The Prince: A Decidedly unMedieval Piece of Work The Prince, written by Niccolo Machiavelli, was a secular handbook that dealt with modern statecraft and leadership. In fact, this was the first modern book that discussed political science. This book has influenced many well-known leaders, such as Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler. This essay will discuss the past behaviours of Machiavelli to prove that this book, The Prince, is a decidedly unMedieval piece of work which does not follow the idea of living life so that it is worthy of respect and honour, as stated in the Medieval Code of Chivalry.
In Niccolo Machiavelli's book, The Prince (1513), he evaluates on how a prince can be a successful leader. Machiavelli’s purpose of this guidebook was to construct his argument to the rising ruler Giuliano de Medici for when he comes to power in Florence. He adopts a casual but authoritative tone in order to convince the prince that Machiavelli’s evaluation on how to be the best prince, is the right thing for the prince to do without coming off as he knows more than the prince or is trying to intimidate him.. Machiavelli’s reference to previous rulers and whether their tactics failed or succeeded helps to benefit his credibility along with his allusion to historic text. He appeals to our logic by simply stating a prince can only do what is within his power to control, and his use of an analogy furthers his argument.
“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.
Machiavelli argues the perfect prince will be both feared and loved by his people, and if unable to be both he will make himself feared and not hated. Machiavelli believes it is much safer to be feared than to be loved because people are less likely to offend and stand up against strong characters, also people are less concerned in offending a prince who has made himself loved. Accordingly, Machiavelli believes generosity is harmful to your reputation and the choice between being generous or stingy, merciful or cruel, honest or deceitful, should only be important if it aids the prince in political power. All in all, Machiavelli believes the ruler must be a great deceiver and do what is essential to uphold power over the
Niccolo Machiavelli was an Italian Renaissance writer and diplomat. He wrote “The Prince”, and he expresses several characteristics which he believes are important to be a successful leader. Such as, being feared rather than loved, not revealing the entire and/or real reason they’re doing something unless it’s somehow advantageous to them, being duplicitous, and being narcissistic. I disagree with these opinions. First of all, Machiavelli claims it is better to be feared rather than loved.
I am firmly opposed to the manipulation of one’s subjects for the better of the ruler. Machiavelli’s concept for a prince’s soldiers is a malicious brainwash. A feared ruler will only induce despise from his people. I regard Machiavelli’s justification for a prince containing aspects of evil to be a unethical form of governing a society. His depiction of a feared ruler disregards the prosperity of his people and does not account for their pursuit of happiness.
It is an almost universal taboo to shoot the messenger and a deep level of contempt is reserved for those who do. Contempt Machiavelli argues is something to be avoided. “A shrewd prince will lay his foundations on what is under his own control... He should simply take pains not to be hated” (Machiavelli 47). This is the establishment of a theme that Machiavelli continues through the rest of the book, the theme distilled is that a loathed prince cannot remain in power for his people will not support someone they hate and welcome his demise.
Niccolo Machiavelli While Machiavelli valued being compassionate, he knew in order to be a successful ruler one must not be afraid to strike fear into his subjects. Machiavelli seems to have many thoughts on how in order to be a successful ruler, one must rule through fear. In, The Prince, he talks about how in order to be a successful prince one must not be afraid to be cruel and rule through fear. While being a kind and compassionate ruler is something to be admired, it is not always the best way to rule. Machiavelli wrote, “A prince, therefore, must not mind incurring the charge of cruelty for the purpose of keeping his subjects united and faithful.”
Many individuals are more fond of something if it is done in their point of view. Niccolo Machiavelli wrote a book called, The Prince, and it was used as a guideline to other princes in the world on how to become a better prince. From the beginning, he already states how to become a good ruler. Machiavelli cites “Such dominions thus acquired are either accustomed to live under a prince, or to live in freedom; and are acquired either by the arms of the prince himself, or of others, or else by fortune or by ability.” However, a contemporary European leader named Clement Attlee does show that Machiavelli’s advice to leaders is still relevant today.
One aspect of Machiavelli’s theory which significantly contributes to his reputation as the “philosopher of evil,” is his advice to the prince on keeping their word to the public. In chapter eighteen, Machiavelli states, “a wise ruler cannot, and should not, keep his word when doing so is to his disadvantage, and when the reasons that led him to promise to do so no longer apply” (pg. 37). To simplify, Machiavelli says princes are obligated to lie in certain circumstances. He also states that while it is unnecessary for the prince to have positive qualities, such as honesty, trustworthiness, sympathy, compassion, or be religious, it is essential for the prince to be viewed so by the public (pg. 37). While many people argue that Machiavelli’s legitimization of lying and deception in politics is immoral, I argue the opposite.
In The Prince, Niccolò Machiavelli, an Italian philosopher, and politician, writes about his views on human nature, politics, and leadership. Machiavelli states that commoners and nobility are in natural conflict, with the nobility wanting to control and oppress commoners and the commoners trying to avoid oppression. How Machiavelli viewed commoners and nobility reflects the political climate of 16th-century Italy and has significantly impacted the study of leadership theory and practice, even today. His observations in Renaissance Italy shaped his views on commoners and nobles and how power is acquired and used as a ruler. This paper will discuss Machiavelli's views on commoners and nobility and how these may affect leadership styles.
According to Machiavelli, a prince who keeps his promises is generally praised. But history demonstrates that most success is achieved when princes are crafty, tricky and able to deceive others. A prince can fight or succeed by using law or by using force. The use of law comes naturally to men and the use of force comes naturally to beasts. Hence, to achieve success, the prince must learn to fight with a balance between both law and force.
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.
Alexia Tzaneteas English 10 Honors Mrs. Joyce June 3rd, 2022 The Machiavellian Rule of Macbeth Should morality be separated from politics, or should both be examined when determining the recognition a ruler deserves? According to Machiavelli's treatise, The Prince, a ruler should be defined not by their morality but by their ability to achieve what they desire, no matter what cruelties are used to accomplish it. Therefore, he advises a prince to be more deceiving than truthful, more cunning than naive, and more wicked than righteous in order to ensure success against the fickle forces of fortune. Machiavelli uses examples of real leaders who follow in his advice, but perhaps the most perfect model is a leader from William Shakespeare’s tragedy,
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.
