Machiavelli's Discourses And The Prince

n a time of crisis between different religions and ideologies, during the renaissance period religion carried different means than today. Machiavelli was one of the first political thinkers to view religion as a necessary and great tool in the hands of a ruler. In the era right before the modern era, Machiavelli authored two great works, the Discourses and the Prince, both works hold different perspectives in political theory but are both necessary to understand what makes up a just and sustainable society. Machiavelli, who was also an advocate of liberty, was born into a time when warfare was really important. Princes fought for different areas with the motive to conquer regions and people. There were transitions between different forms of

Religion plays a key role in the exercise of power. Machiavelli believes that religion should be a tool that is used by the leaders of states to instill fear in the hearts of their citizens to commit evil. Machiavelli is well aware that in a principality, when a prince dies so does his laws, and when a religion dies so does your oaths, but there is a better promise of keeping religion around than relying on the lifespan of a human being. In this paper it will be argued that Machiavelli’s conception of the role of religion in society is one that is necessary to rule over society while securing the survival of the state. To argue this claim the roman religion and the Christian religion will be both used and compared to understand the significance that religion plays in ruling a society to

He was born into a low status and his life carried him out to be a king of Sicily, but at every stage of his life he carried himself as a wicked man. He was a skillful man in the art of battle and he rose through the ranks, by doing what he thought was necessary. In Machiavellian thinking however it is disagreed that glory can be achieved by committing unnecessary evils. That is to say that Agathocles killed nobles and people when it was not necessary, but because he lived as a wicked man. The reason being why Agathocles who did not live in the time of the Romans was mentioned was because he manipulated religion in the sense he did not care to follow it. He deceived religion because he was one that made himself prince regardless of his heritage. He had a similar mentality to that of Machiavelli, but he was no man of glory. The political thinker and Agathocles both believed that it was necessary to commit evil where there are no other alternatives in order to prevent the fall of the city. However glory does not come from evil that is wicked, but has a better chance from evil that is necessary. It is because he sought a life without religion that he was able to prosper. This analysis comes to show you that those who do not believe in religion have a higher