How to become a successful and strong leader? What are essential characteristics that are imperative to become one? These questions were asked many centuries ago, as well as they are asked today. Niccolo Machiavelli wrote one of the most influential treatises on leadership that is still utilized in politics and management today. One of the defining conceptions he explores is locating a balance between being virtuous and righteous and practicing carefully selected deceit and cunning. Gilgamesh’s exhibition of leadership is much more primordial and archetypal, which is the product of different eras, where the notions of power and the state were at opposite ends of a spectrum, as were the structures that organize people. Although Gilgamesh …show more content…
Gilgamesh is the king of Uruk, the largest and most prosperous city at that time. He is “surpassing all kings, for his stature renowned, / Heroic offspring of Uruk, a charging wild bull,/ He leads the way in the vanguard,/ He marches at the rear, defender of his comrades.” We can see that he is a brave hero who shows much capability in battle, who led his city to undeniable success. He is aggressive, courageous, and fearlessly battles strong adversaries, caring little about his own safety. During Gilgamesh’s time, the most important quality of leadership was bravery, which he possessed an ample amount of. The mythological warrior exists in a time before the development of the state and civilization. He represents the raw, unbridled force necessary to vanquish an enemy before power became institutionalized. Machiavelli would definitely appreciate qualities needed for a good leader in Gilgamesh, who is a courageous and aggressive warrior, who fights fearlessly in the sake of his …show more content…
Such qualities are necessary for a Machiavellian’s leader. Gilgamesh participates in endless battles, side by side with his soldiers, who faithfully serve him. He is a “defender of his comrades” and a “protector of his troops.” Thus, Gilgamesh depends just as much on his people as they do on him. He is able to convince his people to stand by him no matter what odds they are up against. Because of their strength in numbers, this can only be done if a leader is feared to some degree, which shows that Gilgamesh indeed is feared by his people, who are willing to fight for him, for their city, and their
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.
Niccolo Machiavelli believes in a strong government. The leader should be strong and feared. I believe he gets this idea from the fear of God; no one is supposed to question God because he is so feared, and in the same sense, no one should question a strong leader. Machiavelli realizes that the leader should be feared, but not hated. A hated leader will probably be killed in a rebellion. One also can not be loved. Any compassion towards your citizens will make them believe you are weak, and they will rebel. He thinks a very strong military is necessary at all times, and that powerful arms should be available and in hand. This idea is similar to that of right wing America and our friends, the National Rifle Association, who believe assault rifles are America’s pastime. The nation should always be prepared for war, and should always be searching for new lands to conquer. T...
Leadership qualities demonstrate a vital role in the products of society. While governing over many individuals, it is necessary to manifest the required attributes and take precautions to lead a community as a whole to success. Lao-Tzu and Niccoló Machiavelli’s written works are prime examples on what it means to become a great leader, although they differ considerably in their views on the subject. The two historical figures offer distinct evidence on their approach to violence, their reputation, and the treatment of their subjects. Through opposing ideas and intake, Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli logically and carefully contemplate the appropriate means to maintain power.
In an earlier century, Niccoló Machiavelli, wrote a document called, “The Prince.” This book was about what it takes to be a successful ruler, and the number one rule of course was: “Power is Everything.” How you acquire the power made no difference as long as you had it. Many people repulsed Machiavelli’s idea of power at all costs, but it would soon be the basis of the government in some countries.
Throughout The Prince and The Discourses of Livy, Niccolo Machiavelli demonstrates multiple theories and advocacies as to why popular rule is important to the success of a state. Popular rule is a term that will be used to define an indirect way to govern the people of a state. In order to rule the masses, a leader must please the people or revolts will occur, causing mayhem and a lack of stability in one’s state. During both written works, Machiavelli stresses the importance of obedience and order needed for a state, and especially for a leader to be successful. Machiavelli thoroughly states that anything and everything must be done to keep the peace of the masses, even if acts of immorality are used. However, instead of advocating immorality, Machiavelli is saying that to serve the people and the state well, a ruler must not restrict himself to conventional standards of morality. His use of immoral tactics in leadership would appear to be unpopular; however the acts of immorality have limitations and are done solely to avoid displeasing the masses or creating disorder. Therefore it is acceptable to practice immorality if it is done only to a small number of constituents, if it is not repeated, and if it is performed to please and benefit the public. It is these limitations that prove Machiavelli is arguing that the use of immoral tactics, to rule the people and in turn be ruled by the people, is needed. He suggests that if the majority of the population is unhappy with a leader, that particular leader’s rule would be in jeopardy, thus falling victim to popular rule.
