How Does Machiavelli's Use Of Political Power

Machiavelli led us to a question that was continuously in disagreement. That question was “Is it better to be loved than feared, or vice versa” (p.392)? Machiavelli thought that one is to be loved & feared. Nevertheless, at the same time it’s tremendously hard to achieve being both loved & feared. Machiavelli believed that if one had to do without one of them that it would be a safer to be feared than to be loved. For example if a ruler was more loved than feared then if you served their men’s interest & were also devoted to them they would promise you their blood, possessions, lives, & children until you needed help because once you needed help you were on our own. If you’re more feared than loved then when you’re in trouble your

After reading Machiavelli’s The Prince and watching Shakespeare’s Henry V in class, one begins to notice similarities between the authors’ idea of what a “perfect king” should be. The patterns between the ideal ruler of Shakespeare and the ideal ruler of Machiavelli can be seen in numerous instances throughout this story. For the duration of this essay, I will compare the similarities in both pieces to give the reader a better understanding of how Shakespeare devised his view of what a “perfect king” should be.

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.

Machiavelli also presents the idea that the power of a leader depends more on the qualities of the man than on of god. Thats the matter, loved and feared-qualities need there limits the same way as anything else in a social relation. Machiavelli himself stating that a man who makes himself loved than who makes himself feared; the reason is that love is a link to obligation, which men, because they are rotten, and will break any time soon. Machiavelli complicates the nation of good as purely subordinate power, arguing that the excess of “good” can actually do harm. In this case too much clemency can lead to uprisings and civil war. Cruelty what Machiavelli believes in, states that it can serve the greater good. I personally disagree with Machiavelli's text, I think love is stronger than fear. A commander loved by his soldiers will defeat a commander feared by his soldiers in almost all battles, but the feared commander is less subject to arbitrary chance. Its not only love that can destroy a man, so can fear.

Throughout The Prince, Machiavelli encourages the idea that a fear leader is a good leader. Machiavelli makes the point that a good leader knows that it is, “far safer to be feared than loved” (Machiavelli 43) because love allows for weakness. It is easy to keep people under control and in line when they fear their leader because they do not want to have to face consequences that come with “doing wrong”. When a leader is loved, some many look at this as a weakness. Those who fear their leader are is less likely to curate rebellions and revolts because they know that their leader is not afraid of applying punishment. When a ruler is too kind to their subjects it leaves them vulnerable and they are easily taken advantage of, which threatens their position. For a good leader should, “desire to be accounted merciful and not cruel”, and needs to,

He placed emphasis on how a prince should do anything to maintain and increase their own powers – it was apparent that he felt the individual needs of a prince in terms of the power and authority was important and that a prince should do whatever he felt necessary to protect the state and as a result it would mean a prince’s position as a ruler was also prodected. [Wheeler, 2011] Machiavelli placed a large amount on the emphasis on the fact that a prince must be seen to be a moral - but he is able act un-morally if it contributes to the good of the state or provides him with more power. He must be loved by the people and he must also be feared in order to maintain his role as a ruler of a state. Machiavelli argued that if a prince cannot be both loved and feared - it is better for him to be feared as more people would be scared to question him and afraid of the consequences that may follow. This results in more power and authority for the prince but at the same time it means that the prince is less accountable. This is a benefit for the prince but no for the people living within the state that Machiavelli is suggesting (Macmillian, 2006)

Machiavelli thought that a ruler should be feared because it causes the citizens to not revolt against them.(Doc 1) That statement is not true because the Enlightenment caused a democracy instead of an absolute monarchy. With an absolute monarchy, Machiavelli didn’t want the citizens to have any freedom and wanted them to fear the ruler, but the democracy government changed that. The ruler did not have full control over everyone anymore. The ruler was also not feared and no one revolted against them. This proves that a ruler doesn’t have to be feared in order for citizens not to revolt.

The Prince by Machiavelli is a fascinating, captivating and petrifying read, thaat probably every president, ruler, CEO, leader has put their hands into. In a nutshell the book is a breakdown of how to grow and maintain power in a political system. Some might consider this book a practical guidebook for a ruler, which is not coincidental seeing that the book is dedicated to the ruler of Florence, Lorenzo de’ Medici. And others have suggested that “The Prince” is a satire, which was poking fun at the already existing form of government and rulers at the time it was written. The beginning of the Prince, show that its list of advice and guidance has to do with a monarchy type of ruling, where absolute power lays in the hands of a single ruler.

