Machiavelli's New Princedoms Vs. Medici Family

The political situation that prompted Machiavelli to write The Prince was that Italy wasn’t a unified country yet. It was a bunch of city states.

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)

In the article written by Vincent Barnett, he explains the different reasons that Machiavelli might have written “The Prince”. He also mentions the lasting effects of” The prince” and also mentioned how Machiavelli was ridiculed and judged for his brutally honest writing. Barnett mentioned that Machiavelli had lost his job as the secretary to the chancery in Florence. After losing his job he was arrested, tortured, and became extremely bitter. One of the possible motives for writing “The Prince” was that Machiavelli was trying to get reinstated back into his old job. Machiavelli could have also intended” The Prince” to hit the audience as satirical. Possibly to poke fun at all the failures of the political leaders and to make them look unintelligent.

Machiavelli writes The Prince centuries after Plato documents Socrates in Crito and The Apology. Despite the different time periods, both Machiavelli and Socrates experience times of turmoil where the concept of democracy was questioned. However, the different time periods cause the views and purposes of Machiavelli’s writing to largely differ from Socrates. Machiavelli writes in a time of turmoil where Italy was a bunch of small, fragmented states and when the Medici’s struggled to regain power after being expelled. This causes his views to be more cynical and pessimistic in comparison to Socrates. If Socrates were to read The Prince, he would disagree with Machiavelli’s beliefs and deem his portrayal of a prince as immoral. Their

In The Prince, Machiavelli explains what a good and successful prince should be like. He advocates a strong, cutthroat authority figure and encourages the winning of power by any means necessary. The main theme in The Prince is that mob rule is dangerous, for people know only what is good for themselves and not what is good for the whole. The common people, in Machiavelli’s view, “are ungrateful, fickle, liars, and deceivers, they shun danger and are greedy for profit; while you treat them well, they are yours”. He believes that these commoners should be

The Prince is essentially a guide book on how to acquire and maintain political power. We can think of it as a collection of rules and methods to achieve a level of superior authority. Its main focus is that the ends—no matter how immoral—justify the means for preserving political authority. While some may agree with this mindset of thinking many today dismiss Machiavelli as a cynic. The book shows rulers how it is that they should act to survive in the real world to maintain authority. While Niccolo Machiavelli’s ideas can be radical, they helped to spark a revolution in political philosophy. Although his ideas might have not been completely original, they were very different and unheard of at the time, The Prince, was published. Machiavelli uses many methods to convey his messages including biblical comparisons and of course metaphors. This character can be viewed in several manners. He is almighty and powerful, stopping at nothing to achieve his goals or have his ways. While this quality does qualify him to be a might leader it also raises the question of immorality. How far will one go to maintain order? Would you stop at nothing to achieve this task? Machiavelli shows this by saying, “it is

The House of Medici, or the Medici family, was a very influential and extremely powerful family during the time of the Renaissance in Italy. The Renaissance took place starting in the late 14th century. During this time, the people started to take interest in and have an appreciation for the classical times. The beginning of this powerful family really begins with Giovanni di Bicci deˈ Medici. He was born in the year 1360 in Florence, Italy. Originally from the Tuscan hillside, the Medici family immigrated to Florence during the 12th century. Giovanni di Bicci deˈ Medici was the man who really got the family moving. He founded the Medici Bank and began using money to gain influence. The Medici Bank eventually became the official bank of

"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

The Prince, written by Niccolo Machiavelli in 1513 in his native Italian language, was a book dedicated to Florence’s then leader Lorenzo de’Medici in an effort for Machiavelli to gain a position in Florence’s new government. The book was intended to help guide Lorenzo and other present and future leaders in gaining and maintaining power, more specifically to aid Lorenzo in unifying Italy under one ruler. Machiavelli lived during a time of great political strife in Italy as the small city-states of Italy, the Papal States, and the powerful states of Spain and

Relying on the needs of the society of that time, Machiavelli comes to the conclusion that the most important task is the formation of a single Italian state (Machiavelli 15). Developing his thoughts, the author comes to the following inference: only a prince can become a leader capable of leading people and building a unified state. It is not a concrete historical personality but someone abstract, symbolic, possessing such qualities that in the aggregate are inaccessible to any living ruler. That is why Machiavelli devotes most of his research to the issue of what qualities should the prince possess to fulfill the historical task of developing a new state. The written work is constructed strictly logically and objectively. Even though the image of an ideal prince is abstract, Machiavelli argues that he should be ruthless, deceiving, and selfish.

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

The Prince is a study of how to obtain and maintain political power, this book which has 26 chapters can be categorized in four parts; the types of principalities, the type of armies, the character and behavior of the prince and Italy's political situation. Machiavelli describes the kinds of states at the first of the book, arguing that all states are either republics or principalities. Machiavelli explains some key points in what it takes to be a successful Prince. He is giving us an exact image of the cold-hearted reputation he has carried through the years. He explains his thoughts on taking over a Free State or republic and how to overcome and rule with the people loyalty and respect. He also argues

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.

Machiavelli’s lowering of politics creates an impact on the way ordinary subjects and citizens behave, a prince, according to Machiavelli, should be loved but most important to him, this sovereign should be feared, citizens need to obey and follow regulations and be faithful to the ruler, they are expected to honor and fight for their sovereign, in general, Machiavelli does not go into so much detail about the duties of the people, but he explains that by teaching the prince how to manage the system, he is working for the sake of people, as Machiavelli explains, a prince should follow two policies in which one of the two explains how a sovereign must keep balance and unchanged laws when conquering new territories, “not to change their laws or impose new taxes” (Machiavelli’s The Prince, page 8) what he means by this is that a sovereign should respect customs and traditions, the way people