Machiavelli's The Prince

The Renaissance represented a new era in which values such as secularism and power became prevalent in society. Machiavelli expresses the need for politics and religion to be separated throughout his book "The Prince". Previously rulers had been restricted by Christian principals, but Machiavelli held the idea that rulers were warranted in any action so as long as it benefited the general public. Machiavelli believed that politics existed outside the realm of religion and morals. Subsequently, he approved of using any means necessary to gain and keep power, including lying, stealing, and murder. During this time Italy's city-states were in political chaos and condottieri roamed the streets. Machiavelli thought it was the ruler's duty to maintain discipline and peace in society at any cost. Despite his intentions to help Italy, Machiavelli's ideas were often seen as immoral and dishonest. The idea of a purely political action where morals were set aside is later referred to as the " Reasons of the state". In addition, Machiavelli felt a ruler must be sly

Machiavelli’s The Prince is just as applicable to the lives of leaders in the 1500’s as it is for leaders in modern times. Although any person who is in a position of authority might not say that they use Machiavellian tactics. Through their actions it is evident that the teachings of The Prince are still used on a global scale. Concepts such as safeguarding the state, and becoming wealthy, are just a few of the concepts that are beneficial to a strong government and reflected in current political situations at home and abroad.

In 1512, the Medici family rose to power once again in Florence Italy. Once in power they became privy to internal plots against the Medici family, and despite his innocence, they exiled Niccolo Machiavelli. A year after his exile, in 1513, he wrote a political treatise named The Prince. Written for the current ruler of the Medici family, Lorenzo de’ Medici, the contents of this political insight was all about what makes a good prince. The reason for why this piece was created is still debated though; many are unsure whether it is a political satire, or if it was to try to get into good graces with the family that had exiled him, or just an example of what people thought made a good leader at that time.

Machiavelli’s The Prince talks about many issues of modern political philosophy, it was written to help rulers stay in power. His common themes are ruling through fear, being as powerful as a lion and as intelligent as a fox, and to maintain the state at all costs. One of the common discussions about his writings is what he means by “one must learn how to not be good.” For what reason should a ruler learn to not be good? He claims that being good and continuing to be good could only make a ruler more weak. He continues to list good and bad qualities of a ruler and claiming that every ruler will have at least one of the bad qualities but the way he conquers his unpraised attribute is most important. A ruler should hide his flaws so that he only

To describe what it is to be “Machiavellian” one must first describe what it is not. It is not being cruel for the sake of cruelty, just as it is not being good for the sake of goodness. It is being deliberate in one’s actions for the success of the state, or whatever one is ruling over. Machiavellians do not concern themselves with reputation, as long as those they are trying to rule do not hate them. I would describe a Machiavellian as intelligent, motivated by power, and someone that would not hesitate to deceive or manipulate others to reach their goals. While those traits might have brought someone success in ruling as a prince during the Renaissance, disregarding morals and ethics in today’s politics would not get someone very far.

his work, The Prince, Machiavelli references dozens of infamous men and women who are leaders and rulers in their own right. However, he recognizes them for many failures rather than for their successes and conquests. Machiavelli attributes the failure and blame entirely to the fact that none of the mentioned individuals properly adhered to his “rules”. Machiavelli meticulously describes and outlines his ideas of what essential “Prince” qualities are, hoping that someone who reads them will follow his words and turn them into actions. A careful audience who reads the meaning and not just the content will see that The Prince is simply Machiavelli carrying out his plan by covertly doing everything he describes in his outline.

There have been thousands of leaders throughout time, each having their own way to run their country, province, or many other things. “The Prince” holds many contemporary ideas that can be applied to present, despite it have been written in the 16th century. It can relate to many modern ways of running a government successfully and offers many valuable lessons that leaders should take into account for. “The Prince” shares ways to make allies with other countries, good defensive and offensive tactics for military troops, and provides details for leader to consider on how to maintain their power and respect.

Kaiser Wilhelm II lacked distinct characteristics required of a man in Niccolo Machiavelli’s “The Prince”. Kaiser Wilhelm II was a child born from two powerful people of the time. In 1859 the King of Prussia, Prince Frederick Wilhelm and Princess Victoria who was the eldest daughter of Queen Victoria of England became pregnant with their son Wilhelm II. Although Wilhelm was not very fond of England at the time his ties to the royal monarchy would serve to his benefit later on his political agenda. Kaiser Wilhelm was a large political figure in Europe at the time and commanded the German forces in World War I in 1914.

