Virtue is an individual’s ability to seize opportunity within their surrounding environment. Machiavelli portrayed Castruccio Castracani as using various qualities throughout his life that enabled him to define his own virtue. From a young age Castracani demonstrated a physical prowess that was unmatched by his peers and expressed interest in literature pertaining to heroes and war. Under the tutelage of Messer Francisco Guinigi, he became an elite horseman. In their first battle together, they came home victorious with Castracani being praised as a hero of war. He was loved by Lucca for being respectful, modest, and courteous, while his notoriety as a warrior caused others to fear him as a tyrant. Qualities that constitute the virtue of Castruccio Castracani and led to his success are his intelligence, his ability to be cunning when necessary, and his ability to manipulate his reputation to make others fear and respect him.
The first example of virtue that Castracani displays is his intelligence. Through his many experiences in battle he demonstrated his brilliance as a military strategist.. Taking charge in the battle against the Guelphs, he fooled his enemies by delaying his army’s arrival, leaving the Guelphs to believe they had already won (Machiavelli, 11). Come time for battle, he observed the enemy’s formation and decided to place his strong soldiers on the outside while the enemy put their strong in the middle. Instructing the middle of his cavalry to go slow and the outside to charge, the middle warriors never reached each other so his strongest were fighting the enemy’s weakest. Blocking the enemy’s best soldiers from ever getting to the line of battle, Castracani forced them to retreat resulting in a victory for his ...
... middle of paper ...
...ader. Putting his intelligence to use lead him to an extremely impressive record in battle where he was never defeated by an opponent until the weather was the only opponent that defeated him. The virtue of his reputation makes him either feared or respected by everyone around him. Deceiving people who he associated with lead him to conquer new lands and overthrow other leaders without them even realizing that they were at stake of a battle with Castracani. Had he not built these virtues he would not have had as much success in battle, not have been able to get people to listen to him and would have never become such an effective and intimidating leader.
Works Cited
Machiavelli, Niccolò, and Andrew Brown. Life of Castruccio Castrani: Related by Niccolò
Machiavelli and Sent to Zanobi Buondelmonte and Luigi Alamanni, His Dearest Friends. London: Hesperus, 2003.
Machiavelli’s views were drastically different from other humanists at his time. He strongly promoted a secular society and felt morality was not necessary but stood in the way of a successfully governed state. He stated that people generally tended to work for their own best interests and gave little thought to the well being of the state. He distrusted citizens saying, “In time of adversity, when a state is in need of its citizens, there are few to be found.” In his writings in The Prince, he constantly questioned the citizens’ loyalty and warned for the leaders to be wary in trusting citizens. His radical and distrusting thoughts on human nature were derived out of concern for Italy’s then unstable government. Machiavelli also had a s...
After five hundred years, Niccolo Machiavelli the man has ceased to exist. In his place is merely an entity, one that is human, but also something that is far above one. The debate over his political ideologies and theories has elevated him to a mythical status summed up in one word: Machiavelli. His family name has evolved into an adjective in the English language in its various forms. Writers and pundit’s bandy about this new adjective in such ways as, “He is a Machiavelli,” “They are Machiavelli’s,” “This is suitable for a Machiavelli.” These phrases are almost always the words of a person that understands more about Niccolo’s reputation than the man himself. Forgotten is that Machiavelli is not an adequate example of the ruler he is credited with describing; a more accurate statement would be to call someone a “Borgia” or a “Valentino.” Most of the time they are grossly mistaken in their references. All these words accomplish is to add to the legend, and the misinterpretation, of the true nature of Niccolo Machiavelli.
Machiavelli disagrees with the classical definition of virtue. He makes a distinction between what he calls ‘virtu’ and ordinary goodness; a separation between private and public morality. Virtue literarily means manliness, and he equates it to skillful self-advancement. Virtue implies physical and mental capacity-intelligence, skill, courage, vigor; everything that is necessary for attainment of one’s own ends. Additionally, virtue is the ability to be flexible and adjust in any given situation. Pizan, on the other hand, attributes loyalty, prudence, intellect, imagination, moral strength and insight to virtue. Although their definitions of virtue are not necessarily the same, the historical, mythical, and biblical examples Pizan and Machiavelli utilize are aimed at proving the same point, that glory is the goal of acting virtuously.
In the famed author William Shakespeare’s playwright Julius Caesar, we are introduced to an extraordinary plot of a powerful ruler, Julius Caesar, who gained power through astonishing victories and remarkable strategies but fell victim to betrayal. The betrayal that led to his demise was led by some of the very people that surrounded him the most, even some people that he considered as friends. The theme of betrayal and the notion of friendship and its validity are both topics that are worth examining but perhaps the most prevalent topic that drives this plot is the image of Caesar. Caesar ascended into power after a long period in Rome where the rise of tyranny had been fought systematically and physically. He had to not only be a powerful leader but also a wise politician when it came to his decisions. His image tarnishes more and more as his power increases and he too chases after it. He becomes so ambitious over power that he begins to feel immortal and free from danger. His conspirators do not just want him out of power for the simple sake of it but because some of them, either persuaded or not, earnestly believed that Julius Caesar’s death would save Rome not hurt it. What makes this playwright’s so extraordinary is not the dynamic drama alone, but also the depiction of Julius Caesar and how even in the monstrosity of his murder, his image was still arguable causing division amongst men. Although William Shakespeare has, for a very long time now, been known for his great writings it is clear that he himself depicted a ruler that would win favor in the eyes of the great Italian political philosopher and writer Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli but not the profound Italian writer Baldassare Castiglione. Both writers wrote ab...
