Machiavelli Ecclesiastical Principalities

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

The Prince was written during a time of political turmoil and instability in Italy. In a land where city-states fought for power, empires desired domination, and neighboring countries favored control there was a void in political solidity. Machiavelli’s desire for this same conquest is prevalent in his work. He demonstrates his need for political advancement and his capabilities, as well as the necessity of the unification of Italy. By designating a set of rules or guidelines in government Machiavelli suggests that politics and ethics can be separated and focuses on how ethics, freewill, perception, and human nature all play a major role in governing an entity.

In the prince, Machiavelli explores a world of governments and presents the many different ways in which a ruler must adapt in order to run an efficient government. Machiavelli provides a number of applications in which a ruler can acquire and maintain the leading position of a government. While many of these applications are just and moral, there is no denying that some of the Machiavelli’s tactics are cruel and immoral. However, as we advance deep into the meaning behind Machiavelli’s choice of words, we learn that these unjust ways are meant to advance the power of the prince. We learn that Machiavelli’s goal isn’t to make a good prince, one that is loved by the people and makes everyone happy, but a great prince. Machiavelli begins

Machiavelli concentrated more on the way things should be and how to manipulate them for his own personal gain rather than for the betterment of the state. He was well-known for being a political thinker who believed that outcomes justified why things happened. A key aspect of Machiavelli’s concept of the Prince was that “men must either be caressed or annihilated” (Prince, 9). What Machiavelli meant by

One of the foremost political writings in the world is The Prince by Machiavelli. Living in the tumultuous political world of 16th century Italy, Machiavelli masterfully crafts a guidebook meant for those seeking political success. But how does it fare against a political system developed a full two-hundred years prior and far outside the sphere of influence on its author? Surprisingly well. In Hrafnkel’s Saga, Hrafnkel is the godi of Adalbol who faces the loss of his title following a devastating encounter with a farmhand. Hrafnkel is a clear example of a Machiavellian prince, as shown through the three major phases of his rule: his initial rise, his maintaining of that power, and his recovery of his power following a defeat.

In chapter one, Machiavelli talks about the types of principalities and how they determine the type of prince there will be. He describes the states and makes the claim that all states are either republics or principalities. There are two types of principalities, new principalities that can be acquired through fortune and strength, and hereditary principalities where the family has been established for a long time (Machiavelli 129). Chapter two focuses on how to maintain and lead a principality. Machiavelli points out that it is easier to govern a hereditary state than a new state because the hereditary states only have to keep past institutions intact and are already loved and respected.

The Prince was Machiavelli’s way to write a series of teachings to explain how he thought a successful leader, specifically a Prince should run his kingdom. One of the many topics which he covered in this short collection of essays was the art of warfare. This was focused on in the short but important chapter XVI, titled “What a Prince Should do regarding the Military”. (Page 58-60). Through this chapter, Machiavelli showcases three distinct discipline that a prince or leader should follow to ensure their maintained power and success.

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,

"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

What must be understood is that the throne is always in jeopardy and someone is always there to try to knock the prince off his pedestal. This is a prime understanding that a prince must have, and fuels the infamous argument by Machiavelli that it is better to be feared than loved. Machiavelli explains that, for the most part, love is very subjective and eventually will subside unless further concessions are made to appease his subjects. In addition, people only care about their personal conveniences and a prince would have to overextend himself if he were to be loved by all. Fear, however, is not subjective and has a universal effect on all his people. Fear can be attained by sporadic violent acts. One must understand, however, that massive amounts of violence can not be done because it would portray the Prince as tyrant, and might stir up his people to revolt against him. The acts must be calculated, concise, and serve a direct purpose not only to his benefit but to the people’s also. Despite what might be assumed, Machiavelli is really developing a principality based around the people, where the Prince’s actions are merely to save his own head from the chopping block.

The Prince is a novel written in 1513 by Niccolo Machiavelli. This book contains 26 chapters, focusing on acquiring and maintaining political power. In other words, it could be seen as the “do’s and don’ts” of the political world. In Chapters One through Eleven, the author discusses the different

First let us discuss the ideas of Niccolo Machiavelli in is piece “The Prince”. Machiavelli has a very independent controversial way of thinking and portraying his ideal form of governance in this text. The ideal and most effective from of governance for him is not in that of a republic but instead he insists in an autocratic regime. He argues that republics and other forms of government are too weak because of the corruptness of human nature. This book is written as a guide on how a prince should run his state or nation based on how and when he would come into this power. One of his main concerns in which he has been criticized for is his disregard to follow moral values so as to properly run the state, as well as

Niccolo Machiavelli based his position of individual power on his book The Prince. The Prince extends Machiavelli’s analysis of how to acquire and maintain political power. There are four types of principalities discussed: hereditary principalities, that are inherited by the ruler through fortune and family royalty, mixed principalities, territories that are annexed to the ruler’s existing territories, new principalities, namely the Papal States belonging to the Catholic church, and new principalities, those states that may be acquired by one’s own power, by the power of others or by the will of the people. There is simplicity for a prince that inherits a state through fortune or the efforts of others due to easy ascent to power, but maintaining the power is more difficult. For a prince that conquers a state through force and power has difficulty conquering the state but has an easy time maintaining the state.

Niccolo Machiavelli’s abstract work of The Prince discusses politics and government and focuses in not only acquiring power, but also how to maintain it. Throughout his work, one of the most prevalent yet disputed themes is between the acquirement of states between principalities and republics. The Prince shows a predominant and constant debate on which group will excel in acquiring power. However, despite Machiavelli’s harsh criticisms on principalities, his work does not solely praise or focus on the excellence of republics. In fact, as Machiavelli continues to speak and provide examples about the successes and failures of both republics and principalities, it becomes clearer that the lone purpose of The Prince is to merely provide tactics in political governance, instruction on how to maintain power once it is acquired, and most importantly, advice on how to become a great leader.

In the book, The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli thoroughly explains the lifestyle a proper prince should uphold and the skills/actions he should keep in his arsenal, if the time ever comes. I’ve chosen chapters 15, 16, and 17 to further my claims on whether or not these ideas should be used in today’s government. Chapter 15 mainly focuses on the things for which men, but mainly princes, are praised or blamed for in an everyday society. Chapter 16 touches on how often one should be generous and liberal. Finally, chapter 17, the most controversial chapter of Machiavelli’s book discussed among many, tells the famous line of whether it is better to be loved