The leader of the "chicken men," as Machiavelli calls them, lied and told the consul that the chickens had eaten. However, some of the other chicken men spread rumors of the true outcome of the omen among the troops, which only lowered morale. To resolve this public relations nightmare, the consul devised an ingenious solution. He stated that, from his perspective, the omens looked favorable, and that if he had been lied to about the chicken, the consequences would fall solely on the head of the chief chicken man. He then proceeded to place all the chicken men on the front lines. When the chief chicken keeper died in battle, the consul declared that if the man had indeed been a liar, then his death had restored the army to the gods’ favor. As a result, morale was restored, and a crisis was averted.

Through a remarkably clever scheme, Papirius ensured that, regardless of the outcome, he would emerge victorious. If the chicken man survived, the soldiers would believe the lie that the omens were in their favor and continue to fight. If the chicken men perished, Papirius could present a new story, persuading the troops that the gods were once again on their side. Either way, he guaranteed his success. In some ways, this was egregious dishonesty, displaying a total disregard for the truth. It was, however, genius-level deception.

If your forces are even remotely equal to those of your adversaries, Machiavelli believes the outcome of battle is often dictated by whose men fight harder and for longer something that, in turn, is largely influenced by morale and perception. He condemns a different Roman commander for throwing bad-omened chickens into the sea, as this gave the impression of further angering the gods. To Machiavelli, the actual omens themselves were immaterial; what mattered was how they were framed to maximize the chances of victory.

If he were ever questioned about the dishonesty of such tactics, I imagine his response would be: Look, do you want to win the battle or not? Which, to be fair, is not an unpersuasive argument when facing a hostile force.