Comparing Sun Tzu And Machiavelli's The Prince

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.

Sun Tzu and Machiavelli have similar views on preparation before battle. Both believe that appropriate preparation ultimately causes victory to lean in the favor of those with little reliance on circumstance. Machiavelli stated that “rulers maintain themselves better if they owe little to luck.” Leaders prepared for battle will not falter under the weight of pressure unlike opposition who rely on a specific circumstances for their strategy to be effective. Sun Tzu practically implies that the same exact tactic be used by generals of armies. He says, “Therefore, the victorious military is first victorious and after that does battle. The defeated military first does battle and after that seeks victory.” Sun Tzu’s statement seems to provide a more precise strategy which is clearly tailored more towards a military interested in winning battles rather than a ruler governing a principality. Sun Tzu’s directions are all about

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

Machiavelli’s view on leadership is quite different from Mirandolla’s; he believes that the law is quite often not sufficient and force must be used. He illustrates his view of leadership through the example of a fox and a lion, “the lion cannot defend himself against snares and the fox cannot defend himself against wolves. Therefore, it is necessary to be a fox to discover the snares and a lion to terrify the wolves.” He thinks that a leader cannot solely rely on being only a fox or a lion, but a little bit of both. But through what he says, it is clear that he prefers the cunning and deceitful fox over the

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

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."

On page 214 Lao-Tzu says, “The master is above the people, and no one feels oppressed. She goes ahead of the people, and no one feels manipulated.” Lao-Tzu’s standpoint on how a leader should be perceived is thought to be peaceful along with a sense of power through the people. He wants the leader to be powerful, but only as if the people were leading themselves; this gives the nation as a whole confidence as if they didn’t need the help of a leader at all. Adversely, Machiavelli deems it suitable for a ruler to be feared; he thinks that in order for one to have the capability of a great leader, one must have little mercy, but yet also not be seen as cruel.

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.

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

“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

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.” (BAM, 2010, p.20) These words were first written down over 2,400 years ago by a Chinese general named Sun Tzu in his famous military strategy treatise known today as The Art of War. These words, in fact the entire book, are just as valid today as they were during Sun Tzu’s lifetime. He was one of the first truly visionary and ethical military leaders in the world. Despite the fact that there is not much known about Sun Tzu today other than his writings, in this essay, I intend to extract his essence from his treatise to prove he was a visionary leader. I will then continue to prove he was also an ethical leader. Finally, I will finish by

Showing emotions can often be seen as being weak, especially at times of war. Nicolo Machiavelli’s leadership book, The Prince from 1512, and Sun Tzu’s strategic guide The Art of War from the 14th century were heavily influenced by war, and constant threats that were looming. At the time only important thing for a leader was to win and to the keep going forward no matter the costs. The goal for both military strategists was to be as effective as possible, in the real world discarding everything that is not practical. According to both Sun Tzu and Machiavelli, a leader has more responsibilities than any normal person and his views on life’s ethics and morals should not be the same. Therefore things that are viewed as strength for a normal

Niccolo Machiavelli was the first person to define leadership adequately. Machiavelli set out the foundation of modern leadership theories by outlining the five basic tenets of a good leader. These tenets are still relevant, if not relished, in today’s business and management studies. However, the writers of today shy away from referencing Machiavelli directly due to negative connotations that come with his basic premises. Some say the Machiavellian theory of leadership comes out as cunning, deceitful or self-serving. Nonetheless, Machiavelli’s theory of good leadership asserts that a good leader should be virtuous, be intelligent, should be feared rather than loved (that is if they cannot accomplish both), should always maintain support from the people and should not rely on auxiliary units instead rely on their own arms. This paper will try to translate Machiavelli’s good leadership laundry list into the modern parlance. And by doing so, the essay will highlight how modern leaders can utilize Machiavelli's leadership theory.