Characteristics Of Machiavelli

In The Prince, Machiavelli repeatedly brings up the theme of importance of appearing like a virtuous ruler.

This Machiavellian doctrine, (“the end justifies the means,”) suggests the idea that if the goals [of the state] are beneficial and accomplished, the ambidextrous, deceptive, and corruptive practices utilized to achieve the goal are acceptable and in many circumstances recommended. Specifically, the characteristics Machiavelli felt were necessary for a successful a ruler in the sixteenth century derived from his ideas about statesmanship & warcraft, virtue, and popular goodwill. Considering Machiavelli’s prestige – several of his ideas traveled internationally and are still examined and observed today. In the final analysis, while the differences between the characteristics necessary for a successful ruler in the sixteenth and the twentieth-twenty first century are evident, the similarities are

As a ruler learns to act as both lion and fox he does so out of necessity. A ruler acts out of expectation. Machiavelli tells the reader that a ruler needs to be both lion and fox, because of expectation. Thus by extension a ruler assumes any number of roles of expectation . Thus to be a ruler you must be able to use doublethink. In an Orwellian sense a ruler who instills fear is loved. The very reaction of fear creates a sense of security which his followers revel in. A leader needs to demonstrate, every role, from the jester, to commander, to friend, to follower, to caring father role. He acts every role so his followers can never figure him out. Thus an effective ruler must not only be beast-like , he must be a beast of camouflage. In every situation he needs to anticipate the needs of his followers. A ruler must be everything so he remains unpredictable. He is not one thing, he is everything. Both delightful and gregarious. He is capable of being merciful then destructive. He is isolated yet loved. He is everything at once to be effective. A ruler that is able to acts on demand is unable to be anticipated. At any moment he changes to a new role to serve his end. His followers in perpetual confusion, his power is assured. Machiavelli tells us that a ruler is not just a beast, he is an actor. A ruler who acts is never

Machiavelli's work was based primarily on achieving power and stability. The citizenry, while important to keep appeased and docile, was not the basis of Machiavelli's perspective. This was not a humanist work; the active engagement of normative, humanist thinking is counterproductive to understanding Machiavelli. In many circumstances, Machiavelli speaks of controlled violence to achieve an end. This discerns that power is not an intrinsic element in itself but an external, conditioned construct that has no true inherent morality. The most pessimistic, however, realistic description of power is simply whomever has the authority to enforce laws--or subservience-- through threat of violence on a specific

How is being feared rather than loved the superior quality that a leader should possess? Niccolò Machiavelli states in the “Qualities of the Prince” that “One should like to be both one and the other; but since it is difficult to join them together, it is much safer to be feared than to be loved” (14). Determining which of these two qualities a leader should possess had been a topic of discussion for centuries. So what makes Machiavelli’s work any different? First off, Machiavelli was an Italian diplomat and a political philosopher, who wrote about politics and power. The biggest element that separates Machiavelli’s work from other philosophers is that he focuses his attention on the goal of power. While doing so, not only did he learn how

After reading Machiavelli’s main points in “Traits of the Prince”, I would remix his traits and give these following advices to an up-and-coming presidential candidate:

Machiavelli’s instruction that a prince should not keep his words to succeed. Saddam did a good job to make him a good leader in his presidency. Saddam lied all the time, flipped flopped, and do what he thought is going to keeping him in the presidency. He gained Iraqis ‘trust because he had promised them many things. In the fact, Saddam never achieved any of them. For example, he promised the Iraqis that he would fix the country’s infrastructure, and never did. In another example, Hussein Kamel, who Saddam’s cousins, defected from Saddam’s Party and went to Jordan along with his brother. In Jordan, Kamel tried to turn to the United States. In that time Saddam said that he gave false information about Iraq’s weapons programs which led the U.S. Invasion of Iraq. According to the article the New York Times “senior Army aides to Iraq president defect to Jordan” said that “The defectors include Lieut. Gen. Hussein Kamel, the husband of President Hussein's eldest daughter, Raghad.

Then to aid this principle on the appropriate governing style Machiavelli makes a point that dissent is bad: "And these few do not dare to oppose the opinion of the many, who have the majesty of the state to confirm the view [especially those of the prince]" (1751). This means that since the Prince's ranking is above yours in the top down system you have no choice but to do as he says and should never question his authority. Another example of an authoritarian styled government.

