The beginning of political science and Hobbes vs. Machiavelli

(Re)reading the Leviathan, I am struck by the very particular and exceedingly unique writing style Hobbes has. He advances his arguments in a very methodical, logic-based fashion, laying and then advancing from each set to the next. He makes sure to build each argument, going so far as to start his work with how the human mind functions. Nothing is a mere assumption, everything is laid out in words before its use in the work as a whole. This is especially indispensable given that Hobbes' theories break away from the modern thinking during when he was writing: especially obvious in his writing about religion, where he puts the sovereign even above and in charge of religion and even disproves the existence of Hell through his previous theory (though Hobbes does not dispute God's being all-powerful). "All that is necessary to salvation is contained in two virtues: faith in Christ, and obedience to laws" (266), he says, which is perfectly sensible in the context of the Leviathan and well backed by his heavy emphasis on the absolute necessity of abiding by the law as integral to the function of a state. However, outside of the Leviathan, this would be subject of course to heavy debate!

I found myself thinking about one of our essay questions in relation to this notable trait -- about whether or not Hobbes and Machiavelli constitute the beginnings of a "science" of politics. Certainly the style in which the Leviathan is presented is scientific -- it makes no assumptions without first having laid out the laws that he is advancing his argument from. However, when pressed, I would say that Machiavelli is actually the more (politically) scientific of the two -- at least in a traditional sense. Though outdated, Machiavelli draws on comparative knowledge of political history in order to put into place his theories, where Hobbes is more concerned with the natural progression of his his own theories into one another. This isn't, of course, a judgment of the merit of either, merely observation on their two very dissimilar styles of approaching political writings.

Which of the two do you feel adheres to the typical political science structure? Do either of them? (It is of course difficult to judge with so much political science owing directly to them!)