Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Response to machiavelli "the prince
Response to machiavelli "the prince
Machiavelli the prince over view
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Response to machiavelli "the prince
Machiavelli’s “The Prince” brought up some controversial characteristics on what a Machiavellian ruler is. The characteristic that was most stressed was that “A prince must have no other objective, no other thought, nor take up any profession but that of war.”(Machiavelli 37). With a main focus on the art of war a ruler can protect the state he governs from attacks against him and his state. Machiavelli offers us an analogy to prove the importance of war. He speaks of two men: one armed and one unarmed. He tells us how it would be unrealistic to believe that the armed man would obey the unarmed man. It would also be unreasonable to expect that the unarmed man would feel safe and secure if is servant held a weapon that could cause death. The unarmed man would feel suspicious of the armed man and the armed man would feel contempt for the unarmed man ruling him, so cooperation would be unattainable. He brings the analogy at an end when he speaks of a prince who does not understand the art of war is like an unarmed man attempting to lead the armed man. Another important characteristic of a prince is to be feared rather than loved. This is because with fear comes respect and less chance for a revolt. Anyone who does not agree with the ruling style of the prince will stand idly by because they fear the wrath of the prince should they be caught before they succeed. Though fear is a great emotion to invoke in the people, one must be sure not to go so far as to be hated because that could cause severe implications. Love is a great tool in ruling a state, but in times of war people are likely to go against their prince because they are angered by the effects of the war. Since the prince is not feared they are susceptible to an attack becaus...
... middle of paper ...
...husband. Elizabeth I made it seem like this on purpose to postpone her marriage and then when push came to shove the suitor was let go. This was sneaky and sage to do. Also, if she did marry it was not because she was in love with the man it was because she knew the military was vulnerable to attacks and she needed to build a strong alias. One way to do that was to marry a man that ruled a strong military based land. The lion in her is that she is willing to go to war if needed to. She once sent 20,000 troops into battle in order to protect her state. Although Elizabeth I was a Machiavellian ruler she did not encompass all of the traits of the ruler. For example she did not focus primarily on war, but she did when it was needed. Machiavellian rulers are nearly impossible to duplicate, but Elizabeth I came very close to being the definition of a Machiavellian ruler.
Many empirical things can often still be debated and refuted by experts, but there is a general admittance to the idea that power is the root of many evil things. In all fairness, we must admit that a many evil things can in their essence, be great. And that is one of the many theories advanced by Niccolo Machiavelli in his well-known work, The Prince. The Prince serves a dual purpose of both teaching a person how to attain power, but also how to retain it. Incredibly enough, history has proven most of Machiavelli’s findings and theories to work well, while some have failed to effectively secure power for the rulers who did, in fact try them. His work, does obviously highlight one main fact, which is, that power is a well sought-after attribute, and most who attain are willing to do whatever is necessary to keep it.
Machiavelli’s advice to a prince who wanted to hold power is that they have to instill fear into the people. He believes fear is important because it restrains men, as they fear being punished. Love will never help you hold power because it attaches people to promises. Machiavelli believes that since humans are wicked, they will break these promises whenever their interests is at stake. Men will devote everything to you if you serve their interests, but as soon as you need help, they turn on you. Therefore, creating fear in them is the perfect strategy. I feel like Machiavelli is being sarcastic and did this to get attention. He knew his way of thinking was different and would get the attention of the people.
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 strongly believes that a prince should be involved in the military and understand all military matters. A prince must always be concentrated on war. Whether his country is at war or not, he must always be prepared. He must continuously be training, mentally and physically, and know the terrain around him. Machiavelli believes that a prince who does not attain these military related qualities will fail as a leader. In addition, during times of war, a successful prince should always question all outcomes of possible battles and prepare himself for the future by studying past wars. Studying the
Machiavelli believes that it is important for a prince maintain a respectful relationship with his people. If the people are abused or otherwise mistreated, the prince will not have a strong following and the people will not obey his orders. Machiavelli states, “Therefore, one who becomes prince through the support of the people should keep them friendly to him, which should be easy for him because they ask of him only that they not be oppressed” (40). Through interpretation of this statement, without
Although Machiavelli gives numerous points on what it takes to excel as a prince, he also shows some raw examples of how he feels a prince should act in order to achieve maximum supremacy. First, when he says, "ought to hold of little account a reputation for being mean, for it is one of those vices which will enable him to govern" proves Machiavelli feels mighty adamant about his view that being mean will help a prince achieve success (332). It is absurd to imagine the meanest prince as the most successful. Also, when Machiavelli states, "our experience has been that those princes who have done great things have held good faith of little account, and have known how to circumvent the intellect of men by craft" revealing his attitude to manipulate people into fearing and respecting the prince (335). Also, Machiavelli shows that for a prince to be successful, he must not think about good faith.
Niccolo Machiavelli lived in Florence, Italy in the 1400’s. The country of Italy was divided into city-states that had their own leaders, but all pledged alliance to their king. In time in which great leaders were needed in order to help the development of a city-state and country, Machiavelli had a theory that man needed a leader to control them. In his book The Prince, he speaks of the perfect leader.
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.
To begin with, Machiavelli’s “The Prince” laid out the foundation of what absolute rulers should be. Machiavelli thought that princes should be well educated in war since he would then have the power to stop uprisings. “The quickest way to lose a state is to neglect this art [war]; the quickest way to get one is to study it. Thus a prince who knows noth...
...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.
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.
Chapter XVII on “Concerning Cruelty And Clemency, And Whether It Is Better To Be Loved Than Feared” is a prime example of Machiavelli laying out this insight. Machiavelli understands that it is best for a ruler to be loved and feared but when given the choice between the two, it is always better to be feared. Someone can stop loving you whenever they feel like it but they will not stop fearing you, so long as you have the means to make them fear you. Fear and brutality for Machiavelli were one of many tools used to succeed in affairs of state. “..
Being a successful leader also means being able to anticipate trouble even when everything seems fine, and this forethought is what so many fail to consider. Using Italian rulers as an example of why Italian princes have lost their estates, Machiavelli writes, “ Their own indolence was to blame because having never imagined when times were quiet they they could change (and this is a common failing of mankind, never to anticipate a storm when the sea is calm), when adversity came their first thoughts were of flight and not of resistance. (page 78). A successful prince needs to be skilled in the art of war, but Machiavelli would agree that this skill is very useful for affairs aside international ones, such as domestic affairs. At one point or another a leader is faced with an arduous decision that involves hurting a part of the population. Machiavelli realizes that there is no realistic way of governing a group of people and keeping them all content at the same time, therefore a prince must systematically make tough decisions, keeping the majority content as the minority can not overthrow once you've taken everything they have. It may seem immoral to hurt the minority simply because they can not rebel, however, it makes far much more sense than causing hurt upon the majority, as that would make a prince contemptible, therefore staggering his political
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
Humanism was an important aspect of the Renaissance, because changed the way people were learning, studying, and examining their culture. It brought about a drastic change in scholars’ focus from science and logic to arts and literature. During this time of change, Niccolo Machiavelli’s writing embodied aspects of both the old, medieval way of study and the newly formed humanistic school. By examining The Prince it is clear that Machiavelli was a humanist because of his understanding of moral philosophy and his broad studies of both modern and antique literature