Analysis Of Machiavelli 's ' The Prince '

Author: The speaker of the excerpt is Niccolo Machiavelli. Machiavelli is considered to be the first political philosopher. Employed as a diplomat of the state, Machiavelli wrote Histories, a book about the decline of prestige of Italian city-states. The Medici family had a grudge against Machiavelli, and therefore exiled him from Florence. After the powerful Medici family exiled him to his house in the countryside, Machiavelli wrote The Prince in attempt to make his political ideology known, and in hope to be reemployed by the state.

The political situation that prompted Machiavelli to write The Prince was that Italy wasn’t a unified country yet. It was a bunch of city states.

“Since, then, a prince must know how to use well the nature of the beast, he should choose from among the beasts the fox and the lion; for the lion cannot defend itself from traps, while the fox cannot protect itself from the wolves. It is therefore necessary to be a fox, in order to recognize the traps, and a lion, in order to frighten the wolves’ (Machiavelli 60).” When must the Prince be the lion and when must he be the fox? In The Prince written by Machiavelli, Machiavelli writes to the Prince to tell him the best way to rule over a principality, and the consequences of the decisions he makes in his ruling. Machiavelli applies figurative language, such as metaphors to explain the way a situation will often play out. He represents different roles of leadership as animals. The different animals, lion, wolf, fox, have varying characteristics. Machiavelli uses the metaphors of a lion and a fox in order to illustrate the need for a prince to be both strong and brave and sly and cunning. The effect of these metaphors is to demonstrate that a prince must demonstrate more than just one characteristic in order to lead with power and authority.

In The Prince, Machiavelli discusses ways in which a ruler should obtain power and maintain power, emphasizing the concept of gaining power through virtue versus fortune. Virtue, or virtu in the original Italian, is defined as the masculine quality of power, and not necessarily tied to ideas of morality as it is in the English definition.

As you stare down the barrel of a gun, you may find yourself encompassed by fear and unable to move. Niccolo Machiavelli believed that fear and manipulation were key to dominate men. In Machiavelli’s paper, “The Morals of the Prince”, he educates the reader on what it means to be an effective position of authority- a leader. In light of Machiavelli’s beliefs, this paper will argue that love is more useful than being feared in positions of power, using examples from the educational system, parents, and the law enforcement.

History 's most prominent leaders have shown extreme congruence. These leaders almost always hold reality over ethics. How can we classify lying and manipulative leaders as immoral when their duplicity is the very reason a society can maintain stability? This idea has of "means justifying the ends" has been a staple in History 's most prosperous of societies. Machiavelli 's novel The Prince was the first stab at understanding this human tendency of what is now known as Machiavellian. Machiavelli grasped the sad reality of our world and did not fall prey to other 's idealistic propaganda. Great leaders understand what the endless potential they hold, they can manipulate their followers to make best of what is possible and above all they understand sacrifice. Modern day Machiavellians and successful leaders think realistically and communicate through idealism. No matter the extremes of your belief, utilizing Machiavellian tactics have the capability to bring anyone to power.

Niccolò Machiavelli was an activist of analyzing power. He believed firmly in his theories and he wanted to persuade everyone else of them as well. To comment on the common relationship that was seen between moral goodness and legitimate authority of those who held power, Machiavelli said that authority and power were essentially coequal.9 He believed that whomever had power obtained the right to command; but goodness does not ensure power. This implied that the only genuine apprehension of the administrative power was the attainment and preservation of powers which indirectly guided the maintenance of the state. That, to him, should have been the objective of all leaders. Machiavelli believed that one should do whatever it took, during the given circumstance, to keep his people in favor of him and to maintain the state. Thus, all leaders should have both a sly fox and ravenous wolf inside of him prepared to release when necessary.10

In the fourth chapter of Machiavelli's Prince, he doesn’t tell his readers the right or wrong ways to conquer a country, instead he spells out both options for leaders and their advantages and disadvantages. Machiavelli uses examples that were world famous. They are empires that shaped the world his readers lived in, and still shape the world modern readers live in. He uses names that would have been household names, Darius, Alexander the Great, the Turks etc.

