Liber III, Pars III — Quid est militia, et ad quae est instituta,et quot omnis bellica operatio sub militia continetur. Cap. I.

Liber III, Pars III — Quid est militia, et ad quae est instituta,et quot omnis bellica operatio sub militia continetur. Cap. I.

After discussing the two parts of this third book, it has been shown what the ancient philosophers thought about the governance of the city and the kingdom, and it must be determined how the city and kingdom exist in times of peace. Next, we need to discuss warfare, so that kings and princes may know how wars should be undertaken. For, as Vegetius points out in his work on military affairs, the skill in warfare contributes more to achieving victory than does the number or strength of those fighting. Military operations, as will be evident in what follows, fall under the category of military affairs; therefore, if we wish to discuss military operations, we need to understand what militia is and what it is established for. It should be understood, therefore, that militia is a kind of prudence, or a certain type of prudence. As for the present, we can distinguish five types of prudence: namely, individual prudence, economic prudence, governing prudence, political or civil prudence, and military prudence. For someone is said to have individual or particular prudence when they know how to govern themselves and manage their affairs; and this is a lesser form of prudence than economic and governing prudence. For it is less to know how to govern oneself than to know how to govern a household, a city, or a kingdom. The second type of prudence is called economic. For a person is called prudent because, as is clear from the seventh book of the Ethics, they know how to act wisely. To counsel well and to direct toward a good end is required; therefore, where different kinds of good are found, different types of prudence are also found: thus, the good of the household and the good of the whole family is different from the good of a particular person, just as the common good is different from the good of a singular individual; economic prudence, by which one knows how to govern the household and family, must be distinct from the prudence by which one knows how to govern oneself. The third type of prudence is called regnative or positive law. For just as a singular person is part of the household, so the household is part of the city and the kingdom; and just as the common good is different from the good of a singular person, so the good of the city and kingdom is different from the domestic good. Therefore, regnative and positive law prudence, which is required in a king and ruler, whose role is to enact laws and govern the kingdom and city, is distinct from economic prudence, which is required in a head of household, whose role is to govern the home: indeed, the greater the good of the city and kingdom exceeds the domestic good and the good of any particular person, the more the prudence required in a king must exceed the prudence of a head of household or of any particular person. For this reason, it has been rightly said that Vegetius states in the first book on military matters that no one is more fitting to know better or more than a prince, whose knowledge can benefit everyone. Thus, in educating kings and princes, we have divided this entire book into three books. In the first book, we taught that a king is prudent in the sense that he is a person in himself and knows how to govern himself. In the second book, we taught him as a head of a household, and how he must manage domestic goods. The king or prince should possess all three types of prudence. These are namely particular, economic, and ruling prudence. The fourth type of prudence is called political or civil. For just as an excellent prudence is required in a ruler to know how to govern others, so in every citizen, a certain prudence is required to know how to fulfill the laws and commands of the ruler. For a citizen does not obey a ruler or king in the same way a hammer obeys a smith; because in a hammer there is no understanding, but it is merely acted upon by the smith, whereas in a citizen, a certain prudence is required through which he has a good opinion of what is commanded by the king. This prudence differs from particular prudence, which we placed in the first type. For one thing, a person knows how to govern themselves as something within themselves, and for another, they know how to be subject to a ruler. Moreover, even if someone were to lead a solitary life, they would still need to have some measure of wisdom to know how to govern themselves: yet they would not possess civil, economic, or ruling wisdom, since there would be no city or part of a city. The fifth type of wisdom is called military. For the governance of a kingdom and a city, if it is just and orderly, is likened to what we see in one and the same person. Thus, just as every person has two virtues of the soul. One by which they pursue good and flee from evil. And another by which they attack and resist those who prohibit. So every city and kingdom needs a double virtue and a double wisdom. This includes the positive laws and military matters. So that through positive law, the whole city and the entire kingdom may pursue what is beneficial and avoid what is harmful: through military means and through military operations, they may engage and overcome obstacles and prohibitions. Military matters are thus considered a certain kind of prudence, through which enemies and obstacles to civil and common good are overcome. From this, it is clear what the purpose of military service is. For just as laws primarily concern the common good, so military service is primarily instituted for the defense of the common good, whether of the city or of the kingdom. Therefore, since the common good is seen to be directly impeded by the attack of enemies, and consequently by the sedition of the citizens themselves, and by the oppression of weak persons, we can say that just as it primarily concerns a strong person to conduct himself well in military operations, so it also primarily concerns a soldier to conduct himself well in military actions and to suppress the obstacles posed by enemies: consequently, it pertains to them according to royal command and the orders of the ruler to prevent all citizen seditions and all oppressions of those in the kingdom, through which the tranquility of the citizens and the common good can be disturbed. This military prudence, therefore, is especially fitting for a king. For although the execution of wars and the removal of obstacles to the common good pertains to the soldiers themselves, and also to those to whom the king or prince wishes to commit such matters: yet knowing how wars should be conducted and how obstacles to the common good can be carefully removed primarily pertains to the ruler. From this, it can be understood what kind of people should be admitted to military service. For military service seems to be a kind of prudence in warfare, ordered toward the common good. For soldiers seem to conduct themselves in warfare like teachers and scholars do in other fields of knowledge. Therefore, just as no one can become a teacher in other fields of knowledge unless it is clear that they are learned in that art, so no one should be admitted to military rank unless it is clear that they love the good of the kingdom and the common good, and unless it is established that they are good in warfare; and that they are willing, according to the commands of the leader, to prevent civil unrest, to fight for justice and for rights, and to remove anything that might obstruct the common good. From this, it can also be understood that all military operations can be contained under military service. For although it may happen that infantry or cavalry engage in battle without being soldiers, soldiers must nonetheless be masters of warfare and leaders of others in battle; thus, it is said that military operations are contained under military service.