Michiavelli's The Prince Analysis
Recommended: The prince michiavelli analyses
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.
Otto von Bismarck Otto von Bismarck was the first chancellor of the German Empire. He was a master strategist who used realpolitik. As an aristocrat, he “adopted the liberal goal of national unity, giving the German Empire a broad political base” (Background essay). Otto von Bismarck could be considered Machiavelli's model of the ideal ruler in that, he was feared by his people and he used any ends to justify the tactics he used in bringing about the unification of the German states. Niccolò Machiavelli was a diplomat for many years in Italy’s Florentine Republic during the Medici family’s exile.
Niccolo Machiavelli and his influence on the Enlightenment Niccolo di Bernardo dei Machiavelli, also known as the father of “Modern Political Theory” was a well-known Italian diplomat, politician, humanist, historian, philosopher and writer from the era of renaissance philosophy. He belonged to several schools of thought, namely: Renaissance humanism, Political realism, Classical republicanism. His claim to fame was his popular book, “The Prince”, which was a handbook for politicians on the use of ruthless, self-serving, cunning inspiring the term “Machiavellian.” Before he wrote his book, Machiavelli was a diplomat for 14 years in Italy’s Florence Republic during the Medici family’s exile.
In The Prince (1532), Machiavelli lists elements a prince should have. The biggest thing Machiavelli cautions against is breeding hatred. He claims that “[…] a wise prince should establish himself on that which is in his own control and not in that of others; he must endeavor only to avoid hatred” (Machiavelli 82). Hatred will lead to loss of control. If the civilians hate the prince, then they have control over him.
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.
Although Dante Alighieri and Niccolò Machiavelli lived in two different times, they both experienced political turmoil that impacted their lives. Living during times of conflict shaped the way they each looked at violence, virtue, and reason, which is evidenced in Dante’s Inferno and Machiavelli’s The Prince. Dante and Machiavelli both viewed violence, virtue, and reason as an interconnected triangle, but their realities created different ideas on how virtue and reason impact violence. Living a century apart, both authors’ lives show similarities. Both lived amid political turmoil that weakened Florence, and both were exiled from Florence because of politics.
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.
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.
Hence, he uses personal pronouns like “you” and “I” as well as phrases like “My reply is.” This makes it seem like The Prince becoming famous was neither Machiavelli’s first priority nor real purpose; he simply wanted to express his knowledge on the western government and gives advice on how to be a strong leader. Also, some of his words sound like he was in grief. For instance, the sentence that says “But as soon as you need help, they turn against you.” It could be that he was disappointed or was betrayed that he decided to put together The Prince.
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.
Both of these highly influential authors had different opinions on ruling that would shape how people would rule during their time and for rulers to come. One of Machiavelli’s major points in The Prince was that it was better to be feared than to be loved. He said this was because while both ways can be useful tools to help one rule, men are less likely to turn a ruler if they were afraid of punishment. Machiavelli had little faith in the common man and had this to say about them, “They are ungrateful, fickle, deceptive and deceiving, avoiders of dangers, eager to gain”(pg.353).
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.
In his novel, the prince, nicolo machiavelli guides us to be a fruitful ruler. He clarifies the best routes for any ruler or sovereign to govern a region, bring prosper to the society, and keep up their position. This book can be read by anyone to get a few pointers on political issues. Most of the thoughts held by machivelli were linked to mercilessness and evil, hence they raised a considerable number of eyebrows. He maintains that the ruler 's primary goal should be conquering, staying in control of the general public and to always have the idea of war in mind.
More about Michiavelli's The Prince Analysis
The Prince Rhetorical Analysis
676 Words | 3 PagesAnalysis Of Machiavelli's The Prince
707 Words | 3 PagesOtto Von Bismarck Dbq
662 Words | 3 PagesNiccolo Machiavelli's Influence On The Enlightenment
1834 Words | 8 PagesHatred In Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince
654 Words | 3 PagesThe Failure Of Leadership In Machiavelli's The Prince
981 Words | 4 PagesComparing Dante Alighieri And Machiavelli's The Prince
1037 Words | 5 PagesComparing Machiavelli's The Prince And The Discourses
1492 Words | 6 PagesMachiavelli's Use Of Lying And Deception In Politics
954 Words | 4 PagesAnalysis Of Niccólo Machiavelli's The Prince
1519 Words | 7 PagesQualities Of A Good Man In Machiavelli's The Prince
1284 Words | 6 PagesThe Good And Bad Characteristics Of Machiavelli As A Prince
823 Words | 4 PagesErasmus Vs Machiavelli
1034 Words | 5 PagesSummary Of Machiavelli's Ideal Prince
930 Words | 4 PagesThe Prince Reflection
1021 Words | 5 Pages