  The Prince is a celebrated and highly controversial piece of work by the Italian aristocrat Niccolo Machiavelli. His work is a summation of all the qualities a prince must have in order to remain in his position. Machiavelli supports the idea that a prince use his power for the ultimate benefit of all, but he also does not condemn the use of any unpleasant means in order for the prince to maintain his power. His ideas both compare and contrast to the methods used by Prince Hamlet of Denmark in Shakespeare's Hamlet. Hamlet, as we know, struggles mightily to maintain his position as the prince, and one must wonder if this is due to some of the highly essential qualities outlined by

On the other hand, fear is completely different from love because fear sets up an illusion to its citizens. If the citizens fear their leader, they will be aware that breaking the law may bring forth drastic consequences and thus will be deterred from breaking the law. Machiavelli does not argue for constant fear because such will lead to a rebellion, instead, he argues for sporadic demonstrations of fear to remind the population of the power disparity that is present. In contrast, Al-Farabi argument encapsulates a more traditional sense of political philosophy as he focuses on ethics. He states “ the supreme ruler without qualification is he who does not need anyone to rule him in anything whatever, but has actually acquired the sciences and every kind of knowledge, and has no need of a man to guide him in anything.

Therefore if a prince wants to maintain his rule, he must be prepared not to be virtuous, and to make use of this or not according to need” (“The Influence of Machiavelli on Shakespeare”).

Contrasting this, Shakespeare advocates for pre-determinism over self-determinism as a result of heirless Queen Elizabeth lying on her death bed. The absence of an established heir leading through the Divine Right of the King could lead to an impending civil war as civilians attempt to seize the throne for themselves, Shakespeare therefore uses Julius Caesar as an avenue to warn the public of the consequences of subverting the Natural Order. By synthesising both texts, we are able to enhance our understanding of the complex approaches regarding the problem of the political vacuum. Machiavelli didactically presents his philosophical perspective on the mechanisms of attaining and maintaining power in his political treatise The Prince through stressing the importance of self-actualisation, reinforced by the virtù of a leader. He composed the treatise to provide Lorenzo de’ Medici with a didactic dissertation on successful leadership in order to create stability

While being feared may not solve long-term problems or may lead to rebellion, a strong, intimidating ruler will bring the best results within a limited time frame. To be loved requires one to gain the trust of the people and to prove one is worthy of it; a task usually fulfilled over a long spam on time, years or maybe even decades. In the 1930 and 1940s, a certain government party in Germany came to rule through harsh persuasion and intimidation. They had the love and approval of

A family of monarchy which tortured Machiavelli for months causing him great suffrage and sorrow. He writes to Lorenzo “May I trust, therefore, that Your Highness will accept this little gift in the spirit in which it is offered: and if Your Highness will deign to peruse it, you will recognize in it my ardent desire that you may attain to that grandeur which fortune and your own merits presage for you.” This enough is confusing because if this is the same principality that caused so much suffering why dedicate a book to let their reign continue into longevity? As to add to this confusion, Machiavelli explains how a prince should use cruelty and violence correctly against the people. To use cruelty and punishment all at once so that the people learn to respect you by fear. He includes that if you had a choice on either being loved or feared, be feared for love can change as quick as it came. Fear of punishment, people would avoid and be subservient. He also goes on to put out that a prince must be cunning like a fox yet strong and fearsome like a lion. To use Realpolitik, morality and ideology left out for the world is not these things as you should not be as well. Furthermore, Machiavelli explains what must happen when a new ruler overtakes a new city and the people in it. “And whoever becomes the ruler of a free city and does not destroy it, can expect to be destroyed by it,

The Prince is Machiavelli’s guide for ruling and conquering states. Machiavelli elaborates on various ways to acquire principalities and provides the reader with a straightforward guide on how to successfully conquer and maintain control over states. Machiavelli analyses the strengths and flaws of certain paths to conquest, how to maintain a hold on power and the importance of strong arms. Machiavelli sees humans as easily persuaded and simple minded. He believes that all people want to be controlled and guided and those who control do so because their intellect is much greater than the average person. In chapter eleven, Ecclesiastical Principalities, Machiavelli elaborates on the strength and weaknesses