On that first fateful day, when Romulus struck down his own brother Remus, the cauldron of Rome was forged in blood and betrayal. The seeds on the Palatine hill cultured one of the most potent and stretching empires of human history. Though this civilization seemingly wielded the bolts of Zeus, they were infested with violence, vanity, and deception. Yet, one man—or seemingly “un”-man—outshone and out-graced his surroundings and everyone within it. He brought Rome several victories and rescued his beloved country from an early exodus, thus providing her a second beginning. This man was Marcus Furius Camillus, and against a logical and emotional mind, he was oft less than loved and celebrated. At times he was disregarded, insulted and even exiled—irrevocably an unwarranted method to reward Rome’s “Second Founder.” This contrast of character between hero and people was perhaps too drastic and too grand. The people were not yet ready to see Marcus Furius Camillus as a model of behavior to be emulated—to be reproduced. Hence, much of Livy’s Book 5 provides a foundation for the Roman people to imitate and assimilate a contrasting, honest, and strong behavior and temperament
Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar set the standard of what a leader should be. However, despite the two leader’s great accomplishments, Alexander the Great is a better leader. Julius Caesar fit the components of being a good leader: an ability to make a good appearance, and an ability to speak well at public gatherings. Caesar was able to change Rome. He dodged outlawing and pirates, changed the calendar and the army, and conquered the area of modern France, and much more in his six years at rule. However, Alexander the Great also held the major three components, and his achievements show that he attempted to adopt democracy. He was considered to have been the foundation of western civilization. Both leaders were betrayed, however Alexander was more betrayed for his good deeds than for his huge weaknesses unlike Caesar. Both leaders are good and influential leaders from their time, but it is Alexander the Great that is better.
In conclusion, Brutus’ mistakes and flaws are overshadowed by his honorable intentions and genuine motives. In a society littered with dishonorable, deceitful people like Antony, Brutus, with his sense of honor and integrity, contrast them all. Brutus’ greatest weakness is his tendency to believe people who script words to purposely lie or misguide him. Due to his actions, he ends up dying an honorable death of a self-suicide. Having genuine compassion and sympathy towards others is not a bad thing. However, decisions should not be so heavily influenced by the opinions of others. The significance of planning things out before doing them is clearly illustrated, as it is a way to foresee possible complications or problems that may arise. Ironically, the conspirators’ cause is for naught as Antony becomes the tyrant that they fear Caesar would have become.
For instance, he states that “it is necessary for a prince, who wishes to maintain himself to learn how not to be good, and to use his knowledge and not use it, according to the necessity of the case” and that “he must not mind incurring the scandal of those vices without which it would be difficult to save the state” because “it will be found that some things which seems virtues would lead to one’s ruin” and some that seem to be vices result in greater security and wellbeing (Machiavelli, pg. 15). Machiavelli doesn't define virtue as other humanist might he believes that virtues are qualities that others praise, like generosity and honesty. He argues that a prince should
...s to make Rome a democracy and through it he faced his sorrows like a god and held a good reputation in society. He made his own enemies look up to him with respect and never gave up his great moral character. He turns nobler through every act and scene. A noble person is someone with moral character, courage, generosity, honor and bravery to do what is right. They are the people who show respect for what is right and face obstacles, challenges and risks and face the consequences and challenges to prove what is right. They are strong, honorable and face their sorrows in silence. They find the truth and reason in everything that happens. They are great people like Martin Luther King, Jr., honorable soldiers and senators like Brutus. Brutus was a man of courage, generosity, honor, bravery and honor. He was the noblest of them all.
...s both traits in cases of somber situations such as the moments leading up to his death, such as his decision to stay and fight Tybalt, and once defeated ending with a joke. As a character Mercutio resembled a man of foolish courage. This is a major issue for many of the characters in this play for many of the plans created follow the gist of being brash and quickly, but not thoroughly, prepared. Yet in life preparation is sometimes not always granted and having this swift impulsiveness may benefit some in certain situations. Although life may seem to always take some calculated thinking before proceeding to the next step, but sometimes it just requires a little instinct and gut feeling for the most important and hardest decisions.
Through his many years of experience with Italian politics Machiavelli wrote “The Prince”; a how-to guide for new rulers. We are given descriptions of what a leader should do to effectively lead his country. A leader should be the only authority determining every aspect of the state and put in effect a policy to serve his best interests. These interests are gaining, maintaining, and expanding his political power. Machiavelli’s idea is that a ruler should use a variety of strategies (virtues) to secure his power. Machiavelli lists five virtues that a ruler should appear to have; being compassionate, trustworthy, generous, honest and religious. A ruler should possess all the qualities considered good by other people.
He is a figure of a leader who uses his intelligence to serve his Kingdom. He always make a plan on how to fight with the enemy and make sure that his steps is the road for his victory like what he did from the Trojan War and how he
Another example of Brutus being noble is his courage. Without this trait, he wouldn’t have been able to help the other conspirators without knowing what he was going to get himself into. He was aware that his actions has a good chance of causing a war, and that the civilians would kill him if they got the chance. He showed the most courage when he was able to
Machiavelli, Niccolo, and Jean Barricelli. Machiaveli's The Prince. Woodbury, N.Y.: Barron's Educational Series, 1975. Print.
During the time 1469, a child by the name of Niccolo Di Bernardo Del Machiavelli was born. Some may know him as an Italian philosopher, humanist, or an evil minded fellow associated with the corruptness of totalitarian government. In Machiavelli’s home state of Florence, he introduces the modern political theory. Hoping to gain influence with the ruling Medici family, Niccolo wrote a pamphlet called The Prince (Prezzolini). Niccolo lived a nondescript childhood and his main political experience in his youth was watching Savonarola from afar.