To determine whether Machiavelli was Machiavellian, the term must be first defined. “Machiavellian”, today, is synonymous with the words immoral, cutthroat, manipulating, and cunning. Somebody who acts Machiavellian, acts in an immoral fashion for personal gain. Using today’s common definition for the term, it can be concluded that Machiavelli was not “Machiavellian,” for he does not act in behalf of his personal gain, nor was he immoral or cutthroat. On a superficial level, The Prince is a manual for tyrants; on a deeper level its Machiavelli's call to the leaders of Italy to bring order and unification. And even more so, its a warning to the people of Italy about the power of governments. If read straightforward The Prince is manual for ambitious men on how to become a tyrant, however, if one takes the context in which it was written, The Prince reads very different. Machiavelli was a long time diplomat, having spent time in various courts, and thus had much experience and understanding of politics. He writes, “I depart from the orders of others … it has appeared to me more convenient to go after the effective truth of the thing rather then …show more content…
The famous quote, “it is much more secure to be feared than to be loved”(ch.XVII) has been to used to demonstrate ruthlessness of Machiavelli, but he goes on to say that the prince “escape hatred” by “[keeping] himself from his citizens' and his subjects possessions, and from their women.”(ch.XVII) Machiavelli reasoning for it being bettered to be feared is men are “ungrateful” and “fickle” and will leave when the prince is in need. He gives the example of Scipio. The reason Scipio's armies rebelled against him, Machiavelli notes, “sprang from nothing other than his excessive mercy”(ch.XVII). Being loved will result in disorder, and tear apart the state as the prince loses