same tranquility wherein these republics were kept, one of two courses
must have been followed by her legislators; for either, like the
Venetians, they must have refrained from employing the commons in war,
or else, like the Spartans, they must have closed their country to
foreigners. Whereas, in both particulars, they did the opposite, arming
the commons and increasing their number, and thus affording endless
occasions for disorder. And had the Roman commonwealth grown to be more
tranquil, this inconvenience would have resulted, that it must at the
same time have grown weaker, since the road would have been closed to
that greatness to which it came, for in removing the causes of her
tumults, Rome must have interfered with the causes of her growth.

And he who looks carefully into the matter will find, that in all human
affairs, we cannot rid ourselves of one inconvenience without running
into another. So that if you would have your people numerous and
warlike, to the end that with their aid you may establish a great
empire, you will have them of such a sort as you cannot afterwards
control at your pleasure; while should you keep them few and unwarlike,
to the end that you may govern them easily, you will be unable, should
you extend your dominions, to preserve them, and will become so
contemptible as to be the prey of any who attack you. For which reason
in all our deliberations we ought to consider where we are likely to
encounter least inconvenience, and accept that as the course to be
preferred, since we shall never find any line of action entirely free
from disadvantage.

Rome might, therefore, following the example of Sparta, have created a
king for life and a senate of limited numbers, but desiring to become a
great empire, she could not, like Sparta, have restricted the number
of her citizens. So that to have created a king for life and a limited