In paragraph six subtitle “The Prince,” the author is trying to explain that The Prince is not the only book out here in the world that specifies how a ruler should rule in order to keep his title. He also goes on to quote from Machiavelli that “a prudent ruler cannot, and must not, honour his word when t places him at disadvantages” which in another words is saying, if he makes a promise and somehow that promise puts him a step behind the game, he must break it. He also notes that to be a ruler you have to be a great liar and deceiver. My opinion for the above following would cause me to lose my title and no longer be a ruler, due to the sense that I totally disagree with all of the following.

Sixteenth century Western Europe was ruled by kings chosen by divine right. Convincing a nation of people that their king deserves his power because an unseen creator made it so is not an easy task, therefore every action a king makes must be carefully constructed to balance all things that produce a beloved leader. A politician during this time named Niccolo Machiavelli wrote the world renowned book entitled The Prince which advised soon to be kings how to maintain control over their peoples without being a tyrant and losing their head. In his book Machiavelli stated that, “It is better to be feared than loved, if you can not be both” (Machiavelli). He felt that when governing a state, a king was more powerful if he was feared by his people

Autocratic regimes, to the general population, seem asinine and inefficient. However, Niccolò Machiavelli, a Renaissance philosopher, thought it could be possible to create a functional autocratic regime under the right guidance and influence. He proved he differed from philosophers and political theorists of his time with the novel, The Prince. In his novel The Prince, Machiavelli states his opinion on how principalities should be obtained and managed through the use historical references and scenarios. At the time of his work his ideas were radical and a first of their kind. Machiavelli had many interesting views such as his opinions on justice, morals, and human nature. He believed justice was non-existing, morals shouldn’t play a role in

Machiavelli wrote The Prince trying to ingratiate himself with the Medici princes who had recently taken over the government in Florence in the early sixteenth century. He envisioned this book to be a short, concise handbook for princes who have acquired power and wished to keep it. Accordingly, it begins by dividing all governments into two kinds: republics and "principalities" (those ruled by a "prince," or single ruler). Machiavelli swiftly dismisses the first kind of government as being outside the scope of his argument. He then goes on to subdivide the latter kind. Principalities, he writes, are of two kinds: there are those which have been ruled by a family for a long time, and those which are newly conquered. It is this last kind, obviously,

In my opinion, the readings of Machiavelli is concerned with both one’s actions and result. From Machiavelli reading, most of the princes were not fortune to be in line for prince hood. However, they rose from the private station to attain their height where they envision themselves and how things ought to be. We practical do this kind of act every day in our lives. Many at a time when one want to attain a goal, you tend to see the result of it in your mind and then plan how to reach that goal, by putting in place a plan of actions to execute that plan. On the other hand, some may not care how to get there, so far as they attain their goal they were ok. For instance, the actions and the genius of this man “Agathocles, the Sicilian, became

Niccolò Machiavelli “The Prince”. Using bad or immoral methods to achieve something good by using them. At least once in everyone’s life, at one point they’ve made a dishonest decision. Some of us have even tried to explain our actions by bending the truth. Being dishonest is not the best, but at times it is the best answer. It may not seem to be the faithful thing to do, but the outcome will always be judged as honorable. It doesn’t matter how people reach what they want as long as the outcome is what they had hoped. The end goal doesn’t necessarily have to be good and noble. It is acceptable to go to any extent to obtain something that is for a good cause.

Machiavelli was a renowned author of political science. In the book The Prince, he argues that there is no link between the practice of politics and morality. According to his school of thought, bad faith, hypocrisy, falsehood, murder, violence and even duplicity are all acceptable ways to achieve political ambitions. In short, when it comes to political affairs, the ends justify the means. He was of the opinion that what could be seen as good in one situation could be considered evil in another situation. However, he did not deny that the old rule of private morality exists. Machiavelli acknowledges that in most instances, these morals dictate the relationships between individuals, however, he reasons that this is not applicable with Princes.