Machiavelli The Prince Rhetorical Analysis

The time of the Renaissance is filled with growth of intellect, beauty of nature, the dignity of mankind, and the rising of artists. It is characterized from the move of scholasticism, a devotion specifically for the theological and philosophical teachings of the Church, to humanism, a devotion to the humanities of rhetoric, arithmetic, and other subjects. An example of this movement is seen in Machiavelli’s The Prince which describes Niccolo Machiavelli’s ideal ruler and how to obtain stability,because it was lacking during the time he was writing this, as there was a power shift from the Mediterranean to Northern Europe. While Machiavelli promotes stability, he has a disordered love towards his country as he promotes to defend and fight

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)

Machiavelli wrote The Prince in 16th-century. His methods of acquiring and maintaining rule over people are not relevant in today’s modern American society. There are many principles that are still true in politics today, but the methods of ruling can no longer be used in American society today.

He explains that, “...a natural difficulty which exists in all new dominions, because men change masters willingly, hoping to better themselves; and this belief makes them take arms against their rulers…” (Machiavelli 6). Hence, in order to be an effective ruler, a prince must overcome the aforementioned challenge. Moreover, he must also be pragmatic, unbound to moral consciousness or traditional scruples, heavy-handed, sleuth, defend his state with a domestic military (as mercenaries only provoke the weakening of a state), and take whatever lengths he must to solidify his strength and capabilities to rule, brutality being a welcomed measure so long as the “ends justify the means”, while also not oppressing the people.

Machiavelli thinks it is better for the prince to be feared than loved. For a prince who is loved will be compassionate towards others, mainly his soldiers. When danger is at bay his men will hold him in the highest regard. Should an attack occur they will very quickly turn their backs on him. He may be viewed as weak and untrustworthy, thus easier to overtake. As he explains, “And men are less hesitant about harming someone who makes himself loved than one who makes himself feared because love is held together by a chain of obligation which, since men are a sorry lot, is broken on every occasion in which their own self-interest is concerned: but fear is held together by dread of punishment which will never abandon you” (p.46). If he is loved rather than hated he can never keep an army of soldiers under his command. However, he must not be so feared to the point he is hated to do so he must not take what does not belong to him, and keep his hands off the wives of his subjects.

Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince give the world an insight on his thought about those who rule, virtue, military power, and human nature. He elaborates on his ideal prince who must take power, but also maintain power. The Prince is extremely relevant in modern society and often looked upon as the beginning of modern political thinking. Machiavelli gives this prince an outline of the tools needed to maintain power and reinforces these ideas by giving examples of other leader’s successes and failures. Machiavelli believes that the prince must complete understand the balance between war and government. Understanding this balance and being fluent in both politics and war is crucial for maintaining power. Politicians today still use some of the tactics given by

Niccolò Machiavelli was an activist of analyzing power. He believed firmly in his theories and he wanted to persuade everyone else of them as well. To comment on the common relationship that was seen between moral goodness and legitimate authority of those who held power, Machiavelli said that authority and power were essentially coequal.9 He believed that whomever had power obtained the right to command; but goodness does not ensure power. This implied that the only genuine apprehension of the administrative power was the attainment and preservation of powers which indirectly guided the maintenance of the state. That, to him, should have been the objective of all leaders. Machiavelli believed that one should do whatever it took, during the given circumstance, to keep his people in favor of him and to maintain the state. Thus, all leaders should have both a sly fox and ravenous wolf inside of him prepared to release when necessary.10

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

A ruler is an individual who exercises dominion, in most cases to supervise the region they reside. Since rulers usually directly impact the lives of residents where they rule, it is appropriate the residents form opinions on them. Niccolo Machiavelli writes in, The Prince, that one should avoid disdain and hatred by the people they govern. Throughout this essay, Machiavelli repeatedly cites the mistakes of past emperors. Additionally, Machiavelli employs this repeated structure to exhibit to his immediate audience the key to success as an autocrat.

     Machiavelli is a supporter of popular rule, though in an indirect way. Rulers must please their constituents but not give them power. For if the people feel they have power they will rebel against their leader and cause chaos in the state. On page 96 Machiavelli states, “it is the populace who are responsible for innumerable conflicts and clashes in a republic.â€? Because it is difficult to satisfy the majority without upsetting the minority, people become enraged and protest, causing what the government would consider to be conflicts. That is why it is so important to create a strong government that revolves around a magistrate or council, for people fear being publicly accused of faults, let alone as a threat to public liberty. Machiavelli states that there is no authority more “useful and necessaryâ€? for leaders of a government to employ upon their citizens. “[Citizens] for fear of being accused, dare not attempt to do anything that might

In life, it is important for us to have and abide by moral values that encourage us to be good people throughout our lives. In the New Testament and Machiavelli’s The Prince, both works express the moral values that one should live by. The New Testament expresses the morals of a Christian life, those you should follow to live a Godly life that has purpose. In The Prince, Machiavelli details a guide that one should use to gain and protect power when being a leader. These two works were written for different purposes, yet they agree on many aspects that would be considered to be good moral ideologies. The main difference is that Machiavelli is understanding in that, especially in a position of power, one cannot always act as the most

Ruling a country places a person in a uniquely terrifying position. The head of a nation is no longer seen as a person, but as a representative of their nation as well as being tasked with their welfare. Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince is meant to be a manual for how to handles issues of state and reputation. The handbook is comprehensive and detailed, and Machiavelli’s concept of virtù is an interesting one. Virtue and morality aren’t necessarily the same as virtù, since Machiavelli conveys those concepts are not always the best for a leader to have. There are plenty of times in The Prince that virtù and morality clash. Leaders of nations are still human beings and are not exempt from matters of morality, even in times of war or strife. It’s possible that by following the rules set in The Prince one could become the perfect ruler, but the issues of morality that arise may leave them unable to live with themselves or with a ruined reputation if their treachery is discovered.

Niccolo Machiavelli is a very pragmatic political theorist. His political theories are directly related to the current bad state of affairs in Italy that is in dire need of a new ruler to help bring order to the country. Some of his philosophies may sound extreme and many people may call him evil, but the truth is that Niccolo Machiavelli’s writings are only aimed at fixing the current corruptions and cruelties that filled the Italian community, and has written what he believed to be the most practical and efficient way to deal with it. Three points that Machiavelli illustrates in his book The Prince is first, that “it is better to be feared then loved,”# the second

When reading Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince, one can’t help but grasp Machiavelli’s argument that morality and politics can not exist in the same forum. However, when examining Machiavelli’s various concepts in depth, one can conclude that perhaps his suggested violence and evil is fueled by a moral end of sorts. First and foremost, one must have the understanding that this book is aimed solely at the Prince or Emperor with the express purpose of aiding him in maintaining power. Therefore, it is essential to grasp his concepts of fortune and virtue. These two contrary concepts reflect the manner in which a Prince should govern while minimizing all chance and uncertainty. This kind of governing demands violence to be taken, however this