses to commit is regarded by the victor as a doubtful friend, while the defeated party remembers that he would not share its fortunes sword in hand. Neutrality therefore sacrifices both the gratitude of the winning side and the loyalty of the losing side.

The same logic applies whether the Prince fears the eventual victor or has little reason to fear either combatant. If one neighbour is likely to become dangerous, the Prince must join the other rather than wait passively for the result. If neither side is strong enough to threaten him, choosing a side is even more advantageous, because his support can help destroy one rival while keeping the other dependent upon him. In either case, refusal to act gives away influence without securing safety.

The Cost of Neutrality

The example of Antiochus and the Achaian League illustrates the danger. When Antiochus entered Greece at the urging of the Aetolians to drive out Rome, he sent envoys to the Achaians, who were friendly to Rome, and urged them to remain neutral. Rome instead pressed them to take up arms on its behalf. The Roman envoy argued that neutrality would bring neither favour nor fame, but would leave the Achaians as the prize of the victor.

The example exposes neutrality as a form of postponed decision rather than an escape from danger. The side that is not truly friendly will invite neutrality because it wants to prevent the State from aiding its opponent; the genuine friend will call for an open declaration. Irresolute Princes commonly choose the neutral path to escape immediate danger, but the temporary relief only leaves them without allies when the contest is decided.

Benefits of Declared Support

If the side supported by the Prince wins, the victor remains under an obligation to him. Even a powerful victor who holds the Prince at his mercy has reason to remember the aid received, and victory is rarely so complete that justice, reputation, and political debt can be ignored altogether. The Prince has converted a dangerous neighbour into a potential friend by sharing the risk before the outcome was certain.

If the supported side loses, the Prince is still favourably regarded by the defeated party. While capable of doing so, that party may aid him, and the Prince becomes a companion in a cause that may later recover. The principle thus values loyalty across changing fortunes: support given before victory can retain political meaning after defeat, whereas neutrality leaves no side with a reason to defend the neutral State.

When both combatants are too weak to threaten the Prince, active support is more useful still. By helping one defeat the other, the Prince makes the surviving power dependent on his assistance. The ally cannot prevail without him and therefore remains within his influence. Choosing sides is consequently not merely a defensive measure; it can be a way to shape the balance of power.

Limits and Historical Warning

The principle does not recommend joining every alliance. A Prince should be careful never to attack others alongside a power stronger than himself unless necessity compels him. If the stronger partner triumphs, the Prince has placed himself at that partner’s mercy, exchanging an immediate enemy for a superior ally who may become the greater danger.

The Venetians provide the warning. Although they could have declined, they joined France against the Duke of Milan, and the alliance brought about their ruin. The case shows that an open commitment can be strategically wrong when it gives decisive advantage to a stronger associate. Commitment is therefore not sufficient by itself; the Prince must judge relative power, the likely consequences of victory, and whether he can remain independent after the war.

Relation to Preventive Statecraft

The Principle of Choosing Sides belongs to a broader doctrine of anticipating political disorders. A ruler governing a Province with different laws and language should strengthen weaker neighbours, weaken stronger powers, and prevent any equally formidable stranger from entering. Discontented inhabitants may invite such a stranger through ambition or fear, after which lesser powers readily join the newcomer against the established government. A Prince who fails to manage these surrounding forces loses what he has acquired or preserves it only amid endless trouble.

The same preventive reasoning explains why Rome confronted Philip and Antiochus in Greece rather than allowing them to become stronger and meeting them later in Italy. Political disorders are easiest to cure while still remote and difficult to recognize; once they become obvious, they may already be beyond remedy. War is not truly avoided by postponement. It is merely deferred until the opposing side has gained the advantage.

The failure of France in Italy demonstrates the cost of ignoring this logic. France ceded Romagna to Pope Alexander VI and Naples to Spain in the hope of avoiding war, while also permitting the Church and Spain to grow powerful. The result was not safety but the loss of Lombardy. The broader lesson is that a ruler who raises another power to greatness may ultimately be undone by the power he has created.

Strategic Judgment

The principle finally rests on accepting that no policy is perfectly safe. A State cannot escape one danger without risking another, and every available course contains uncertainty. Prudence consists in distinguishing degrees of disadvantage and accepting the lesser evil as a form of advantage. Choosing sides is therefore a discipline of controlled exposure: the Prince accepts the risks of commitment in order to avoid the greater vulnerability produced by indecision, while refusing alliances that would make him dependent on a superior power.