It was not so different for Agathocles, who freed Sicily from Carthage (30). Of a humble beginning as a potter's son, Agathocles rose to be King of Syracuse because he was able to take the reins of power and to defend himself and his sphere of control (30). His win over Carthage demonstrated that Agathocles was a tactician, capable to assessing a defensive and offensive military strategy (30). Agathocles won his place in Syracuse, by confronting the opposing forces and winning over them with sheer force and strategic attack (30). He did not let loyalty, friendship, faith, or family stop him from winning the prize upon which he had set his mind on having; Syracuse (30). Machiavelli says that Agathocles cannot be judged a poor military tactician, but he was, like Hiero, was a ruthless and murderous leader (31).

With these backgrounds, Machiavelli still puts both of these men in the ranks of men of greater morals, like Moses, Cyrus, Romulus, and Theseus (20). How, the question is raised, can Machiavelli do this? The answer is simple, because the measure used by Machiavelli is not a moral one of princely capability and ability. Like these other leaders, both Hiero and Agathocles were capable and able to overcome opposing forces no less great than those faced by Moses, Cyrus, Romulus, and Theseus. Also, not so different than their more moral counterparts, Hiero and Agathocles came into their princely right by ability, not fortune. Who, Machiavelli says, can say that because Hiero and Agathocles were less moral, that they were less deserving as they came into their princely rights the same way as the others; that it is a perhaps a question of where one's loyalties lay in assessing their rise to their princedoms that might cause one to judge them by their morals rather than by their abilities (20-21).

Actually, as Machiavelli points out,...

That is that each man understood the need for to stand amongst his own kind when doing battle; or that to wear the armor of another nation or another warrior was to wear a weight that could bring one down (23). It is better to go into battle, Machiavelli points out than to die in battle in the armor of another man whose allegiance is not a shared one (23). This actually is what Hiero and Agathocles demonstrated when they dealt with the mercenary forces, and secured their princely rights their own deeds, their own terms.
Machiavelli treats each of the men he introduces with, if not a fairness, with a practical assessment of their abilities and skills as men possessing leadership skills and abilities that were measured differently perhaps, but brought about the same results. That the others were men of greater moral, more noble in their goals, did not make the goals of Hiero or Agathocles less important, because they, too, secured Syracuse for the citizens of Syracuse.

Machiavelli says:

How praiseworthy it is for a prince to keep his word and to live by integrity and not by deceit everyone knows; nevertheless, one sees from the experience of our times that the princes who have accomplished great deeds are those who have cared little for keeping their promises and who have known how to manipulate the minds of men by shrewdness; and in the end they have surpassed those who laid their foundations upon loyalty (58)."

Machiavelli says there are two ways to win; the way of the noble minded and moral, and the way of the lesser man, but whose end result is no different than that of the noble minded moral man (58). Machiavelli says that one must know the other, or cannot be victorious in facing the force of opposition. There were, if we look…