.
Machiavelli would have agreed with Hobbes that the fight for power does disrupt peace. However, Machiavelli writes that this conflict can actually be beneficial to the state as long as the men striving for power are of good virtue. Machiavelli writes that the clashes between Rome's nobility and populous was". the primary factor making for Rome's continuing freedom" (Book 1-Ch 4). This is because as long as good men were sovereigns, both sides of a social issue could be heard and laws that best served the entire populace were made. However, Machiavelli would have argued to that no matter what principles and laws a state enacts to prevent disorder, "all men are wicked and will always give vent to their evil impulses whenever they have the chance to" (1-3) and by example he would say that the Roman glory years were the three hundred years that the republic form of government stood, but fell eventually because the government was controlled by the wealthiest and most powerful men and not the most noble. He then goes on in chapter five to write that the biggest threat to peace in a republic are "[people] who want to acquire new power, or those anxious not to lose the power they have." According to Machiavelli then, the vast majority of people who seek power or maintain power will do so only to for their own selfish impulses and will do whatever is necessary to acquire power.
St. Augustine would agree that vanity is wrong and results in corruption of the state because of his staunch support of the church and its principles. He would have also strongly agreed with Machiavelli that "the Romans enjoyed greater harmony and a purer state of society between the second and third Punic wars than at any other time," and would attribute this to Hobbes" idea of natural law in that "the cause of this was not their love of good order, but their fear lest the peace they had with Carthage might be broken" (2-18).