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.
Machiavelli's logic is fundamentally to end up a decent pioneer you should do anything even it is corrupt and off-base. He first composes that a ruler's obligation concerning military matter should dependably consider war just, even in times of peace. They should know their surroundings precisely so they can safeguard and make compelling methodologies to counter the adversary's assault. They should likewise know verifiable fights so they will have the capacity to take in their strategies and enhance it. He then discusses the sovereign's way; ought to the ruler be liberal or a recluse.
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
Regarding the proper role of a ruler, Machiavelli is more convincing in The Prince than Sir Thomas More is in Utopia because Machiavelli is able to use demeaning diction in a brusque writing style to create a stronger emotional appeal between the reader and his pessimistic ideals. In his book addressed to the ruling Medici family of Florence, Machiavelli stresses the importance of using cruelty to subdue a population, claiming that “men...are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous… [and love] is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails” (Machiavelli). By using cynical diction to describe the nature of humans, Machiavelli makes the reader feel disgusted at the thought of their disloyalty, thus making rulers more receptive to Machiavelli’s negative approach to ruling as it satisfies the desire within the reader to fight fire with fire.
Instead of following the traditional virtues of moral standards, this is deemed practical. By stating that being a “good man in all circumstances will bring about his own ruin” (48), Machiavelli suggests that it is virtuous and necessary to push morals aside to be effective leaders. Virtu is parallel to being skillful; using strategic techniques to reach one’s goals. In the same way, it is suggested politicians should overlook morals to act prudently, bringing stability to the state. Here, the notion of a manipulative and dishonest behavior becomes present, as it is suggested that princes should build crafty political orders to maintain stability.
Although I do believe that Machiavelli's statements are true, I do not necessarily support them or the type of ruler they aim to create. Machiavelli's ideas aimed for realism rather than idealism; the goal was to give advice to leaders that would be relevant and take into account the ability of people to make both morally good and bad decisions. Though it is undeniable that some people will try to take advantage of others if given the chance, Machiavelli's ideas were made to succeed in a world where there is always someone present who is willing to undermine those who act virtuously. In my opinion, these statements assume that people are always at their worst, and thus should not be trusted. When it comes to maintaining control over
He believes anyone can rule a polis if they have virtu. Once a ruler, a simple rule to follow to maintain power and not to be hated by the people, is to “not take away a man’s possession or woman”, Machiavelli believes the people will not feel threaten by following this rule, thus maintaining a stable polis. He expresses how “human nature never changes”, and that people are self-interested and they can turn against you once you are not profiting them. A good ruler must have the strength to do whatever it takes to obtain and maintain power, which essentially means that even if they have to hurt some of the people for the benefit of the popular mass, then they shall do so for the greater cause. Both Plato and Machiavelli believe that there must be a government in order for human kind to survive.
Prior to Machiavelli, most philosopher writers were concerned with creating an ideal world, and then applying that ideal world to matters that were currently occurring. Machiavelli did not agree with this method though. In chapter 15 of The Prince, Machiavelli says, “Neglecting to consider what is done because one is concentrating on what ought to be done is more likely to lead to ruin than preservation” (pg. 213). Unlike other philosophers that preceded him, Machiavelli is much more concerned with looking at the world as it is today, and seeing what is going right and wrong. Look at what is actually the case today instead of making up a fake world, and things will end up much better.
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 book, Machiavelli believes in the idea of having a strong dominant leader, in order to preserve the benefits to the citizens as a group instead of individually. This strategy clearly shows in chapter seventeen where Machiavelli points out that every prince would prefer to be loved than to be feared. However, the two rarely co-existed. If one had to choose, it is not only better to be feared than to be loved but it is also much “safer” looking at it realistically. By safer, it means that you will not have to worry and watch out as much since people will be less likely to conspire against someone they fear than someone they love.
A leader’s cruelty enables him to make the decisions necessary for the kingdom, while also being miserly to keep the people happy. I think that Machiavelli’s advice provides a sound basis on how leaders today can lead. On other hand, others may argue that Machiavelli’s advice leads rulers astray and rather rulers should be kind and generous because morally that is the right thing to do. No matter the interpretation of how a ruler should lead, Machiavelli's analyst of a leaders provides insight into everyday life and causes leaders today to think about how they
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.
The modern day politicians would not be likely to succeed by following the recommendations from Machiavelli. The recommendations follow a very strict and violent way of conduct. One of the most important aspects of the world is having a strong military according to Machiavelli. The ruler of the nation should also be practicing military tactics whether they are at war or a time of peace. In modern society, having family members who are off fighting in a war can be extremely difficult.
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.
