“‘Forgive the traitor’—is that what you are saying?”
“Old as I am, I think it would be regrettable not to,” Owen said. “Duke Vargas is a person who could command troops for another two, three hundred years. Is there anyone in this country who could lead the Air Force as well as he?”
Perhaps emboldened by Owen’s words, Piltory began to argue forcefully once more. “Sire! You yourself said, ‘If you have a gift, I will put it to use,’ didn’t you?! Are you going to lose a rare gift like his?! I cannot believe that Duke Vargas, a man who bared his fangs against you because he trusted in his friend, is somehow inferior to us nobles who opportunistically refused to take a side! I beseech you, do as Duchess Walter has said and lighten his sentence!”
Having listened to their words, Souma closed his eyes for a moment, and then… gave the order.
“…Take them away.”
In an instant, soldiers surrounded the two and removed them from the hall. Owen quietly obeyed the soldiers with a disappointed expression, while in contrast, Piltory continued to cry, “Sire! Please, reconsider!” even as he was being escorted out.
Once they were taken away, an unpleasant silence fell over the hall. Everyone held their breath, unable to say anything until Souma broke the silence.
“Are there any other opinions?”
The other nobles’ opinions were all some variant of “Sentence both of them to death.”
“The law is the law.”
“If you let this pass, it sets a poor example to your other vassals.”
“Any fool who would oppose Your Majesty can be of no use.”
…And it went on like that. While what they were saying sounded reasonable, it was clear they were thinking, “We don’t want to displease the king like those two.”
…
I… was having a hard time understanding it. True, the nobles who had remained feared Souma, and they would have a hard time plotting against him. However, when I compared the two who’d been expelled with the twelve who remained, I had to question which group would really of more benefit to Souma and to the country.
…No. Don’t doubt him. I decided to believe in Souma, didn’t I?
I pinched my thighs. As I desperately tried to suppress my internal conflict, I heard Souma whisper, “This is something… that has to be done.”
Souma?
“I understand your positions.” Souma stood and raised his right hand up high.
When they saw that gesture, Duchess Walter’s eyes went wide, the nobles held their breath, and Castor and Carla lowered their heads in resignation.
Souma swung his hand down as he gave a short order. “Do it.”
In the next instant, there was the sound of a blade slicing through the air and a splash of blood. And then…
…twelve heads fell to the ground.
The book I referred back to when deciding how I should act as king was The Prince.
Machiavelli’s The Prince was called “the devil’s book,” and for hundreds of years after it was released, it was attacked by the Christian church. The parts most often singled out were, “Chapter VIII–Concerning Those Who Have Obtained a Principality by Wickedness” and “Chapter XVII–Concerning Cruelty and Clemency, and Whether it is Better to be Loved Than Feared.”
Chapter VIII had as its theme “even though a good, upstanding ruler can lose his country, one who seized his state through vile and treacherous means may, thereafter, live out the rest of his life in peace, without facing rebellion from his people.” In it, Machiavelli said, “I believe that this follows from cruelties being badly or properly used.”
Also, in Chapter XVII, he reasoned that men are self-serving creatures, and if asked to harm one of two people, they would chose to harm a person they love over a person they fear. This meant “it is much safer to be feared than to be loved.”
He also said, “When a prince is with his army, it is quite necessary for him to disregard the reputation of cruelty,” noting, “Hannibal of Carthage faced no dissension among his troops or against himself, whether in victory or in defeat. This arose from nothing else than his inhuman cruelty.”
The Christian church, which preached love, attacked these portions, saying, “What is the meaning of this? Recommending that princes, who should rule through virtue, engage in acts of cruelty!” It angered them, and The Prince was banned.
Then, partially because of its established reputation as the devil’s book, its content wasn’t closely considered, with extreme statements being given the most focus. It got to the point where misreadings like, “The Prince approves of the use of cruelty,” or, “The Prince says to massacre all who oppose you,” went unchallenged. It also saw occasional calls to reevaluate this tendency.
However, what I want to say firmly is: Machiavelli did not go into extensive detail about cruelties.
In Chapter VIII, he did say, “An usurper ought to examine closely into all those cruelties which it is necessary for him to inflict, and to do them all at one stroke so as not to have to repeat them.” But when it comes to the content, he only listed historical examples, and at no point did Machiavelli himself say, “Do it like this!”
It was the same in Chapter XVII. He credited Hannibal’s wonderful deeds to his inhuman cruelty, but he didn’t elaborate on what cruelty was. Now, what were these cruelties that Machiavelli said were to be done all at once, or the cruelty that was the burden a prince must bear?
First, Machiavelli said in Chapter XVII that, “A prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that he avoids hatred,” and noted that, to avoid being hated, “He must abstain from the property of his citizens and subjects and from their women.” Then, in the same section, he said, “When it is necessary to proceed against the life of someone, he must do it on proper justification and for manifest cause.”
This could be reworded, “Even if a prince has just cause, he shouldn’t lay a hand on his subject’s land, assets, or women, and killing is only permissible with proper cause. (Which is to say, killing without a proper cause is not permissible.)”
In other words, when Machiavelli spoke of “the use of cruelties,” he limited it to “the killing of those for whom you have just cause.” Therefore, how far can those justifiable killings be permitted? Was he saying, as the church condemned him for, that you should “kill all of your enemies”?
I am well aware that opinions are divided on that point, but I believe the answer is “No.”
That is because, in Chapter XX of The Prince, Machiavelli himself said this:
“Princes, especially new ones, have found more fidelity and assistance in those men who in the beginning of their rule were distrusted than among those who in the beginning were trusted.”
With those who may have been hostile at first, if they came to need assistance to support themselves, they could be won over with ease. Once they had been won over, they would work desperately to dispel the bad impression they had left, and so they were much more useful than those who, having not opposed the new prince at first, lived in security.
For an example in Japanese history, the fierce general who had served under Nobunaga Oda, Katsuie Shibata, should serve as an easy-to-understand example.
When Nobunaga’s younger brother rebelled against him, Katsuie sided with the younger brother at first, but later surrendered and became his vassal. From there, Katsuie rendered distinguished service under Nobunaga and became his chief retainer. However, if his efforts had been deemed insufficient, he might have been banished like Hidesada Hayashi, who had surrendered with him. That must have been part of the reason Katsuie worked with such desperation.