Niccolo Machiavelli 's The Prince

History 's most prominent leaders have shown extreme congruence. These leaders almost always hold reality over ethics. How can we classify lying and manipulative leaders as immoral when their duplicity is the very reason a society can maintain stability? This idea has of "means justifying the ends" has been a staple in History 's most prosperous of societies. Machiavelli 's novel The Prince was the first stab at understanding this human tendency of what is now known as Machiavellian. Machiavelli grasped the sad reality of our world and did not fall prey to other 's idealistic propaganda. Great leaders understand what the endless potential they hold, they can manipulate their followers to make best of what is possible and above all they understand sacrifice. Modern day Machiavellians and successful leaders think realistically and communicate through idealism. No matter the extremes of your belief, utilizing Machiavellian tactics have the capability to bring anyone to power.

Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince is a book that examines the qualities and strategies required for a ruler in order to maintain power. Despite being composed in the 16th century, the ideas presented are applicable even to mythical kings from texts over a thousand years ago. Throughout the story of Seneca’s Oedipus, substantial connections could be made between Oedipus and The Prince’s ideas of rule, such as methods in acquiring principalities, channeling subjects’ fear, the use of cruelty and controlling circumstance. In this essay, I will first talk about these ideas presented in The Prince, then suggest how Machiavelli might evaluate the character, strategies, leadership, and fortunes of Seneca’s Oedipus. Based on these four factors, I

For many centuries, there have been many leaders and rulers around the world making their own rules and decisions. In the Book “The Prince” by Niccolo Machiavelli, Machiavelli describes ways that leaders can be successful if they follow his advice. One leader that shows Machiavelli’s advice by the way they rule is Adolf Hitler.The way he ruled was by fear, violence, and by conquering other countries. Although Hitler had some failures during his lifetime, he shows how Machiavelli’s advice is relevant in today's leaders.

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.

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

From describing world leaders to political antiheroes in television dramas, characterizing someone as a “Machiavellian figure” is perceived more as derisive description than an accurate representation of that person’s philosophical views of power. This popular depiction is due to Niccolo Machiavelli’s harsh portrayal of the interlaced relationship between power and politics in his treatise, The Prince. Machiavelli begins his work by contending that it is “more effective” to reveal the “practical truth of a subject” rather than “depend on [his] fancies for it”(Machiavelli 2524). His rejection of idealism and focus on realism impels him to claim that a ruler has to be acquainted with and effectively use both virtue and vice to wield power over his subjects. However, Machiavelli’s philosophical justifications which allow him to arrive at such a conclusion are based on three problematic beliefs which are that the public is easily gratified with a fulfillment of their most basic desires, the ruler has to develop a narcissistic personality to understand how to wield power and the ruler, as a man, must beat the woman Fortune to have dominion (Machiavelli 2531). These assumptions are what gives the term “Machiavellian” such a negative connotation; more importantly, they reveal that Machiavelli’s understanding of power is problematic since it is not based on realism but on an idealized view of the general public and masculinity.

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.

Machiavelli then moves to the final section of The Prince where he writes about prudence and change around Italy at that time. He starts with stating that there are many princes around Italy that simply lost their states. Machiavelli goes on to state that the reason for this is not because of bad luck or fortune but simply because their power got to their heads, they thought they were invincible, and in the end they found out that they weren’t and crumbled along with their states. Machiavelli then writes that fortune is two ways. Part of it is influenced by actions and the reactions to certain scenarios. The other part is the “sweet” part of fortune that many people believe that they have no control over where in reality they do. Basically

The Prince, by Niccoló Machiavelli, is a how to rule guide for sovereigns. It was written in 1513 but published only in 1532, nearly five years after Machiavelli’s death. The book was composed to tell sovereigns how to rule, but some scholars say it is more on how not to rule. From how to act as a prince to how not to attack in war, Machiavelli discusses it all. He was a regular citizen in Florence, but claimed he knew more about the art of ruling than princes did, he watched Italy rise and fall and decided to write The Prince in hopes that Lorenzo de Medici, the prince at the time, would read it and put it to use. Machiavelli claimed that if a prince were to read his book and follow his guidance, he would have no problem ruling and go down

Machiavelli explains on how fortune is a lady's furthermore how fortune can take control. I observed his hypothesis to be valid. Ladies are fortunes men will never get it. Fortune is something men will never love effectively. In today's general public, men disregard how exceptionally they ought to treat a lady. No men open entryways, give some assistance, or ask how their day have been. Numerous individuals trust fortune controls everything, so they let it. As years passed by, men have slacked off the admiration for ladies and their fortune. In the Machiavelli determination of The Prince, he appears to have it all made sense of.

The construction of an ideal ruler is a simple task. An individual simply needs to choose characteristics and traits of their ruler to possess. However, reality is immensely different from these hypothetical models for a ruler, and require alternative criteria for a successful leader. In Petrarch’s Letters of Old Age, his description of a ruler falls in the theoretical category because it is the formation of a picturesque ruler, but this ruler is unattainable because of chance and uncertainty in the real world. In Machiavelli’s The Prince, he illustrates many different characteristics that could potentially lead to success as a ruler, but his work differs from Petrarch because Petrarch’s advice tended to be morally good, while Machiavelli promotes

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

Machiavelli’s, The Prince, a book written by Niccolò Machiavelli, is a read that most people wouldn’t prefer to read as a first option but in defense to Niccolo, it brings out many themes such as Goodwill and Hatred, Free will, and Human Nature. “It is known from his personal correspondence that The Prince was written during 1513, the year after the Medici took control of Florence, and a few months after Machiavelli 's arrest, torture, and banishment by the Medici regime” (Bio.com). The novel was written during a time of political turbulence as a practical guide to help Lorenzo de Medici stay in power. As well with the following themes, the book contains suspenseful moments as well as action packed pages. The whole book itself is set during the backdrop of the Italian Renaissance, a period of intense activity in art, literature and science. It is also an analysis of how to acquire and obtain political power.

Niccolò Machiavelli wrote “The Prince” as an essential guideline for how to obtain a kingdom and even furthermore ensure the continuance of the kingdom. In doing so, he put forth his ideas that would earn a ban from the Catholic church due it challenging their ideals and often seen as tyranny. While the work is written as a basic guideline for the many aspiring rulers, Machiavelli discusses his wishes for the unity of Italy which somewhat contradicts his ideas in the way a person would be able to obtain a kingdom. Instead of believing in the possibility of the popular utopian society, Machiavelli believed that we should instead treat and govern people for how they really are which can stray far from the utopian mold. Machiavelli was one of the first to publicize the

During the Italian Renaissance, two prominent themes emerged which separated it from the Middle Ages: individualism and humanism. Individualism drove many to want to become recognized as unique, whereas humanism fueled a critical attitude, caused people to question everything around them and focus on the corporeal versus the spiritual. Niccolò Machiavelli, an Italian Renaissance writer, demonstrated a spirit of individualism and humanism through his handbook, The Prince. His views on how to gain and maintain political power became well known, as his ruthless and realistic views mirrored the actions of famous ruling families such as the Medicis. The ideology of his book exemplified the Renaissance movement as seen through Machiavelli’s