How Did Machiavelli's Ideas To Become A Great Leader?

There are many different ways on how a prince or ruler could come into power and how they choose to rule once in power. Niccolo Machiavelli wrote the book The Prince based on his own personal opinions on how a prince should rule. Machiavelli writes all of his beliefs based on princes and the monarchy in England/France in the fourteenth century. The principalities that Machiavelli wrote about can be compared to many European leaders. One European leader that has some differences to what Machiavelli wrote is Joseph Stalin, the dictator of the Soviet Union. As said before many leaders come into power in different ways and the way Stalin came into power and what he did with that power is different from a Machiavellian ruler.

Throughout modern European history, Elizabeth I’s pragmatic reign over her nation, Bismarck’s aggressive yet sly tactics to unify Germany, and Hitler’s expeditious rise to power and its continuation show the development of politics from Machiavelli’s The Prince.

He discusses that the prince have military knowledge, love and fear, trustworthiness, and good and bad reputations. He deeply believes in the art of war. "...a prince must not have any objective nor any thought, nor take up any art, other than the art of war and its ordering and discipline; because it is the only art that pertains to him who commands. And it is of such virtue that not only does it maintain those who were born princes, but many times makes men rise to that rank from private station; and conversely one sees that when princes have thought more of delicacies than of arms, they have lost their state." He also writes about whether it is better to be loved or feared, stating that it is best to be feared, but not hated. Love can change in an instant, and it is better to always have control, even if the prince must be feared. Patriotism and dedication to the state was also a very important aspect. In conclusion, Machiavelli strived for power and strength by any means possible. Through violence and fear, the end result would be worth it to him.

There are varieties of leadership styles. Niccolo Machiavelli and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, are opposites in their characterization of what makes a good leader. One justifies that the “end justifies the means” while the other directs us that “it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends” (King). I agree with the latter of the two believing that the first one burns bridges, while the latter builds them. However, both leadership styles exist today.

Hitler was a man of the people. He was a great orator and was talented at public speaking. Using that gift he was able to rally a crippled Germany behind him to become one of the world’s strongest super powers pre WWII. Hitler was loved by his people and feared by his enemies. His following of those early philosophers was how he founded the Nazi party. He would have pleased Machiavelli with his ability to be both the fox and the lion. Hitler was cunning and smart, he was able to turn himself around from seemingly homeless to the head of the German state. He was also able to rally the Germans behind him, he was courageous and strong and that appealed to the German people. “Extinguish the line of Princes” was a quote from Machiavelli meaning that the new Prince, in an effort to maintain his position, should remove anyone who posed a threat to his power. Hitler did just that when he elected himself Dictator and dissolved the parliament beneath him. He gave himself ultimate control over Germany. Hitler would have disappointed Machiavelli by being reckless. All of Machiavelli’s work boils down to a Prince gaining power and using any means necessary to keep it. The German war machine, while would have been impressive, caused Hitler to fall to exactly what Machiavelli warned against. Machiavelli is quoted saying “He who is blinded by ambition, raises himself to a position whence he cannot mount higher, must thereafter fall with the greatest loss.” Such a quote is very fitting of

In “The Prince” by Niccolo Machiavelli, Machiavelli writes about 16th century principalities and how its princes should act. However, while these ideals may seem dated, Machiavelli’s description holds many similarities and differences to American politics today.

One topic Machiavelli focuses on, especially in Part II, are different types of troops. Had he seen Hitler’s army, he would have classified the troops as "native," and would have applauded Hitler’s choice in troops over "mercenary" (men who fight for money,) "auxiliary" (foreign

What are some of the qualities and strategies Machiavelli recommends to political leaders in the excerpts you read? How does this represent a break with the past?

Arguably, the most Machiavellian leader to ever exist would be Joseph Stalin. He abided by three major Machiavellian methods that were stated in the Prince: the ends justifies the means, crush any opposition, and displaying a false character. Stalin had a plan for Russia and did everything in his power to achieve that plan. He wanted to transform Russia into a industrial superpower, a military superpower, and a political superpower. To achieve his goals he committed many horrible crimes against humanity. To be more specific, Stalin killed more than sixty million people during his reign. He was a selfish cold-blooded, heart less, and evil leader; human life was nothing to him. What caused him to develop such evil traits? It all started

This is wonderful, and I will not be the one to say that knowledge of terrain is unimportant. But, it stands to reason that the lay of the land will do a country little good if there is no need to defend it. Machiavelli's logic is perfect for the situation of the time. It would do little good to know defense if peace runs as rampant as war did. If we prepared peace, there would be no need to know defense.

"Machiavelli identifies the interests of the prince with the interests of the state." He felt that it was human nature to be selfish, opportunistic, cynical, dishonest, and gullible, which in essence, can be true. The state of nature was one of conflict; but conflict, Machiavelli reasoned, could be beneficial under the organization of a ruler. Machiavelli did not see all men as equal. He felt that some men were better suited to rule than others. I believe that this is true in almost any government. However, man in general, was corrupt -- always in search of more power. He felt that because of this corruptness, an absolute monarch was necessary to insure stability. Machiavelli outlined what characteristics this absolute ruler should have in The Prince. One example of this can be seen in his writings concerning morality. He saw the Judeo-Christian values as faulty in the state's success. "Such visionary expectations, he held, bring the state to ruin, for we do not live in the world of the "ought," the fanciful utopia, but in the world of "is". The prince's role was not to promote virtue, but to insure security. He reasoned that the Judeo-Christian values would make a ruler week if he actually possessed them, but that they could be useful in dealing with the citizens if the prince seemed to have these qualities. Another example of Machiavelli's ideal characteristics of a prince

Through his word choice it makes it clear that it is ideally the best choice to be cruel when needed because it is cruel to completely pretend that it is not necessary. The strength, intelligence, and experience clearly show Machiavelli’s ideal to pursue a just society that keeps everyone in check and unified with one another.

If there is such a thing as effective leadership, it involves enthusiasm, inspiration and devotion. Throughout his reign of dominance, the historical and contentious Adolf Hitler had possessed all of the listed traits; qualities in which a transformational leader seizes. Witherbee (2009) revealed that Adolf Hitler was an Australian-born German politician that was highly known as the leader of the Nazi Party. As a fascist and socialist, he took part in the Holocaust and World War II promoting the ideology of a central leadership. Moreover, Hitler’s ultimate goal was to pursue and total Nazi-German hegemony. Regardless of the blatant amount of wrong doings

Machiavelli believes that the foundation of a strong Nation State is a strong army. According to The prince the most important part of being a leader is studying the art of war. Staying in power is a main point in the prince and to stay in power a Prince must conduct a strong army. The Prince proclaims not only do you need a strong army but also you need to be in total control of that army. “Prince ought to have no other aim or thought, nor select anything else for his study, than war and its rules and discipline; for this is the sole art that belongs to him who rules, and it is of such force that it not only upholds those who are born princes, but it often enables

When Machiavelli wrote "The Prince" in the 1500's, his intentions did not apply to the twentieth century. Some very important figures of the twentieth century used basic ideals from "The Prince" to obtain and maintain their position in power. One of these individuals was Adolf Hitler. Hitler used numerous Machiavellian ideas to win his respective place in Germany's government. The two most important Machiavellian principles that Hitler used were winning the people and how he dealt with cruelty and murder.Adolf Hitler, the self-proclaimed "savior" of the German people, was an insecure, egotistical man, who ominously controlled the German people. Hitler thought that he could change things with force, which soon got him into trouble, and