Machiavelli's The Prince

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,

Why is a method of governing through fear better than governing through love? Machiavelli believes that men are loyal through love “when danger is far away; but when it comes nearer to you they turn away” because those men’s loyalty are “purchased but are not owned” (Machiavelli 56). Contrary to popular opinion, Machiavelli believes that if men love for their leader, but not die for him. Despite this, it is made Explicitly clear in The Prince that a leader must make “himself feared in such a manner that he will avoid hatred even if he does not acquire love” (Machiavelli 56). This can be seen throughout history, in leaders all over the world.

Machiavelli’s opinion is that being feared is better than being loved since individuals can more easily break the bond of love whereas fear “is supported by the dread of pain”

This quote is stating how a leader should never make alliances with others as it puts one’s country at risk. This is because there is a risk of being in debt to your ally, which can weaken your country’s position. Such a risk for an alliance should only be taken when it is a necessity in order to maintain power and control. Machiavelli’s idea of leadership could be applied to both Hitler, Stalin and Putin. Hitler was successful in applying this to Germany. In order to expand Germany’s borders, he helped to form the German-Soviet

Today, society goes to great lengths to project the illusion that genuine leadership signifies only a steadfast commitment to upholding the moral and ethical high ground. Culturally, it’s expected that great leaders must be individuals personifying solely the grandest principles of that society, while excluding and condemning the less admired ones. While this conviction is prevalent throughout our society, this belief is most perpetuated each year in the upper echelons our government during presidential and congressional elections, when candidates are asked inane questions about family values rather than political experience and ambitions. On this basis, our society consequently tends to overlook what true leadership is by choosing our leaders only on the basis of moral merit rather than real political accomplishment. With regard to that, in his work, The Prince, Machiavelli offers a contrasting and humanizing view of leadership when he suggests that successful leaders must be half animal, with equal parts fox and lion. Machiavelli proposes this concept to insinuate that a proper ruler must exist as a courageous and charismatic individual on the surface, but cunning and self-preserving one beneath it. He illustrates this argument through his depiction of leaders possessing an animalistic alter ego, his understanding of a ruler’s behavior, his description of the various forms in which one can acquire power, and his preference over being thought of as

Can five century old ideas still be relevant in modern times? Niccolo Machiavelli, author of The Prince, wrote a book to give advice to rulers both young and old. He introduced a multitude of bold ideas that help a prince rise to power and prosper there. Machiavelli’s concepts include killing off competitors, the prince and army becoming one, and using cruelty to the prince’s advantage. Although The Prince was written over five-hundred years ago, the beliefs of Machiavelli are still useful as shown by Germany’s dictator on the twentieth century, Adolf Hitler.

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.

For Machiavelli himself, the "bigger objective" was typically not unimportant individual desire yet something like the steadiness or flourishing of a city-state or the unification of Italy under Italian standard. Machiavelli distinguishes the hobbies of the sovereign with the hobbies of the state (a presumption that can unquestionably be addressed!), accordingly directing Renaissance independence. Regardless, Machiavelli was an example of "force legislative issues."

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

In Niccolo Machiavelli’s book The Prince, Machiavelli portrays many qualities that a leader should have. Machiavelli also describes how a leader should work. Adolf Hitler portrays all of the qualities of what Machiavelli believed a leader should have. Adolf Hitler proves that Machiavelli’s advice to leaders is still relevant today.

John McCormick, the author of this article states that Machiavelli’s belief of violence and brutality in politics with the disregard of morals are radical. McCormick also talks about how major examples of princes in Machiavelli’s works were deemed criminals by historians and are disreputable compared to greater princes such as Romulus, Moses, and Cyrus. He then goes further discussing the effects of brutal politics that Machiavelli proposes, criticizing their lack of morals and their increase in oppression of the people. McCormick provides convincing arguments against Machiavelli’s works and discusses other issues throughout Machiavelli’s works. This source is published by Johns Hopkins University Press, which is an extremely reputable source and is part of Project MUSE, a project that collects papers from academic journals, university presses, and leading scholarly societies, all of which are from reputable sources. John McCormick is also a highly reputable author and has many books in the field of political science. This helps the reader grasp the negative aspects of The Prince as this article clearly discusses issues in Machiavelli’s book. The issue and theme of how a ruler should rule are described effectively in this article and provides the reader with even more insight on Machiavelli’s examples and how credible members of the scholarly community think of examples that Machiavelli uses, examples such as Cesare Borgia. McCormick describes what Machiavelli did not describe, the issue of the people who will be subject to a harsh pursuit of power; which is a criticism the reader must face in order to understand The Prince and what problems arise from Machiavelli’s proposals of

A leader makes decisions for the people under his or her control. Back in the 1500s, kings or princes ruled most countries. In Niccolò Machiavelli’s “The Prince,” his interpretation of the power of princes in the 1500s is explained through a series of references to rulers whose decisions either benefitted or harmed them. Machiavelli explained the qualities and abilities he felt were necessary for a prince to have in order to be a successful ruler.

He argues that in a situation where the liberty and safety of a nation is in jeopardy, considerations of honor, mercy, and justice should not be an option. He felt that they should be disregarded if necessary so as to achieve the goal of maintaining the country’s independence and life. Unlike other authors in the political science field, Machiavelli opts to delimit the boundaries of politics and ethics by rigid lines of conduct. Therefore, in assessing his philosophy, it is my opinion that Machiavelli’s tendency to completely isolate morals from politics is wicked and immoral. Without strict morals and even stricter moral implications, a politician could easily find himself tempted to act selfishly in order to achieve personal gain, rather than making decisions that would benefit the greater good of the citizens he