Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Machiavelli’s reputation as a leader
The contribution of Machiavelli
The contribution of Machiavelli
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Machiavelli’s reputation as a leader
Machiavelli argued, as Hegel would later, that one must look to history and the accounts of previous nations' events in order to "sense...that flavor that they have in themselves" in common with those from the past (Discourses 6). This seems to follow the adage that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it, yet for Machiavelli he seems more concerned with actually emulating history in order to repeat success than looking out for particular things to avoid. For this reason, he pulls examples from an eclectic range of histories in order to demonstrate how his principles in both The Prince and the Discourses on Livy, when followed, will lead to a successful state. In particular, he refers to the Roman Republic a great deal in the Discourses, which are focused around Livy's account of Rome's history, to demonstrate what about this ancient society was so unique and worthy of repeating in terms of its existence as a republic. In fact, the Roman Republic serves as Machiavelli's central example in the work. In The Prince, however, since Machiavelli was more concerned with the behavior of an individual who wields absolute power over a principality, he looks more to the Roman Empire, since there are few examples one can find from the history of the Republic where one man was thrust into a situation where he could act prince-like and, as a result, the arguments made would have been harder to support had he used the Republic as his central example. The Roman Republic figures as such an important nation because Machiavelli sees in it the characteristics that are necessary for a successful republic and also because of its origin from a monarchy he sees a way for representative governments to start replacing, w...
... middle of paper ...
...that he probably was at that time residing under.
References
Adams, Robert M. Introduction to "Machiavelli the Democrat." From The Prince. ©1992. W. W. Norton & Company. New York.
Gilbert, Felix. "Fortune, Necessity, Virtu." From The Prince. Ed. By Robert M. Adams. ©1992. W. W. Norton & Company. New York.
Hegel, G.W.F. Reason in History. Translated by Robert S. Hartman. ©1997. Prentice-Hall, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Macchiavelli, Niccolo. Discourses on Livy. Translated by Harvey C. Mansfield and Nathan Tarcov. ©1996. The University of Chicago Press. Chicago.
The Prince. Translated by Robert M. Adams. ©1992. W. W. Norton & Company. New York.
Also, some historical information (not referenced explicitly) came from: Microsoft Encarta 2002. ©1993-2001. Microsoft Corporation.
Machiavelli believes that a government should be very structured, controlled, and powerful. He makes it known that the only priorities of a prince are war, the institutions, and discipline. His writings describes how it is more important for a prince to be practical than moral. This is shown where he writes, "in order to maintain the state he is often obliged to act against his promise, against charity, against humanity, and against religion" (47). In addition, Machiavelli argues that a prince may have to be cunning and deceitful in order to maintain political power. He takes the stance that it is better for the prince to be feared than loved. His view of how a government should run and his unethical conduct are both early signs of dictatorship.
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...
As he begins to conclude, Machiavelli states that the prince: “should think about avoiding those things which make him hated and despised.” (Mach 48) Although these lack any withstanding moral values, they are effective in the sense that they better serve their purpose. Machiavelli was seeking to display a way to hold political power by any means possible not a utopian state. This may mean malicious acts, imprisonment, and torture, or it may mean the utilization of power to achieve a common good. Machiavelli doesn’t elaborate on this. He concentrates on a realistic approach towards government, as he remains concerned with the establishment and protection of power.
Machiavelli, Nicolo (1532) The Prince. In Peter Bondanella’s and Mark Musa’s (eds) The Portable Machiavelli. (pp. 77-166) New York, New York: Penguin Books.
5. Niccolo Machiavelli, Selected Political Writings: The Prince and The Discourses on Livy, Hackett Publishing Company, 1994.
Ridolfi, Roberto. The Life of Niccolò Machiavelli. Trans. Cecil Grayson. 1954. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963. Print.
The most astounding aspect of The Prince is Machiavelli’s view that princes may indeed, be cruel and dishonest if their ultimate aim is for the good of the state. It is not only acceptable but necessary to lie, to use torture, and to walk over other states and cities. Machiavellianism is defined as “A political doctrine of Machiavelli, which denies the relevance of morality in political affairs and holds that craft and deceit are justified in pursuing and maintaining political power (Def.)” This implies that in the conquest for power, the ends justify the means. This is the basis of Machiavellianism. The priority for the power holder is to keep the security of the state regardless of the morality of the means. He accepts that these things are in and of themselves morally wrong, but he points out that the consequences of failure, the ruin of states and the destruction of cities, can be far worse. Machiavelli strongly emphasizes that princes should not hesitate to use immoral methods to achieve power, if power is necessary for security and survival.
