More handpicked essays just for you.
The prince machiavelli analysis
The prince by niccolo machiavelli analysis
Machiavelli and the prince - analysis
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Lao Tzu and Machiavelli have different perspective on how a leader should lead, one believes in a compassionate leader while the other believes in a cunning leader. These seemingly contrasting ideas can be combined to form an effective leader. Lao Tzu’s idea of a compassionate leader is compatible with Machiavelli’s idea of a cunning leader, because these ideas are complementary. For a leader to become respected and praised, one must be compassionate to one’s subjects. A leader must try to act for the benefit of the citizens, one must have empathy towards the people.
What exactly is a good leader and how should they be? In the readings, by Christine de Pizan The Treasure of the City of Ladies and another by Niccolo Machiavelli The Prince. They both talk about how a prince and a princess should act upon their people. For Pizan she talks about how a princess should be kind hearted and accepting towards her people. She should act like this sho that they will help her whenever she is need.
President Obama echo a leadership of both Niccolo Machiavelli "The Qualities of the Prince" and Martin Luther King Jr. "Letter from Birmingham Jail". Machiavelli point of view to become a successful prince was that you must lead your people. He talks about how a prince should appear to his people for authority. There are different types of principles such as war and is it better to be loved or feared.
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.
Genghis Khan a revered warlord by some, and feared by many. Genghis Khan has ruled a vast empire, a crazy twelve million square miles which had continued to spread until his death. His empire was so vast from all the land and people he conquered, it has been said that one in two hundred men are direct descendants of Genghis Khan, which is quite a plausible claim. Everywhere Genghis Khan marched, troops followed and cities were razed. Many trembled in fear to surrender to his ranks, others who did not die merciless deaths.
Thomas Jefferson and Niccolo Machiavelli both believe that the actions of the people shape the characteristics of the ruler and define the type of authority that will be held towards the people. Machiavelli, the first great political philosopher of the Renaissance, argues all men are untrustworthy due to their selfish, self-interested and impulsive ways of life in his writing, The Morals of the Prince, and therefore, to keep the people under control the ruler must be prepared to be cruel and instill fear among the people. Opposing Machiavelli is Jefferson. In The Declaration of Independence Jefferson believes people can be trusted since they have the ability to make their own decisions. Whereas Machiavelli supports tyranny, Jefferson believes
Machiavelli’s book also suggests that a ruler should be feared by everyone that dares to face him. At this time, one ruler appeared to be more daunting than a chain of command. Another major idea spread during this time period was the idea of a social contract, from “Leviathan” by Thomas Hobbes. He explains that if two people desire the same thing which they cannot both enjoy, they will end up destroying each other. Two people should be able to lay down their right to all things and be contempt with having as much as another person has, instead of trying to fight with them in order to gain more.
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.
Simon Sinek once said “Great leaders do not need to act tough. Their confidence and humility serve to underscore their toughness.” In “The Prince”, Machiavelli states that it is better to be feared than loved. Every leader produces varying amounts of fear within his subjects simply because he holds the power. This fear is very low in the leader that is loved because of the respect and admiration in which he is held by his people.
The Prince During the Renaissance period, the state came to be regarded as something that was made and is secular. Machiavelli, considered today as the founder of modern political science, was one of those who opened up this new route by dedicating himself in explaining ideas and theories regarding politics. But what made Machiavelli very famous in the world of politics is his most influential and controversial book "The Prince". He wrote this book based on his analysis of political leaders in the government during his time. It focuses on discussing necessary characteristics of the prince to successfully acquire and maintain its political power highlighting his well-known maxim, "the end justifies the means".
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.
Machiavelli has the most correct ideas on both controlling the people as a ruler and on being remembered as a great one. These two viewpoints had great influence during their time and for centuries to come, both with modern ideas and correct ideas even though they had a lot of contrast. Machiavelli’s The Prince may be thought of the more recognizable of the two in the present, but people in the present day have many of the same ideas that
This is a work that still influences us today and is still relevant in today’s complex society. Some of the most prominent leaders of the 20th century have been influenced by Machiavellian ideas. U.S Presidents like Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton and U.K Prime Minister Anthony Blair are called Machiavellian leaders today. According to Machiavelli a prince must focus all his serious time and energy to war and how to wage it (Machiavelli, 31).
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.
They can’t let any situation bring them down and affect their daily life. It helps a leader remain calm in uncertain situations, a courtier when they may face difficult problems in the court of royalty and everyday people when talking to someone they wanted to show respect to. Machiavelli never mentioned his exemplary leader with mental strength, so one can assume it wasn’t a trait he considered significant. However, he did mention false sincerity in paragraphs six and seven. Instead of holding the traits of honesty, trustworthiness and leniency, Machiavelli told one make it only look as though did instead, and when the time came, they could be corrupt, sly and merciless.
