In the story "The Prince", the author, Niccolo Machiavelli illustrates plenty of key points in what it takes to become a successful Prince. Machiavelli illustrates a true image of the unsympathetic reputation he has carried throughout the years. He explains his ideas on taking over a "free" state and how to take control and rule while still having the peoples respect. In chapter 5, Machiavelli claims that the key to taking over a free state is to destroy it at first. By destroying the city first, he believes that the people of the city will have no choice but to follow the direction of the new prince. He goes more in depth to say that if a prince does not destroy his own city initially, he is at risk of being rebelled against. I understand …show more content…
Although his actions were cold hearted and unjust, I believe that in many roles of political leadership, a person will have to be unsympathetic in many areas of ruling. Machiavelli was a leader who understood the human mind. With the great knowledge he has, he manipulates the people and makes them believe anything so that he is in the best possible position. There are a few people I know that have told me to do what I have to do to get to where I need to go. It's definitely some of the best advice I've ever received. Especially since the people who gave me this advice all turned out to be successful. Since then, my mind works more business orientented. If the citizens of the city are loyal to their prince they both will benefit mutually. If the city/state flourish so will the prince and he will gain more power. It seems like a cycle of you get what you want, and I get what I want, as long as what I say is done. Democracy in America is the rule of the people, but most of the people in America don't know much on political leadership. Machiavelli understood the place of a prince and the place of his people which he ruled. He knows what it takes to be a leadership and how to obtain the power earned. He also knows that most common people do not know what it takes to be a leader, which leads him to believe that those people
He discusses that the prince have military knowledge, love and fear, trustworthiness, and good and bad reputations. He deeply believes in the art of war. "...a prince must not have any objective nor any thought, nor take up any art, other than the art of war and its ordering and discipline; because it is the only art that pertains to him who commands. And it is of such virtue that not only does it maintain those who were born princes, but many times makes men rise to that rank from private station; and conversely one sees that when princes have thought more of delicacies than of arms, they have lost their state." He also writes about whether it is better to be loved or feared, stating that it is best to be feared, but not hated. Love can change in an instant, and it is better to always have control, even if the prince must be feared. Patriotism and dedication to the state was also a very important aspect. In conclusion, Machiavelli strived for power and strength by any means possible. Through violence and fear, the end result would be worth it to him.
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)
While some other great political thinkers sat around and dreamed about their perfect little utopias in the clouds, notably Socrates and Plato, Machiavelli was analyzing the most powerful men of his day. He observed and recorded how men flocked the sheep to exactly where they were wanted by their shepherd. He watched as the wolves preyed on the sheep and noticed that there was no philosopher king around to prevent it. He accepted that we as humans are corrupt and that we can’t all be Marcus Aurelius, king of
An even mixture of both of these theories is the best for America. Something that our leaders in the United States in past years aimed for is middle of the road politics, appealing to both liberals and conservatives. Although I do not believe Machiavelli's honesty policy would go over too well in the United States, I am sure his tactics are used by politicians in creating an appearance that people want to see. A good combination for our government today is for the president to not be personally armed, but have protection. He does not constantly train for war, but has an appointed official dedicated for that purpose. In contrast to both writers, I believe the American people today are neither inherently good nor evil exclusively, but we all want
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
Machiavelli considers society an immoral place. According to Machiavelli as stated in The Discourses on Livy, “for as men are, by nature, more prone to evil than to good”. The Prince is a manual for being a successful ruler in an immoral society. Often times that success is met by committing immoral acts. Machiavelli, an outsider to the inner workings of government gives what he thinks are the critical tools to being a successful ruler in modern society. “Sometimes you have to play hardball” is a saying from today that I relate to his philosophies.
People are unlikely to overthrow a ruler that they fear, for they dread the punishments of failure. If the ruler is not feared by the people, he will eventually upset enough of them that they will rise up against him. They will overthrow him because of his perceived weakness, and his name and image will be shamed in the eyes of both his government and his people. Machiavelli believes that the state is completely separate from the ruler’s private life. No matter how immoral or heartless the ruler may be in private, only his public image is important. A ruler can be a terrible, sleazy person on their own time, and when not involved with matters of the state, but at any time when the leader is involved in politics and the state, you cannot afford to injure the image of the ruler or else anarchy will develop. With this kind of rebellion can come revolution, war, and many other tragedies that could be otherwise avoided.
