Comparing Sun Tzu And Machiavelli's The Prince

author of Prince. They are both philosophers but have totally different perspective on how to be a good leader. While both philosopher’s writing is instructive. Lao-tzu’s advice issues from detached view of a universal ruler; Machiavelli’s advice is very personal perhaps demanding. Both philosophers’ idea will not work for today’s world, because that modern world is not as perfect as Lao-tzu described in Tao-te

This compare and contrast essay will focus on the views of leadership between Mirandolla and Machiavelli. Mirandolla believes that leadership should not be false and that it should follow the rule of reason. He believes that leaders should strive for the heavens and beyond. On the other hand, Machiavelli believed that leadership comes to those who are crafty and forceful. He believed that leaders do not need to be merciful, humane, faithful or religious; they only need to pretend to have all these qualities. Despite both of them being philosophers, they have drastically different views on leadership, partially because of their views on religion are different. Mirandolla was very religious, and Machiavelli was a pragmatist, which means that

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

With all that has changed since the time Lao-tzu lived and since Machiavelli’s era, it is important to note the ideas that remain. Those ideas find support within political parties, and they conflict in the same way that the Tao-te Ching and The Prince have for so long. What remains is a standoff between two extreme ideologies. I do not mean to suggest that a modern leader should be like neither Lao-tzu nor Machiavelli, rather the opposite. I believe that a good leader should be like Lao-tzu, Machiavelli, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and every other successful leader that came before him. The key to being a good leader is knowing when it is appropriate to think like Guatama Buddha, and when to use battle strategies similar to those of Alexander the Great. Ideal leaders do not debate over which of the great strategists from the past is best; they understand the individual strengths that made historical figures successful and know when to use each one. An intelligent leader views two extremes, understands the arguments for both sides, and decides which is better. An ideal leader decides which strengths from each argument would form the best

Anywhere you go, there will be a community ruled by a leader. The qualities of leaders play a vital role in the success or failure of a society; if these qualities are effective, it allows the country to be successful and the ruler’s to fulfill the country’s needs. However, the absence of effective leadership qualities result in severe effects towards the country. When comparing the thoughts of Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli, it becomes obvious these two authors have different beliefs on how to be an effective leader. Machiavelli was a historian in Italy, a diplomat, a philosopher, a politician, and a writer during the era of the Renaissance. Lao-Tzu, during the 6th century, was an ancient Chinese philosopher. These two authors approach at almost entirely different positions. For this reason, it is a natural progression to collocate the two in an effort to better understand the qualities a leader should possess. To prove their philosophies, Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli have sought to reach a more complete understanding of each other’s thoughts on the subjects of war and weapons, qualities of leaders and the people, and how to govern.

Distinguishing the differences between Lao-Tzu’s Tao-te Ching, written in the early sixth century B.C.E., and Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Qualities of the Prince, composed in 1513, can be shown through major points that both pursue opposing opinions. Whether it is their view of war, their stand on leadership, or even how they believe the ruler should be perceived, Lao-Tzu and Niccolò Machiavelli always seem to be on a different page. Through their pieces of work, one can see how their views differ. Between Lao-Tzu wanting nothing but peace and harmony and Machiavelli seeing a need for power and fear, both are on two very different ends of the spectrum. Lao-Tzu’s stand on war is not what you’d expect.

Nicolo Machiavelli’s The Prince and Sun Tzu’s The Art of War both both provide directions for leadership with similar goals. The Prince is primarily geared towards providing valuable information about how a ruler of many principalities may govern different populations and acquire new lands. The Art of War provides us with a schematic of the optimal path to victory. This book is instead directed towards generals of powerful militaries with only the goal of winning. Concepts such as Machiavelli’s view of destruction will be contrasted with Sun Tzu’s victory-oriented argument for taking whole and several of their other ideas will be compared. Although Machiavelli and Sun Tzu have different intended audiences, many of their ancient tactics can

The basic advice given by Niccolo Machiavelli on governing a society contradicts that of Lao-Tzu's in the way they differ in philosophies, yet the ends they seek to meet are similar. They each had unique philosophies on leadership. As I attempt in trying to find commonalities in these two philosophies, the only one that I can sense is that both give advice on how to lead a nation to maintain prosperity, safety, and peace. I also find truth in the book statement that reads: "Like Lao-Tzu, Machiavelli is brief and to the point."

Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince give the world an insight on his thought about those who rule, virtue, military power, and human nature. He elaborates on his ideal prince who must take power, but also maintain power. The Prince is extremely relevant in modern society and often looked upon as the beginning of modern political thinking. Machiavelli gives this prince an outline of the tools needed to maintain power and reinforces these ideas by giving examples of other leader’s successes and failures. Machiavelli believes that the prince must complete understand the balance between war and government. Understanding this balance and being fluent in both politics and war is crucial for maintaining power. Politicians today still use some of the tactics given by

Machiavelli 's the prince summarized the general concept behind the logic of leading, but it is hard to grasp this big idea without seeing the outcome of its appliance. Stalin, Hitler and other iron fisted leaders are often considered Machiavellian. While their motives and ambitions are widely accepted as immoral, their rise to power was absolutely genius. Hitler 's ability to unify a collapsing nation

Throughout the course of history, political philosophy has been dominated by two great thinkers: Niccolo Machiavelli and Socrates. Although both highly influential, Socrates and Machiavelli may not see eye to eye. When it comes to the idea of how an “ideal prince” would act, Machiavelli believes that they should lead through fear and follow a thirst for power, no matter the cost. Socrates, on the other hand, believes that they should lead through morality and have a healthy thirst for knowledge. Overall, these two would not exactly agree on what the actions of a good leader would look like or how a political system should be run.

“Machiavelli wrote The Prince to serve as a handbook for rulers, and he claims explicitly throughout the work that he is not interested in talking about the ideal republics or imaginary utopias, as many of his predecessors had done” (Harrison). There is an ongoing debate about which philosopher’s ideas are most correct on the subject of leadership. Two main philosophers come to mind when thinking of this topic and they are Machiavelli with his book The Prince and Plato’s dialogue The Republic. The Republic takes a very theoretical point of view on leadership and portrays life as it should be in an ideal state, whereas Machiavelli’s The Prince, takes a more realistic point of view. Machiavelli is less interested with what things should be

Niccolò Machiavelli was brave enough to give the leaders of his day a how-to guide. In this work, The Qualities of a Prince, we are given a point-by-point description of what a leader should do to effectively lead his country. Machiavelli explains that, because leadership is (obviously) a position of command, "[war] is the only profession which benefits one who commands. " (p. 33)

The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli (1469 – 1527) is one of the most important surviving texts on political philosophy to date. In The Prince, Machiavelli provides a guide to ruling, complete with some of the more unpleasant necessities that come with maintaining power. Though Machiavelli explores a myriad of ways to achieve political power, one of his biggest focuses is on how to conduct warfare and its importance to a healthy state. The importance of warfare in Machiavelli is great because it informs the rest of his reign and the surrounding politics. He himself outlines the importance of arms by saying that, “the chief foundations of all states, whether new, old, or mixed, are good laws and good arms” and that “there cannot be good laws where there are not good arms, and where there are good arms there must be good laws”(44). It is based off of this importance of the military that Machiavelli devotes much of The Prince to the conducting of good war and the importance of its role in politics and the stability of state. To understand the work of Machiavelli is to understand law and politics, topics that, for Machiavelli, are founded on military strength.

One of the most imperative characteristics of a successful king and ruler is their military leadership. According to Machiavelli, a king’s main thought