#it's actually the exact opposite of what Collenuccio claims in that one report from urbino iirc

[ducavalentinos]

I’m working on the borgia asks my lovely anon(s) send me about Cesare and I’m writing here and reading some quotes and I just had random thought:

Cesare’s biographers, Borgia biographers in general, usually claim that Cesare’s good administration of the Romagna, his consideration for the inhabitants of the cities he conquered had nothing to do with any genuine personal concern of his. It was just egotist and pragmatic measures to ensure the favour of the people to his side, and so making it easier to establish and maintain his power in these places. And here’s the thing: They’re not entirely wrong, it would be hard to deny he acted on his self-interest,—not that it really matters tbh since in politics, at least as far as I’m concerned, concrete actions weighs more than intentions when making a judgment of a government. Intentions are nothing but an sketch, what truly impacts people lives in the end, are actions. And on that front, it’s equally hard to deny (although some scholars do try) that Cesare’s actions were positive for the Romagna—but then again I don’t think it’s so black and white as they make it seem.

A quote from of Julius Caesar’s biographer, Cesare’s role model and hero, gets closer to the political mind and the complexity of both men: 

“Caesar was a paradox as a politician. On one hand his priority was always Caesar. He wanted to advance himself. But on the other hand, instead of always supporting the side of the wealth and powerful, he would try to extend more benefits to ordinary people.” - Barry Strauss.

Of course Cesare put himself and his family first, of course he was ambitious and he wanted to advance himself, and it is a wise to make your subjects love you instead of hating you, there’s a pragmatic, some would even say opportunistic side to that, or even a sort of a “populist policy” even though the term populist is a confusing one with many definitions, and it is sometimes used pejoratively or as a synonymous for demagogy too, and I have my own disagreements with that on some cases, but in Cesare’s case in particular, it’s clear he is linked to these political concepts because he was a charismatic and strong leader, who was popular among his subjects, and whose policies tended to benefit them more than previous rulers who exploited them with heavy taxes with little return towards their stability or safety of their goods and lives, and oppressed them violently if they dared to complain. In a way, Cesare was following his father's policy along with a more than evident influenced policy from his mancrush mentioned above.

But at the same time, just as Bradford concedes to Lucrezia, that when she had the opportunity to express herself, she would prove to be compassionate and good (and she followed both her brother and father's policies as well at Spoleto and Ferrara so yeah it was a family thing) the same can and should also be applied to Cesare. With the administrative measures he took in the Romagna, a case could be made that although his actions might have been the result of a pragmatic policy, they could also have been the result of his own convictions about governing, and a genuine concern. We can see that wherever he was in position of power, he proved to be good, compassionate and just for those under his rule, while his alleged "cruelty" was as Woodward says: “severity of the sort needed to repress crime and to nip political disorders in the bud.” Otherwise peace and prosperity are impossible and you cannot govern at all. These different notions can coexist, it doesn’t have to be one or the other and I think it’s a more reasonable assessment than to say he was your “typical demagogue” as Deus misleadingly describes him, or that everything he did was only for selfish reasons. Clearly it wasn't, Leslie Garner in his work about Cesare acknowledges that, and he was hardly a sympathizer of him.

We know that he listened patiently to all the complaints made by the inhabitants of Forlì, even though he didn’t really had to do that, he could have listened for a few hours maybe, and then delegated to someone else on his staff. If his concern was only a front to gain popular support as it is assumed, that would have had sufficed imo. His popularity wouldn’t have suffered because just the mere fact someone was listening to them at all was, in itself, a suprise for these citizens. But he made it a point to be there himself through the whole thing, and to also punish his own men in order to give them, his new subjects, justice. That shows his commitment to some degree, it shows he was deathly serious about his bans against any plunder or violence against the citizens, it wasn’t just pretty words to please them and later on forgetten, surprisingly. He did that more than once. It was important to him that things were done right, and that justice was made. Even Sacerdote, who like Leslie Garner, was hardly a sympathizer of Cesare and his family, has to grant him that he was "a lover of justice" and we see it through his own letters as well.

If Cesare appealed to the masses exclusively for his own ambition and benefit, which sometimes leads to a ludicrous comparison to Nero for example lol, since he is known as that type of emperor (most likely unjustly) it would have been more transparent imo, eventually the true colors of a leader make themselves known, esp. considering all eyes were on Cesare, all the time. His efforts to administer his duchy alongside his close proximity, and the time he spent with citizens of Cesena, Imola, Forlì, to the point that he even criticized by the members of the elite and had to tone it down because oh my god! a ruler cannot be this acessible these peasants! what is this?! The scandal! was as much part of a clever policy as it was a characteristic of his person and his own preferements.

It’s almost impossible not to notice that he actually seemed to prefer the company of 1) his Spaniards and 2) his romagnols subjects than that of nobles and their ambassadors, which could help explain in part why he made himself so hard to be accessed by them. And honestly I can’t say I blame him. I too, would rather be in the company of people that wouldn’t just love to stab me to death if they could, or regarded themselves superior to me because of their ancient bloodline, or that I knew that in my presence they were all compliments and smiles, but the moment they walked out the door, they would keep insulting me and my family and writing half truths or lies about me. 

The point is: as with everything concerning Cesare, it’s almost never one thing or the other, just as his actions can not be explained by one reason alone. It's an ensemble of many factors, from his personal feelings to his own personal set of beliefs and vision, to his political thinking, and the ever-changing political scenarios around him. And I think his administration goes into that, a lot. More than anything else in his life I’d say.