examples...

This was a departure from Renaissance norm, and his training and background are such that he can't help but also allude frequently to classical and Biblical figures, such as Hiero the Syracusan, King David, Moses, and Julius Caesar. He focuses, for instance, on David as a man who used his own weapons in the fight against Golaith, an example of relying on what you know and can trust, even if it is simpler than the latest technology.

In a famous chapter, in which Machiavelli considers whether it is better for a prince to be cruel or kind, he cites with approval the cruelty of Cesare Borgia, because this ruthlessness consolidated his rule. He also writes of Hannibal, whose many disparate troops, of different races and ethnicities, worked together harmoniously because they feared him:

This arose from nothing else than his inhuman cruelty, which, with his boundless valour, made him revered and terrible in the sight of his soldiers, but without that cruelty, his other virtues were not sufficient to produce this effect.

Machiavelli is being true to the demands of Renaissance scholarship when he uses examples from the ancient world, which was much studied and revered, to buttress his claims. He also makes frequent use of contemporaries he admires (and also some who failed). A list of everyone he alludes to would be long: the larger point is that he establishes through these examples that he has delved deeply into studying the subject of what makes an effective prince. What is rarer in The Prince is when Machiavelli makes reference to no examples at all and simply states what he believes to be true (but at times he does this too).

Machiavelli mentions the Duke of Ferrara in his discussion of hereditary states. There is little discussion of the Duke of Ferrara beyond the note that he withstood attacks from the Venetians and Pope Julius to maintain a hereditary rule. He also mentions King Louis XII in his discussion of the difficulties of adding new states or regions to existing countries. The discussion of King Louis mostly revolves around how he lost various territories because he failed to apply the lessons of effective conquest and rule over those lands. Alexander the Great is mentioned as an example of effective conquest and to introduce lessons related to maintaining an empire after the death of the conqueror. Specifically, Machiavelli focuses on why Alexander's empire did not immediately break apart upon his death.

Four specific individuals, Cyrus, Moses, Theseus, and Romulus, are discussed because of their success in establishing empires or nations based on their own meritorious actions. Machiavelli seems to admire these individuals and includes a lesser example: Hiero the Syracusan. For each of these individuals, Machiavelli notes that his people were scattered, weak, or oppressed and, by dint of strong leadership and vision, each leader was able to bring the people together and make them strong enough to defend themselves and conquer others.