More handpicked essays just for you.
Niccolos Machiavelli "the prince" of political leadership
Machiavelli s beliefs on leadership
Contribution of Niccolo Machiavelli to modern Politics
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
At the time Nicolo Machiavelli wrote The Prince, Spain was under the rule of Ferdinand II of Aragon. Machiavelli praised Ferdinand as an example to Prince De’ Medici, due to his successful implementation of the guidelines in the book. He was a king both loved and feared, he kept a good military even in times of peace, and his prowess was exceptional. In Machiavelli’s eyes, Ferdinand’s “achievements and designs [had] always been great” (The Prince, p. 78) and he had accomplished “great and…extraordinary” deeds throughout his rule (p. 77). But for every virtue a prince has, he must have a vice. In terms of moral compass, was Ferdinand truly as great a ruler as Machiavelli depicted him to be? Ferdinand is most recognized in European …show more content…
history as “the foremost king of Christendom” (p. 77) for making Catholicism the sole religion in Spain by ridding it of all Jews and Muslims. He was a brutal and powerful king; he forcefully drove out the Moors and started war with France over Italy. These defining events of his reign were more beneficial to the throne than they were to the country, and were, in some ways, destructive. According to Machiavelli, he was rarely, if ever, challenged. No one had ever “been given time to work steadily against him” (p. 78). How could no one ever challenge a king who had done such horrible things? The answer lies in Ferdinand’s sly, cunning, and deceptive way of living. He avoided making his dishonest actions known to the public so no one would rise against him. Still, his dishonesty was prominent throughout his rule. To begin his reign, he married his cousin Isabella (who was in line for the throne) solely for a political advantage. The only desire in their relationship was his desire for the crown. Once he seized the throne, his next objective was to expand its power. He restricted the participation of the nobles and Parliament to make himself stronger. He was also clever enough to understand that strengthening the Catholic Church meant support from the Pope, and thus support for the crown. This was the reason for establishing the Spanish Inquisition and driving every person of a different religion out of Spain. While this was beneficial for him, it was detrimental for the country as a whole, as it stripped Spain of a diverse cultural and economic community. Concerning Ferdinand II’s morals, they were not particularly virtuous. Of course, modern morals conflict with those from the 16th century, so the concepts of “good” and “evil” vary. However, a common element from both time periods is that honesty is moral and selfishness is immoral, and Ferdinand was the embodiment of immorality with his selfishness. Firstly, His marriage was at the expense of his wife and strictly to benefit himself. Additionally, any treaties he made during his rule were full of subtle meanings and implications that only favored him, like the Treaty of Tordesillas which gave the entirety of the New World to Spain.. Moreover, he always managed to cover his tracks so no one would suspect that he was corrupt. For example, his intention for arranging the convention of Guadalupe, which ended Agrarian conflicts with Catalonia, was to weaken the landowners by taking away their feudal rights, Instead, it had a prosperous outcome. Everything he did was for his own profit. He did not care about Queen Isabella, he did not care about Spain, and he did not care about religion. He only cared about his crown. But in Machiavelli’s opinion, the art of deceit is an admirable quality for a prince.
In fact, Machiavelli’s morals are as questionable as those of Ferdinand II. Because Machiavelli believed that “it [was] unnecessary for a prince to have all the good qualities [he had] enumerated, but it [was] very necessary to appear to have them” (62), Ferdinand II seemed to be an excellent example of the advice given in the book. However, Machiavelli fails to see that Ferdinand II’s actions opposed one of his primary beliefs. Machiavelli specified that princes did not have to avoid cruelty and dishonesty if and only if their actions benefited the state, and that a prince must consider every action he took based on its effect on his country. As previously stated, Ferdinand II’s actions exclusively benefited himself. Considering the fact that this was a principal theme throughout Machiavelli’s book, why he saw Ferdinand II as such a “great and extraordinary” ruler is baffling. His love of the king is as hypocritical as the King’s character. There is a strong possibility that Machiavelli had a bias towards Ferdinand, considering he was the ruler when he wrote The Prince, and Machiavelli did not see his rule’s final outcome. This presents the question of how Machiavelli’s partiality affects his credibility. Provided he did, in fact, have that bias, what does that say about the rest of his work? Since Machiavelli did not have a neutral stance on politics, he may have steered Prince De’ Medici and all other political leaders who read The Prince in the direction of his own opinions, thus singlehandedly shaping history into his
ideal.
Machiavelli’s, “The Prince” is the ideal book for individuals intending to both govern and maintain a strong nation. Filled with practical advice, he includes numerous religious references to support his claims. He devotes a chapter within the book to speak about the ancient founders of states. In the chapter called, “On new principalities that are acquired by one’s own arms and by virtue”, Machiavelli discussed the importance of a prince to have their own talent in governing a nation, rather than having relied on fortune to rule. The latter is a risk no leader should take and he cited past leaders as a guide for both the current and future princes.
