Essay about Machiavellian Poltician

The majority of people thought Bismarck was a German enthusiast but in reality he was Prussian. The idea of creating a unified Germany developed only gradually in his mind as an addition the strengthening of Prussia. With this objective in mind, Bismarck transformed the small country of Prussia into a large European superpower with an unbeatable army. To Bismarck, enemies and alliances were only considered important if they were convenient at the time. He was practical and an opportunistic, taking advantage of situations as they developed and prepared to act in many different directions depending on the outcome. For instance, In 1862 Bismarck was appointed chief minister of Prussia; however this title alone was

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

In this memo, Wagener writes about how Bismarck and his government will have to change their policies to keep the people satisfied, essentially saying that the government needs to give them some sort of legislation in their favor. The document ends with an analysis of the population, where he states that the population is unsure of which political side to take. Wagener wrote this document to Bismarck mainly for the purpose of informing him on the state of his population. In relation to Bismarck being a more modern conservative, this document portrays the point in which Bismarck realizes he has to relax his stance on Catholics and Socialism (doc.

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.

The Church accused Niccolo Machiavelli of being Satan for writing his book The Prince. Machiavelli completed The Prince in 1513. He wrote it as a gift to Lorenzo Medici, called the Magnificent, ruler of Florence. The political views Machiavelli expressed in his book went against the theology of the Church, specifically the Ten Commandments and the Beatitudes.

Hienrich Heien stated that the defiance to Napoleon displayed by ordinary Germans was based upon a duty of obedience to the ruling aristocracy . Walley comments that this fails to recognise the strength of anti French feelings at the time . Both these points are valid, however an undercurrent of German nationalistic feeling did start to flow following the Congress of Vienna in the same year that Bismarck was born. It is reasonable to assume that this developing Germanic nationalism would have had an effect on Bismarck as he grew from boy to man. If so it may be argued that his role in the unifying of Germany was that of a director, moulding the concept of a new country already forming in the minds of the people, into a formidable independent nation state.

In this paper, I will argue that a leader needs to be beast-like and must break their word when it suits their purpose. It's my position that a leader needs to assume characteristics of a lion to be effective, then I will argue that a leader needs to be cunning like a fox when breaking their word so it serves their purpose. Below I will argue why a ruler assumes characteristics of a lion to rule effectively.

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

Bismarck had brought Germany closer to unification, Thus, meaning Bismarck had an important role in the progression of the unification of Germany. Some historians argue whether or not Bismarck was an opportunist or a planner. In the case of the Austro-Prussian War of 1866 it is evident that Bismarck deliberately planned the outbreak of war against Austria. In William Carr’s Germany 1815-1945 he quotes a conversation between Bismarck to Disraeli in 1862: “when the army has been brought to such a state as to command a respect then I shall take the first opportunity to declare war with Austria” proving that Bismarck had planned to go to war with Austria. but he also took advantage of an opportunity which enabled him to go to war with Austria as he stated. Therefore Bismarck can be viewed as both a planner and an opportunist. The wars of unification helped unite Germany as all members of the Bund came together and fought as one in all of these wars.

Prince Otto von Bismarck was seen as both a political genius and a power monger, like a German version of Alexander the Great by the people. Bismarck was a conservative, who used the people around him to reach his goals; and in doing so, he pitted people against one another. According to the book 19th Century Germany by John Breuilly, modern historians have found it very hard “to separate the man from his achievements” (Breuilly 172). The historians have run into a roadblock that consists mostly of “Bismarck’s individuality and his responsibility for the political development of the Empire” (Breuilly 172). Bismarck was known to support nationalism and patriotism, and he believed in the Burschenschaften or student organizations. He also believed in the concept of faith in power, more in ideas. Bismarck only cared for two things: Prussia and Prussian power, and he would do anything to obtain Prussian domination. Although Bismarck did not care for Germany, he was all for German Unification. Historians cannot decide if Bismarck’s legacy is positive or negative but they agree that he was a “brilliant and shrewd tactician who succeeded in postponing the problem of political mobilization for 60 years” (Breuilly 172). In Otto von Bismarck, some people saw a great man who was ahead of his time, while others saw nothing more than a bloodthirsty power monger, who wanted a united Germany to

Bismarck was an unrivalled diplomat during his reign. His German Reich constitution of April 1871 allowed him to dictate the government on his own terms. However, the parliament only “had the power to initiate debate upon any point of his (Bismarck’s) policy, but neither he nor any other minister was responsible to the assembly for his actions" (T. A. Morris, p116). Furthermore, the constitution was designed to give the impression that

The section about Machiavelli's life and times was about how he always wanted to be a part of the political office. Machiavelli was a secretary for the Second Chancery in Florence for 14 years until Florence became under Papal control. Then he lost his job, got arrested and was tortured until he was eventually released. After all of this he began to write about his political views.

Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli (1469-1527) is one of history’s most renowned political theorists. Truly a “Renaissance Man”, he excelled in many disciplines and was an avid scholar of the ancients, but his most enduring legacy has been his political theories, particularly those outlined in The Prince. Popular culture, however, has a skewed perception of Machiavelli’s own personal political ideals. Although Machiavelli’s The Prince discusses governance of a principality from the point of view of the prince, his longer work, The Discourses, extolls the virtues of republics and provides a detailed analysis of the republics of Ancient Italy compared to modern Italian republics and more closely

In The Prince, Niccolò Machiavelli explores the character that a prince must hold to be successful. The study of war should be a prince's main goal, “…for war is the sole art looked for in one who rules” (Machiavelli 37). Knowledge of war is necessary because it not only keeps princes in power, but can also make princes out of private citizens. If a prince neglects the art of war, he can easily lose a state. Military organization lays the foundation for the stability of the state and is a critical skill for both established and new rulers. There can be no security without military might. Machiavelli develops his idea through example and logic.

When reading Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince, one can’t help but grasp Machiavelli’s argument that morality and politics can not exist in the same forum. However, when examining Machiavelli’s various concepts in depth, one can conclude that perhaps his suggested violence and evil is fueled by a moral end of sorts. First and foremost, one must have the understanding that this book is aimed solely at the Prince or Emperor with the express purpose of aiding him in maintaining power. Therefore, it is essential to grasp his concepts of fortune and virtue. These two contrary concepts reflect the manner in which a Prince should govern while minimizing all chance and uncertainty. This kind of governing demands violence to be taken, however this