During the Reformation, a resurgence of Christian humanistic thoughts and values appeared which focused on religious revival (Hunt et al. 448). Humanism emphasizes rational thought in solving problems over divine or supernatural matters. During the Reformation, young, educated clerics, funded by wealthy merchants and wealthy families, travelled throughout Europe to spread their Christian faith to more people. During the Renaissance period, humanists sought to return to classical Greek, a departure from Latin language and literature. The integration of humanist ideology and religion is a departure from modern humanist theory which removes all traces of theology or supernatural belief, requiring the person to affirm their individual responsibility to leading an ethical life.

There is also the statement that, to know peace, you must prepare war. Machiavelli states this, again, as he lives through a ravaged northern Italy and a failing economy. If the Medicis had, in some way, shape or form prepared just the slightest for these wars, there would be (certainly) less of a problem. Rather, the Medicis focused on a strong economy, (meaning they made more money) thinking nothing of war. When war came, they were forced to raise taxes for defense

Niccolo Machiavelli and Karl Marx developed theories concerning wealth and poverty in our society, as well as different types of governments. For instance, Machiavelli supported a capitalist economic system, unlike Marx, who embraced socialism in the society. Machiavelli wrote a book "The Prince" that explained how to be an effective leader. The theme of the book is "the end justifies the means." A person could or should do whatever is necessary to achieve the desired goal. According to Machiavelli, there is no concept of a perfect ruler, but only effective or ineffective leaders. Therefore, he claims that there are no fair fighters, but only losers and winners. Contrary, Marx embraced democracy as good practice for the government. This paper will analyze whether Marx would buy Machiavelli 's thought that states "desired ends justify undesirable means" (Weng 1).

Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince examines the nature of power and his views of power are still somewhat in existence today. I'll discuss this in this essay, emphasizing the following theses. Machiavelli discusses power over the people, dictatorial power, and power with people, shared power. While it is possible for power with to attain greater prevalence in society, it will not completely eliminate power over. In The Prince, Machiavelli discusses two distinct groups of people, the political elite, including nobles and other princes, and the general public. Today in the United States, the first group, the political elite, includes political leaders, religious leaders, business leaders and the leaders of

Niccolo Machiavelli is a very pragmatic political theorist. His political theories are directly related to the current bad state of affairs in Italy that is in dire need of a new ruler to help bring order to the country. Some of his philosophies may sound extreme and many people may call him evil, but the truth is that Niccolo Machiavelli’s writings are only aimed at fixing the current corruptions and cruelties that filled the Italian community, and has written what he believed to be the most practical and efficient way to deal with it. Three points that Machiavelli illustrates in his book The Prince is first, that “it is better to be feared then loved,”# the second

Machiavelli’s The Prince can be utilized as a guidebook to answer: “How best can a ruler maintain control of his state?” Therefore, if any employer reads it as a how-to-book rather than just a work of political theory, they can be seen as the ruler while the state would be the rest of the employees. If this is followed like an agenda, the sole purpose of government is not the good of the people but the stability of the state and the perpetuation of the established ruler’s control. It would define the city as an entity existing to serve its ruler rather than its populace. Obtaining the support of the people is not a goal in itself, but rather a means for ensuring that the city remains fortified.

The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli presents a detailed analysis of how to acquire political power and maintain it. The author discusses how great men should conduct themselves and the desired principles of a princely government. Utopia by Sir Thomas More illustrates what the character Raphael Hythloday, its narrator, suggests to be the perfect human society found in the island of Utopia. This essay looks at why Machiavelli thinks a prince needs to have virtù in order to rule well, and whether Fortuna can actually foster the prince’s virtù. It will also look at the extent to which Utopia provides an argument that a leader has to have virtù in order to govern well. The essay will explore if there is any proof in Utopia that Fortuna plays a role in fostering virtù.