Napoleon Bonaparte, emperor of France, was one of the most prominent figures in European history and is partly due to the way he conducted himself through Machiavellian principles. From his heavy emphasis on the military to his intense control of the state, he embodied teachings of The Prince. Briefly, he can be described as, “a French emperor who rose through sheer ambition, drive, and intelligence to the epitome of power, ruled France, conquered much of Europe, created an empire, and forever changed the course of European history” (Napoleon I Bonaparte 1). As a young boy growing up in the French Revolution, Napoleon always had a passion for battles and fighting. Over the years, he rose through the ranks in the French military and eventually …show more content…
This tactic parallels Machiavelli’s dual nature principle of lion and fox; blood, symbolizing militarism and war and iron being the diplomacy and strategy. His speech encourages his people towards unification, “Germany does not look to Prussia’s liberalism, but to her power...Not by speeches and majorities will be the great questions of the day be decided -that was the mistake of 1848-1849- but by iron and blood” (Spielvogel 679). First, Bismarck uses the Blood phase and becomes heavily militarized. This specific phase was the Seven Weeks War. In 1864, Prussia and Austria become allies and defeat Denmark over the span of seven weeks (Pertuso, Feb 10). The result is that Austria got Holstein and Prussia got Schleswig. However, Bismarck wanted both territories. Using diplomacy and strategy, he isolated Austria’s allies and began the Blood Phase of the Austria-Prussian War (Pertuso, Feb 10). Austria was completely blindsided by Bismarck’s actions because they were allies just awhile back. His actions of betrayal against former allies make him emulate the Machiavellian qualities of a fox. After the last phase, the Franco- Prussian War, Bismarck acquired the desired territories. After each Blood phase, comes an Iron phase in which he does something sly and cunning to arouse political resentment. Although Bismarck ruled thinking the ends did not justify the means, he ruled Germany with only the best intentions for his country, “My aim from the first moment of my public activity has been the creation and consolidation of Germany, and if you can show a single moment when I deviated from that magnetic needle, you may perhaps prove that I went wrong, but never that I lost sight of the national aim for a moment” (Heuston 119). The result of his brilliant plan, Blood and Iron, was a unified and wealthy Germany in