This person is the equivalent of a king or queen without a throne; he or she may influence the people around them positively as they all work to fulfill daily obligations, but his or her reach is very limited. By contrast, a person in a position of authority who fails to recognize, trust, value, and encourage the flourishing of skills among his or her colleagues and staff will quickly lose respect and support from these people. In 1513, Machiavelli wrote, “I'm not interested in preserving the status quo. I want to overthrow it.” Therefore, in addition to having a low tolerance for dishonesty, he apparently did not buy into transactional management theory either. I hold the belief that the key ingredient that distinguishes a leader from an authority figure is power. To the traditional Machiavellian, power allows the ends to justify the means. But in a frail world where leadership consists of power grabs for the sake of power-grabbing, leadership will ultimately fall apart for, as Machiavelli wrote, "It is not titles that honor men, but men that honor titles." Any leader who focuses solely on the accrual of power is acting disingenuously and, when the people revolt against this behavior, this leader's employment status may meet a tragic end. To Machiavelli, true leaders strive to shatter false pretenses. "Men judge generally more by the eye than by

Furthermore, if the prince were to abide to “goodness” and “morality,” it would cause ruin to their power. The successful ruler, then, must learn to perform “beastly” and malicious acts, which are carefully calculated, as a means to establish power, preserve it, and earn lasting praise. The fearful and tentative prince, on the other hand, will fall victim to another force that is not constrained by abstract, moral prospects. Although Machiavelli encourages viciousness, he does not endorse tyranny. He correspondingly criticizes vicious acts that are not related to the preservation of the regime. His suggestions are not abstract principles, but rather pragmatic pieces of advice, set within the context of a leader establishing or defending himself and his people against “barbarian” enemies. He also believes in the mutual participation of both the ruler and the

Humanism was part of classical philosophy and Christian thought, meaning that people who followed humanism are people who care about what other people think. Humanism focused on what individuals were capable of doing. Machiavelli did not care about what other people thought, nor did he like Christianity. Most people would say he is a humanist, but I on the other hand do not believe he is a humanist. Due to Machiavelli’s belief with what other people’s individuals and his thought on religion, Machiavelli is not a humanist.

In The Prince, Machiavelli discusses how a leader maintains power and ways to do so. For example, Machiavelli states:

In the text, The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli talks about the power that a leader must imply over the followers in order to maintain the control. Machiavelli states that there are certain ways in which people in leadership maintain the power; one of them is to avoid being sentimental toward other people; another way is that leaders should be able to take control over people by using cruelty, and making people to fear, but acknowledging that there must be a limit in which people use this cruelty. As long as The Prince ( or any other ruler) is helping the people to benefit themselves from his leadership, he is making the correct use of these ways to maintain the power. However, there could be doubts over the power that an individual implies over the people, since people could look for the weaknesses that this individual possesses. So, in order for a ruler to maintain the power he/she has to avoid being sentimental, use cruelty in a moderate way, and benefit the followers as he proceeds with the leadership.

Machiavelli in his work informs the prince that even if he does possess certain qualities he shall always appear to his followers as retaining all of these qualities as shown in the following quotation “A prince, therefore, need not necessarily have all the good qualities I mentioned above, but he should certainly appear to have them… He should appear to be compassionate, faithful to his word, kind guileless, and devout… He should not deviate from what is good, if that is possible, but he should know how to do evil, if that is necessary” (Machiavelli 57). Machiavelli highlights that image is extremely crucial for rulers and they must alter the perceptions of their people in regard to him in order to appear in control at all times for the purpose of maintaining and sustaining control. This idea is overturning

re such, the prince must always respond with such. Whereas Machiavelli laces his historical points with a wealth of evidence and detail, he tends not to provide significant explanations for many broad generalizations on human nature. Machiavelli clearly demonstrates that through his negative and pessimistic view on human nature, that the common citizen is only part of the equation which keeps the prince in power. Machiavelli also believes that unless we assume that human nature and behavior is unchanging, how can we study and understand the actions of people in the past. The lessons and principles derived from the study of the past could be applied to the present, therefore Machiavelli’s view on human nature will always be a negative one. Without virtue and without adhering to any sort of moral code, the prince, is able to consolidate his governance over the common people through intimidation and brute force.