Frederick The Great When discussing the topic if it is better to feared or loved when running a monarchy Niccolò Machiavelli said “One should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it is much safer to be feared than loved.” Frederick the great defined the odds of Machiavelli’s philosophy, because he was both an Absolute and enlightened ruler in the 17 century from 1740 until 1786. He showed through his rule that is possible to be both feared and loved and still be successful. Frederick the Great was an enlightened absolutist who created more unity in european social and political life, and who molded Prussia into one of the greadest states of europe. Towards the end of the 17th century enlightened and Absolutist …show more content…
He was called to the Prussian throne in 1740. Being a big follower of French philosophies and an enlightened absolutist, Frederick II felt that it was necessary and important that everyone be treated equally no matter their social status. As a child Frederick and his father, “Frederick William I” didn't have the greatest relationship. Their biggest dispute was over how a true and successful monarchy should be run. Frederick’s father felt that a monarchy and Frederick’s reign should be run by an absolute leader, and that reading, education and philosophies weren’t important when managing the throne, while Frederick II felt the opposite in saying as a monarch his principal occupation is to “Combat ignorance and prejudice ...to enlighten minds, cultivate morality, and to make people as happy as it suits human nature.” Many enlightened absolutists including Frederick The Great felt that “Royal power emanated not from divine right but from a social contract.” When Frederick the great began his reign he embodied this by helping the people who he felt made him who he was “king”. He Increased agricultural productivity for people of the lower class, and also introduced a code of laws that benefited all social classes he, “Eliminated the use of torture, limited freedom of speech, and press and religious toleration.” This shows that Frederick II had a great impact on Europe’s social life because before his reign there was
Prussia had been a relatively conservative nation for a while with the monarch as the central point of power and Fredrick William did not want to change that at all, he spent years passing constitutions and electing representative bodies to keep his control. When in 1848 when rebellion began in Berlin to avoid upsetting many he refused to send in troops hoping the rebellion would fissile out. He even made concessions in their liberal favor and allowed a re-election. When the rebellion didn’t diminish a few days after his announcement of concessions he sent in troops to clear out the square, which ending in killing a few people. When angry protestors surrounded the palace Fredrick William IV showed respect to those who had died in the clearing of the square the day before and made even more concessions allowing an assembly to form. However soon the assembly soon revealed it was full of strong liberal radicals and he soon dismissed the assembly and filled it with more conservatives, showing just how deeply conservative Fredrick William was and how unwilling he was to change.
After the struggle of the Seven Years’ War, Frederick the Great considered more benevolent policies for the country of Prussia. He realized that more humane sta...
Fredrick the Great became a Prussian ruler and King after his father’s death, from May 31st, 1740 until his own death in 1786. Fredrick was a sensitive and an intelligent humanist who wrote poetry, and produced insightful essays. More than any other ruler of the age, Fredrick the Great of Prussia embodied enlightened absolutism. Enlightened absolutism is when absolute rulers use enlightenment principles to reform a society. Frederick demanded the loyalty of the military, the Junker nobility, the Lutheran clergy, a growing bureaucracy recruited from an educated middle class, and university professors (539). Because of their loyalty, Fredrick felt that he had the
One accomplishment of Frederick's was building an alliance with the Prussian nobility in order to organize a central administration (Kishlansky, Geary and O'Brien). By making this alliance he was able to combine military and government issues allowing him to keep a close eye over his government (Kishlansky, Geary and O'Brien). Frederick was hands on regarding himself as “the first servant of the state” he wasn’t afraid to work and appeared to feel equal to his people (Kishlansky, Geary and O'Brien 546). Frederick wanted more equality for the people of Prussia a...
Frederick the Great of Prussia advanced the ideas of the Enlightenment by adapting them to his scenario politically and socially to propitiate his subjects after his father’s reign. He was rightly branded as the first “servant to the state” because of his firm belief that all of his decisions as a monarch should be to benefit his subjects not to force his subjects to benefit him. Some of his most important enlightened decisions include abolishing torture and requiring the death penalty to be used in only extreme cases, advocating general education, enforcing agricultural reforms, establishing complete religious toleration, the professional construction of buildings that housed the arts, and the removal of guilds. Agricultural reforms were necessary in order to feed the vast population of his empire. Enacting religious toleration was not hard for Frederick because he did not have a religion and it improved immigration giving him more men to place in his army. The buildings that housed the arts, such as the Opera House, were very imp...
Although it is often argued that rulers such as Joseph II, Catherin II, and Frederick II were motivated to instate enlightened principles; oftentimes, these rulers were slaves to the ideals of despotism, where the preeminent goal was to obtain more power. Indeed it may be a legitimate claimed that these rulers realized the greatness of Enlightenment ideas; however, since most of their reigns were spent preserving dominance over their people, it is safe to say that these individuals may have been more dedicated to serving their own self-interests.
Since the beginning of the sixteenth century, Western Europe experienced multiple types of rulers which then led to the belief that rulers should be a combination of leadership types. Some rulers were strong, some weak, and some were considered to rule as tyrants. All of these were versions of absolutism which gave kings absolute power over their provinces and countries. Over time kings began to believe that their supreme power was given to them by God in a belief known as Divine Right. The people looked at Divine Right kings as those who would incorporate God’s will into their politics; however, many kings took this power and turned it into tyrannical opportunities. By the time the seventeenth century came around, kings continued to believe in Divine Right and absolute power which continued to create many tyrannical kings and caused many of the people to begin to fight the king’s power by granting some rights to the people. These uprisings led to more people believing that they have certain rights that the king cannot ignore. By the eighteenth century, many rulers started to combine their absolute power with including the newly granted rights of the people. The belief also shifted from Divine Right to one that the people gave the king his power which led to kings like Frederick II of Prussia to rule with his people’s interests in mind.