Citizens become princes by two means: either by skill of Fortune. Machiavelli suggests that those who become the prince through their own strength and skills, will maintain it fairly easily. In contrast, those who become the prince by the arms of others have both good and bad news. Good news is that they will find easy to acquire their states, but bad news is that it will not last too long, or in other words, any unexpected or little obstacle in their way can harm their position
Overall, I agree with Machiavelli that a leader cannot be seen as weak, but I do not believe a leader has to be feared by its people. I believe that a leader can also be loved by his people. I don’t agree that Machiavelli’s opinion on being feared rather than loved applies to many current day leaders. For example, this wouldn’t apply to the president of the United States because the United States is a democracy. However, this would apply to a communist
The Oxford Dictionary defines the term “Machiavellian” as someone who is cunning, scheming, and unscrupulous, especially in politics or in advancing one’s career. These principles, as well as others, were established in Niccolo Machiavelli’s book, The Prince. The Prince dwelves on what a person needs to do to obtain and maintain power in a principality. Although it was written nearly 500 years ago, it has influenced countless rulers over time. A great example of one of these rulers is Joseph Stalin, dictator of the U.S.S.R (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) from 1929 - 1953.
When examining Machiavelli political ideals, it is hard to look at it without saying this is cruel and not ideal in any sense. Machiavelli is a prime example for a strong leader that pursues justice through unification and has shown to be very open-minded. Justice doesn’t just come through cruelty and strength, it also requires intelligence with careful studies. As exhibited in the prior quote, he takes in historical mistakes and success to shape his ideal. To have a culture with justice, Machiavelli pushes that “It is necessary for a prince who wish to maintain his position to learn how not to be good, and to use this knowledge or not to use it accordingly” (224). It is quite evident that Machiavelli is willing to use the full extent of his power without fear. Through his willingness and open-mindedness, he examines both side, good and the bad, for the benefit of his country. He believes only those that can utilize both knowledge is fit for the position of being a prince. When he says knowledge, it goes deep into the studies of history and past experiences. It is shown time and time again throughout his
Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince examines the nature of power and his views of power are still somewhat in existence today. I'll discuss this in this essay, emphasizing the following theses. Machiavelli discusses power over the people, dictatorial power, and power with people, shared power. While it is possible for power with to attain greater prevalence in society, it will not completely eliminate power over. In The Prince, Machiavelli discusses two distinct groups of people, the political elite, including nobles and other princes, and the general public. Today in the United States, the first group, the political elite, includes political leaders, religious leaders, business leaders and the leaders of
In secular democracies, power is necessarily derived from the will of the governed. That power is then entrusted to a leader, who Machiavelli would understand to be a "prince". Inherently, his book, The Prince, has been close at hand for most politicians for centuries, as it provides general, historically proven advice for principalities and republics on how to govern and maintain relations with their most important resource and the very core of their power, which would be the people themselves.
Although he may be considered cold hearted and unjust, I believe that in many roles of political leadership, a person will have to be cold in many areas of ruling. Machiavelli is a leader who understands the human mind. With this knowledge he has, he influences the people. If the people are loyal to their leader they will prosper and benefit mutually. If the city so does the leader and he gains more power. So to me it seems like a cycle of you get what you want, and I get what I want. Machiavelli understood the place of a prince and the place of his subjects and citizens. He knows what leadership consist of and how to obtain true power. He also knows that most common people do not, and they should be ruled over for their own good. Maybe I'm being too easy and optimistic about Machiavelli, but I do believe he gives sound advice based on his knowledge of how people work and think. Pain and evil are real and necessary to in order to rule affectively. Machiavelli states that laying down a solid foundation is important in building a successful future for the city/state. By doing evil and causing pain, it might be hurtful at the time, but in the long run, a good prince will be setting up a solid foundation for future
One of the most prevalent themes found in Machiavelli’s The Prince is the theme of fortune. Machiavelli, though in disguise, focuses on the theme of fortune in chapter four and explains how it plays a heavy role in acquiring power. Chapter four begins in introducing states ruled by a prince with barons and states ruled by a prince with appointed ministers, and continues by distinguishing the similarities and differences between the two groups. For states ruled by a prince with hereditary barons, Machiavelli claims that power is easier to acquire as the prince receives help in conquering the