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.
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.
Maxwell, John. The 21 Indispensable Qualities of a Leader: Becoming the Person Others Will Want to Follow. New York: Thomas Nelson Inc., 2007.
Machiavelli’s The Prince was written more than 500 years ago and it is “one of the most influential and controversial books published in Western literature.” (Article A) It was about Machiavelli’s political philosophies and the basic principles of what he believes a politician or “prince” should be. The three main ideas of the Prince were “Liberality and Stinginess”, “Cruelty and Mercy: Is It Better to Be Loved Than Feared, or the Reverse?”, and “How a Prince Should Keep Their Promises” and for the most part many of his concepts should or are already instilled in our government.
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.
Some of Gilgamesh’s qualities are that he had a “beauty… surpassing all others” and was “two thirds… god and one third man” (13). Before Enkidu, Gilgamesh acted horribly. He was a terrible ruler and a terrible man. Gilgamesh was not all good, for example, “his lust leaves no virgin to her lover, neither the warrior’s daughter nor the wife of the noble…” (13). He was a terrible ruler. Gilgamesh was arrogant, but very powerful in his country. His people had no choice but to listen to him. They were forced to go along with his unlawfulness and stubbornness.
Throughout history, it can be argued that at the core of the majority of successful societies has stood an effective allocation of leadership. Accordingly, in their respective works “The Tao-te Ching” and “The Prince”, Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli have sought to reach a more complete understanding of this relationship. The theme of political leaders and their intricate relationship with society indeed manifests itself within both texts, however, both Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli approach this issue from almost entirely opposite positions. Lao-Tzu appears to focus the majority of his attention on letting problems or situations take their course and allowing good to prevail. On the contrary, Machiavelli advocates the necessity for a successful leader, or prince, to take control of his endeavors, and the skills or qualities necessary to maintain power, at any cost. Since these thinkers both make an inquiry to what is essentially the same dilemma of effective leadership, it becomes almost a natural progression to juxtapose the two in an effort to better understand what qualities a prosperous leader must possess. In this sense, when we utilize the rhetorical strategy of compare/contrast as a vehicle to transport us to a more enlightened interpretation of Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli’s conclusions, it becomes apparent that Machiavelli’s effort is much more successful as his practicality serves its purpose much more effectively.
The story itself reflects an image of the cultural situation in which it was conceived. One major difference between this ancient society and our own is the way in which we sustain our leaders. Gilgamesh's character, whether based on an actual person or not, is portrayed as a very powerful and proud person. He was created to be better and stronger than common man and he is favored by the gods. This portrayal of a super-human king indicates a deep respect for leadership by those who told this story. Likely, these people lived under the rule of a monarchy in which the King was the all powerful leader and lawmaker. In today's society though, it is not common for one person to have unlimited power. Our governments are designed to divide ruling power between numerous parties; in order to keep any one person from becoming all powerful. Today's society would not tolerate a king who could do as he pleases, even if he were a noble and just man. In the story, Gilgamesh's super-human strength and power are not always convenient to his subjects. "His arrogance has no bounds", and "his lust leaves no virgin to her lover," yet the people respect his authority. The supremacy of Gilgamesh in the story reflects the feelings toward leadership held by that society which created the story. The respect they had for an all powerful monarch is hard for us to understand today. Our society looks down on those who rule as dictators and labels them tyrants and enemies. It is odd to imagine living in a society where a king is to be respected.
Niccoló Machiavelli claims in “The Qualities of the Prince” that a prince must have certain qualities that will allow him to seize and maintain his power as a ruler. Machiavelli asserts that these qualities will guarantee the ruler to be able to govern his subjects effectively. According to him, a prince must study the art of war, must understand generosity and to what extent he must be generous to be effective, must choose to either be loved or feared, and be able to keep his word to his citizens according to the situation. These qualities can still apply in today’s politics, and will be useful for a modern time politician as long as they are used carefully.
The story of Gilgamesh seems to be a collection of trials and tribulation. Throughout the book, you watch characters battle demons with each other, as well as within themselves. The tantalizing temptations that fill each character, ultimately leads to destruction and death. One example was the relationship between Ishtar and Gilgamesh. Both characters display a type of arrogant, 'ego-consciousness' (Neumann 63) that inevitably leads to subversive fate.