First, Machiavelli’s method attempts to discard discussion of the “imaginary” political world and instead focuses on “real life” (Machiavelli 48). His end goal is to construct rubric for leaders to follow either to rule and unite (in this case Italy) in the Prince or create a powerful republic in the Discourses. His method is derived from comparing contemporary and historical events to illustrate and substantiate his argument. He is critical of how people interpret history (Machiavelli 83). He still believes that his ability to interpret and compare history is superior. Arguing that his methodological approach doesn’t just “chew” on history but actually “tastes” it (Machiavelli 83). Therefore we can understand that he justifies his method approach as not being akin to most because he possesses a much deeper understanding of history. Throughout his two books using ...
...ch route to take on his way to power, keeping his rule, and how to maintain his military. The ultimate goal for a Prince is to maintain his position and reign, and a Prince can cheat, steal, and lie in order to accomplish that goal. Machiavelli seems to favor a Principality over Republics in this case because a Prince will be safer in a hereditary Principality due to the subjects being more accustomed to the blood of the Prince. Machiavelli’s straightforward advice on the art of warfare is to use your own military and that a Prince should always study the art of war. The ideal situation between a Prince and his subjects is to be feared rather loved, so that there is order. There is a difference between being feared and hated, and as long as the Prince doesn’t take a subjects property, women, or execute a subject without a proper cause.
Titus Livius Patavinius was a patriot who believed in the "purer morality" of the Roman Empire and Republic that had sustained its existence for so long. He also saw, however, a gradual decline in morality and virtue over time as Roman society became richer and more prone to greed. As a result of this observation, he did not trust that any modern ruler would possess the moral integrity of the great leaders of the past, but perhaps if they read his book they could learn from the good examples and be warned by the bad ones. Machiavelli also agreed that history should be studied and applied to the present, but he believed that when people read Livy, they took “infinitely more pleasure in knowing the variety of incidents that are contained in [Livy’s writings], without ever thinking of imitating them.” In other words, Livy’s account of Rome was more of a glorified fairytale which no one could possibly use as a reference for solving current problems so he decided to write a commentary explaining what he believed to be the real reasons for the rise (and fall) of Rome. Both Livy and Machi...
Machiavelli discusses assertive and bold ideas in “The Prince,” revealing his radical and courageous nature. His treatise is deceptively self-soliciting, because he disguises his extreme notions behind a veil of feigned expertise. His frank approach makes him appear confident and deserving of the utmost respect; however, he cautiously humbles himself by pouring immense flattery for the ruling prince into his work and, in doing so, assures protection for himself and his notorious ideas.
The second chapter of the Introduction to the Philosophy of History bears the title "Reason in History"; however, careful study reveals that it could just as aptly been dubbed Reason is History or better, History is Reason. Although Reason exists in a finite form within the human being, the whole—infinite Reason—is necessarily greater than the sum of its parts—the sum of finite Reasons. Hegel's Reason is the infinite material of all reality—the substance, form, and power.
In The Prince, Machiavelli separates ethics from politics. His approach to politics, as outlined in The Prince, is strictly practical. Machiavelli is less concerned with what is right and just, and instead with what will lead to the fortification of the government and the sustainment of power. Machiavelli believed that a ruler should use any means necessary to obtain and sustain power. He says, “…people judge by outcome. So if a ruler wins wars and holds onto power, the means he has employed will always be judged honorable, and everyone will praise them” (Machiavelli, 55). According to Machiavelli, the ends of an action justify the means (Machiavelli, 55). His motivation for these views in The Prince was the reunification of the Italian city-states (Machiavelli, 78-79). Machiavelli wanted Italy to return to its glory of the Roman Empire (Machiavelli 78-79). Some of the beliefs of Machiavelli could be perceived as evil and cruel, but he found them necessary. Machiavelli was not concerned with making people happy. His purpose was outcome and success, and in his opinion, the only way to be successful was to be realistic. These views of Machiavelli could classify him as one of the earliest modern
The sections that I will be presenting are 73, 74, and 75. I will discuss the political ideas of Niccolo Machiavelli, Francesco Guicciardini, and Thomas Hobbes during the time of Florence Republic. First, Niccolo Machiavelli was born in Florence, Italy in 1469 at a time when the country was in political upheaval. Italy was divided between four dominant city-states, by which each of them was always at the mercy of the continual changing of princes and governments.
Strauss, Leo. Machiavelli’s Intention: The Prince . Ed. Leo Strauss. N.p., 1958. Web. 1 Dec. 2010. .