Sparta is presented as a location whose political history clarifies two contrasting problems of rule: how a conquering power can hold a city accustomed to freedom, and how a prince can survive when his people remain loyal. Its examples are not treated as a continuous narrative of Spartan history, but as sharply selected cases in a comparative argument about conquest, institutional control, and political security.

Sparta and the Governance of Free Cities

Sparta appears first in the discussion of cities that had lived under their own laws and in freedom before acquisition. The Spartans held Athens and Thebes by establishing oligarchies in those cities, attempting to govern free communities through a restricted regime dependent on the conquering power. The arrangement ultimately failed, and Athens and Thebes were lost. The example demonstrates that an imposed oligarchy may provide temporary control without extinguishing the political memory and independent vitality of a free city.

The contrast is drawn with the Roman treatment of Capua, Carthage, and Numantia, which Rome destroyed and therefore never lost. When Rome tried instead to hold Greece in the manner of Sparta, leaving the cities free and allowing them to retain their own laws, the attempt failed; Rome was forced to destroy many cities before securing the Province. Sparta's method thus occupies an intermediate but unstable position between tolerating freedom and annihilating the institutions that sustain it.

Freedom, Memory, and Rebellion

The Spartan example supports the claim that a city accustomed to freedom retains a more formidable political memory than a population long accustomed to princely obedience. Liberty and ancient laws can become rallying names under which rebellion protects itself. Neither the passage of time nor benefits conferred by a new ruler necessarily erases that memory, and a setback suffered by the conqueror can reactivate it.

This argument distinguishes republics from territories governed by a hereditary prince. Where a princely line has been extinguished, citizens trained to obey but deprived of their ruler may be unable to agree upon a leader of their own and may be readily attached to a stranger. Republics, by contrast, possess stronger vitality, fiercer hatred, and a keener desire for revenge because the memory of former freedom continues to trouble them. Sparta's institutional history is therefore used to make freedom a durable political force rather than a merely constitutional arrangement.

Nabis and the Strength of Popular Support

Sparta returns in a different role through Nabis, its prince. Nabis was attacked by the whole force of Greece and by a Roman army strengthened by victory, yet he defended both his country and his crown. At the moment of danger, he had only a small number of subjects from whom he needed to protect himself. The scale of the external threat makes the internal condition decisive: because the people were not broadly hostile, his available security was sufficient.

The example qualifies the maxim that anyone who builds on the people builds on mire. That saying may apply to a private citizen who expects popular favor to rescue him from enemies or magistrates, but not to a prince capable of command, courageous in misfortune, and careful in practical precautions. Such a ruler can animate the community through his bearing and courage, while his preparations prevent popular allegiance from becoming a mere hope. In this sense, Sparta supplies the book with a counter-image to the cities whose remembered freedom undermines their conquerors: popular attachment can itself become a defensive foundation.

Sparta in the Comparative Political Argument

Sparta is repeatedly placed beside Rome, the Macedonian monarchy, the government of Darius, and the examples of Francesco Sforza and Cesare Borgia. In the argument about newly acquired territories, the decisive variables are not simply the merit of the conqueror but the character of the state conquered, the institutions left in place, and the relationship between ruler and population. The Spartan oligarchies in Athens and Thebes show the weakness of ruling free cities through dependent local elites; Nabis shows the strength available to a prince whose subjects are not his enemies.

The location therefore carries a double political meaning. Sparta represents a conquering model that could impose order without securing permanence, yet it also becomes the setting from which the value of popular good-will is measured. Across these references, its significance lies less in local description than in contrast: free institutions preserve the capacity for revenge and rebellion, while a ruler who commands the confidence of his people may withstand overwhelming external force.