Niccolò Machiavelli was a man who lived during the fourteen and fifteen hundreds in Florence, Italy, and spent part of his life imprisoned after the Medici princes returned to power. He believed that he should express his feelings on how a prince should be through writing and became the author of “The Qualities of a Prince.” In his essay, he discusses many points on how a prince should act based on military matters, reputation, giving back to the people, punishment, and keeping promises. When writing his essay, he follows his points with examples to back up his beliefs. In summary, Machiavelli’s “The Qualities of a Prince,” provides us with what actions and behaviors that a prince should have in order to maintain power and respect.
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.
“The Prince”, by Niccolo Machiavelli, is a series of letters written to the current ruler of Italy, Lorenzo de’ Medici. These letters are a “how-to” guide on what to do and what not to do. He uses examples to further express his views on the subject. The main purpose was to inform the reader how to effectively rule and be an acceptable Prince. Any ruler who wishes to keep absolute control of his principality must use not only wisdom and skill, but cunning and cruelness through fear rather than love. Machiavelli writes this book as his summary of all the deeds of great men.
Ferdinand the II of Aragon ruled over a plethora of countries, including Spain, Italy and France. Besides being notably famous for driving the Moors out of Granada, he was arguably the most reputable prince of his time, and Niccolò Machiavelli, author of The Prince, uses Ferdinand as a prime example when describing how a Prince gains and maintains his reputation, and public image. To Machiavelli, Ferdinand is an excellent exemplar as he both developed a reputation through harsh measures while managing to keep a respectable public image. However, Machiavelli does in fact criticize Ferdinand for some of his actions and makes subtle references to events that took place with another character in his book, César Borgia.
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 Prince written by Niccolò Machiavelli was first published during the Italian Renaissance in 1532. The book is a guide about what to do when a high class politician is in office. Machiavelli discussed actions of past rulers of Europe and whether or not their actions were correct. He analyzes how these men seized, retained and lost political power as well as land. The Prince teaches politicians how to be powerful and yet viewed positively among the people.
In the sixteenth century, there were three sets of socioeconomic statuses that one could acquire or be a part of, the clergy, the nobility, and the peasantry. The divide between these three generalized classes was far more complicated in reality that it seems, as socioeconomic classes consist of multiple branches. Nonetheless, it all essentially came down to two undeniable factions, the oppressors and the oppressed. Niccolo Machiavelli, being a mixture of the two due to his living situation while writing the book, gained a middle-ground which allowed him to achieve omnipotent intelligence that so many rulers normally lack, first hand experience of what it like to live both lives, one as a peasant and the other as a nobleman. This omnipotent
The book The Prince by Niccoló Machiavelli is an instructive guide on how to properly govern people. This book was written to Lorenzo de’ Medici as a guide on how to be a smart and powerful prince. This book, although written about 500 years ago, can also be very prevalent to politics today. When New York Times author Jared Diamond, was asked what book he thinks President Obama should read, he responded with, The Prince. His reason was, although Machiavelli is known as a cynical and cruel man, he is “a crystal-clear realist who understands the limits and uses of power”.
In this chapter, Machiavelli explains why maintaining a new principality is more difficult than maintaining a hereditary state. The first reason is that people will be more willing to trade in one newly arrived leader for another, in the hopes that the new ruler will be better. Hence, any relatively new prince will be facing the risk of his own people turning on him. This revolt of the people will create disorder in the state. Also, when a prince takes over another prince’s domain, he finds himself a tricky situation with regard to the people that put him in power.
The Making of Machiavelli's The Prince The incorporation of various different parts goes into the making of The Prince. Form, tone and rhetoric effect have a strong influence on how the audience will receive the piece of literature. These are just three of the circumstances needed to determine the linguistic structure of The Prince. The explanation of the form is shown through how Machiavelli presents himself to the audience. The performance of tone in The Prince is thoroughly done through the completion of meaning to the situation.
Niccolò Machiavelli wrote, in his novel The Prince, that strong central political leadership was more important than anything else, including religion and moral behavior. Machiavelli, writing during a period of dramatic change known as the Italian Renaissance, displayed attitudes towards many issues, mostly political, which supported his belief that strong government was the most important element in society. These attitudes and ideas were very appropriate for the time because they stressed strong, centralized power, the only kind of leadership that seemed to be working throughout Europe, and which was the element Italy was lacking. Machiavelli understood that obtaining such a government could not be done without separating political conduct and personal morality, and suggested that the separation be made. The Prince, written to the Medici family over five hundred years ago contained many truths, so universal and accurate that they still influence politics today.
Wisdom and Reputation in Machiavelli’s The Prince “A prince should always take counsel, then, but when he wants advice, not when other people want to give it. On the contrary, he should prevent anyone from offering him uncalled-for advice. But he should also be a liberal questioner, and afterwards a patient hearer of the truth regarding whatever he has asked about. Many people think that a prince who is considered prudent gets that reputation, not on his own merits, but because he has good counselors around him.