Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
The prince by machiavelli the ends
The prince by machiavelli the ends
Machiavelli 's leadership theory
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The prince by machiavelli the ends
The prince by machiavelli the ends
Machiavelli 's leadership theory
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Bossuet taught that royal power is absolute, and the will of the people is united in the king. He stated that “without his absolute authority, the king could neither do good, nor prevent evil.” This showed that Bossuet believed that the absolute power of the king led to the well-being of his subjects (D-2). Similarly, much of Machiavelli’s beliefs coincided with Bossuet’s teachings. In his book, The Prince, Machiavelli offered his opinion on how an effective ruler should govern over his or her subjects.
During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, leaders all around Europe were beginning to desire a stronger rule over their people. In numerous countries, absolutism was becoming a popular way to rule a nation, as it gave leaders the ability to have full control over their territory. Many believed that leaders became absolute through the power of God and divine right. However, rulers were able to gain power through military pursuits and well-controlled foreign relations. Therefore, international war gave leaders in Prussia, Russia, and Austria the foothold they needed to create absolute monarchies.
“Although one should not reason about Moses, as he was a mere executor of things that had been ordered for him by God, nonetheless he should be admired if only for that grace which made him so deserving of speaking with God” (22). In the context of The Prince, this statement proves to be duplicitous because Machiavelli claims that he will not reason about Moses, but then uses the following pages to do precisely that. Furthermore, Machiavelli draws extensively from the actions of Moses and the Old Testament God, although Machiavelli is often regarded as an antagonist of the Church. Machiavelli’s handbook for princes consists of concrete advice for rulers that directly reflect the more abstracted stories in Exodus. For instance, Machiavelli’s description of human nature in The Prince mirrors Moses’ experiences as the leader of the Israelites in Exodus.
The Age of Absolutism describes a period of European history in which monarchs successfully gathered the wealth and power of the state to themselves. Louis XIV is the poster image of the absolute monarch. When he said "L 'etat c 'est moi" (I am the state) he was to a great extent correct. France was powerful and prosperous and represented that which all European monarchs aspired to.
In 1513, Niccolo Machiavelli wrote “The Prince,” telling rulers how they should rule. (Document 1) Many of the ideas in his book are shown in the ways these rulers governed their people. King Louis XIV believed if there were multiple people had power more would take advantage of it (Document 3) which is a major idea from “The Prince,” stating “for love is held by a bond of obligation, which, as men are wicked, is broken whenever personal advantage suggests it.” (Document 1).
The Prince, written by Machiavelli, is a candid outline of how he believes leaders gain and keep power. Machiavelli uses examples of past leaders to determine traits that are necessary to rule successfully. Leaders such as the King of Naples and the Duke of Milan lacked military power, made their subjects hate them, or did not know how to protect themselves from the elite, causing them to lose power. He says that these rulers should blame laziness, not luck, for their failures. By looking at these historical successes and failures, Machiavelli is able to develop his own thoughts on how politics and leaders should be in the future.
The Prince and the Discourses, by Machiavelli as a gift to the prince. Because it was the best thing that Niccolo Machiavelli could give to him. He was trying to teach the prince ways to stay in power. Machiavelli even stated it himself “I can consider of this subject, discussing what a principality is, the variety of such states, how they are won, how they are held, and how they are lost” (Machiavelli xxiv). The main focus of his work was with monarchies because he did not care for republics.
At the start of the early-modern period of European history, feudalism was dying, and countries looked to strong, centralized governments for leadership. The popular political theory to address this new development was absolutism. Absolute monarchs reduced the power of nobles in order to consolidate the nation’s leadership under one banner. During the 17th and 18th centuries, Europe’s political landscape was dominated by this form of government. Monarchy was seen by the early modern Europeans as the best form of government for a variety of reasons.
Renaissance means rebirth. The Renaissance was a time of renewal as well as of chaos in Europe since it was still recovering. More and more ideas of the ideal prince emerged, as there are many different city-states. One of the most noteworthy political philosophers of the sixteenth century was Niccólo Machiavelli whose book, The Prince, a political handbook for rulers, has brought him recognition. It can be seen that his ideas on politics and overall inspiration for the book mainly came from his views of the political problems that were taking place.
In Machiavelli’s book, The Prince, he maintains a harsh perspective on reality. His advice on how to maintain power leaves no room for compassion or generousity. While some may believe that these are qualities of a good person, Machiavelli believes these qualities lead to the downfall of rulers. He acknowledges that, in reality, it is impossible for someone to have qualities of a good person and simultaneously a good ruler. Machiavelli’s realistic outlook causes him to emphasize that it is better to maintain power through fear, rather than compassion.
Being a prince is not as easy as it may seem. There are good and bad decisions a prince can make. Machiavelli has his own standards on how a prince should behave. According to Machiavelli, a prince could be considered a lion, a fox, or a wolf. The lion is fierce but doesn’t have the smarts, while a fox has the smarts but isn 't fierce.
Probably one of the most infamous and controversial ideologies of the 16th century, the prince by Machiavelli has been a reference for many great leaders and academicians since it was published. The book provides historically tested and proven principles of leadership. The prince has been described as a manual for those who want to win and retain power. While some may argue that leadership is an inherent trait in human, leaders are made, not born. Making a great leader out of a person is not just a matter of identifying the leadership traits, skill and talents of the individual, but harnessing the traits, develop them and eventually mastering how to be leader.
I. Machiavelli In his famous work the Prince Niccolo Machiavelli exposes what it takes to be a good prince and how only this good price and keep control over his state. There are many different qualities that make a man a good ruler but there are some that are more essential than others. In this work Machiavelli stresses the importance of being a warrior prince, a wise prince, and knowing how to navigate the duality of virtù and vices. Without these attributes there was no way that a prince could hold together their state and their people.
The concept of leadership was prevalent in the ancient world. It had a place in the way the people of ancient times governed their lives. Greece, and especially Athens, is the cradle of democracy in the western civilization. Athens owes the first penal and civil law code to Draco. An outstanding statesman and poet called Solon acted in Athens at the same time as Draco.
According to Machiavelli, ideal prince is a risk-taker who puts a military on action, as the people respect the warrior. An ideal prince thinks for himself rather than relying on others, knows how to read characters, and does not surround himself with flatterers. He lives in reality, not fantasy. He works hard, utilizes his own mind, and makes survival of his guide. The ideal leader is neither loved nor hated, but respected.