During the 17th and 18th centuries, absolute monarchies were dominating in European countries. National governments became more centralized and local power and autonomy became more powerful. This rise in power of the monarchy and national government was referred to as the Age of Absolutism. These absolute monarchies began to rise as a result of the violent wars of religion during the Reformation and the increase of power among kings. With the aristocracy dominating in the 17th century, it was difficult to administer the state without directly taking power out of their hands. The basis of absolutism included aristocracy, national churches in which kings had the divine right, bureaucracy, standing armies, and fancy ceremonies. At the expense of freedom, absolutism was able to establish order. Despite this, Niccolò Machiavelli, a well-known Italian historian, philosopher, politician, and author, defended absolutism. He argued for order executed by the prince in the best interest of the people. Machiavelli was influential during a time when political conditions were unstable, prompting him to come to the conclusion that people were naturally irrational and unreliable. Absolutism eventually declined in power when the Enlightenment was introduced. The Enlightenment formed as a result of the Renaissance, Reformation, and Scientific Revolution and undermined absolutism. Differing from the Age of Absolutism, people were regarded as rational and logical beings during this “Age of Reason.” As a result of the Enlightenment, two important philosophers emerged: John Locke and Karl Marx. John Locke, a political scientist and philosopher, was regarded as the founder of the Enlightenment. He advocated ideas of human rights and equality and challen...
Countries rise and fall, but within this chaos is the certainty that new leaders will emerge to fill the shoes of those fallen. What is it that separates the great leaders from the lesser? This question weighed heavy on the minds of many great Renaissance thinkers due to the power that derives from this knowledge. In the 16th century, Niccolò Machiavelli sought out to answer this time worn question. It was in his publication of The Prince, that Machiavelli spread his cold and practical formula of how to rule. In The Prince, Machiavelli clearly states what characteristics great ruler have. These Machiavellian traits show themselves in the life of Alexander the Great and some of the traits used by Machiavelli were taken from Alexander’s style of ruling. Even though he lived before the creation of The Prince, much of Alexander’s success stems from his Machiavellian principles of war, deception, and his ability to absorb the culture of conquered territories by limiting changes in their government.
The European monarchs during that time period lacked any kind of selflessness. They want to keep themselves safe and protected. They will act deceitful and will always be eager to avoid danger (Machiavelli). They will be a person’s best friend when they need to, but when they are put in danger, they forget everything about the friendship. The selfish way of ruling makes it a tyranny. People's opinions about how the government should run are uncared for which gives the monarchs a chance to rule in a cruel way, in a tyranny. The monarchs were doing what they felt was right for their kingdom, but they should not have the right to decide what the members of the government do
Niccolo Machiavelli stressed that “one ought to be both feared and loved, but as it is difficult for the two to go together, it is much safer to be feared than loved…for love is held by a chain of obligation which, men being selfish, is broken whenever it serves their purpose; but fear is maintained by a dread of punishment which never fails.” He felt that a true leader must be cunning and deceptive, winning the hearts of his people through power and influence. If he could not be liked, he could at least get by knowing he has intimidated these below him into submission. However rash or cruel this may seem, Machiavelli’s argument is not one to be countered easily.
Machiavelli in his famous book “The Prince” describes the necessary characteristics for a strong and successful leader. He believes that one of the most important characteristics is to rule in favor of his government and to hold power in his hands. Power is an essential aspect of Machiavelli’s theory, and a leader should do whatever it takes to keep it for the safety of his country because “the ends justifies the means.” To attain and preserve the power, a leader should rather be feared than loved by his people, but it is vital not to be hated. As he states, “anyone compelled to choose will find far greater security in being feared than in being loved.” If a leader is feared, the people are less likely to revolt, and in the end, only a threat of punishment can guarantee obedienc...
If a prince can not be both feared and loved, Machiavelli suggests, it would be better for him to be feared by the citizens
The quote, derived from Machiavelli’s thoughts; “it is better to be feared than loved,” is supported by Beowulf in Beowulf and by Hrothgar in Grendel through their actions. Leaders have many choices to make; one of the most important choices is to decide if he prefers to be loved or feared by his followers. The main purpose of being a leader is to lead your followers into victory, rule your subjects and have a prosperous kingdom. So the question appears; is it better to be loved or feared.
While “every sensible prince wishes to be considered, merciful and not cruel”(pg. 35), one should learn to be merciful in moderation. Not doing so can lead to unintended effects where if you are too “good” it can lead to being taken advantage of, or to “uprisings and civil war” because then you will be looked at as a pushover by your citizens and other neighboring countries. Therefore if you were to be cruel, people will fear you enough to, in theory, not go against you and stay united. But I think this concept seems more like a dictatorship, which thrives on citizens fear, and I don’t think it should be instilled in our government considering that most dictatorships end poorly and lead to more uprisings and civil war than with a merciful leader. And this is why the question in this section on whether it is better to be feared or loved also comes up. Machiavelli believes that a prince should find a balance of being both feared and loved and in general just try to escape hatred. If you are loved by your people, rarely will they betray you, but it is also good to be feared by other nations so that you are not looked upon as a target. So in this section of the prince I think the concept of ruling only on fear should not be used, however I do think that a leader should try balance being loved and