"A prince, therefore should have no care or thought but for war, and the regulations and training it requires, and should apply himself exclusively to this as his peculiar province; for war is the sole art looked for in one who rules" . .
This is not far from what we aspire for in a republican society. Machiavelli's belief is concurrent with most of the nations of the free world: a good leader's main responsibility is to preserve his country first. "Machiavelli says that rulers should be truthful, keep promises, and the like when doing so will not harm the state, and that they conquer and preserve the state, he should not shrink from wrongdoing when the preservation of the state requires this. Thus, the classical concept of civic virtue, which is a moral code applicable to rulers and subjects alike, is critically transformed in Machiavelli's concept of virtu, which pertains to rulers of states and can be at odds with moral virtue" . .
The conclusion therefore is that Machiavelli's virtu is not of moral character, but of what is best or the utilitarian needs of the State. Virtu is characterized by its flexibility because the ruler is given the prerogative to mold it in consonance to a given situation whereas "virtue" is more rigid, as Plato would required the just ruler to behave the same all the time.
We can clearly see Machiavelli's objective examination of republican leadership. Machiavelli was a realist; he was concerned with how things were in reality, not how things could be if the world was perfect. "Machiavelli critically analyzes the crucial characteristics of successful rulers when they are not commanding armies. Similarly, when Machiavelli discusses the concepts of cruelty and mercy, he presents examples to show that actions which seem at first glance to be cruel are merciful in the circumstances, and vice versa" .
The Citizen.
As a testament to its adaptability and flexibility, Hanna Pitkin believes that virtu applies differently to different individuals.