The Prince Essay

If someone is loved as a leader, they have a certain image to uphold. If people disagree with their choices, they may try and get that person out of office. This is shown in The Tragedy Of Julius Caesar during Brutus' funeral speech for Caesar, he solemnly confessed "as he was/ valiant, I honor him: but, as he was ambitious, I/ slew him." (III, 2, 23-24) Brutus is saying that even though he loved Caesar, he killed him, because he was too ambitious. This means the ambition ruined Caesar's image to Brutus, causing Caesar's death. This is important because if people rule by fear, they won't have an image to uphold, and that can prevent their rule from ending prematurely. Moreover, love can make people neglectful towards major decisions that the leader makes.

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,

A prince is respected as well when he is a true friend and a true enemy, meaning that he sides with another prince against another with no reservation. A prince should show that he that he is a lover of talent and give recognition to men who have ability. He should encourage his subjects to be free in trade and reward them because they are benefiting his city or state by aggrandizing it.

Comparing the The Analects (confucious) with the Prince (Machiavelli) is something like comparing George bush and Elizabeth May of the green party. Basically the wrtitings of The Analects totally disagrees with the writings of The Prince. Confucius believes people are easily improved and taught through self promotion and development, Machaveli however sees humanity in a much different light. Machiavelli was an innovator of realism politics and believed that people of power should conduct themselves as tyrants. Machiavelli and Confucius are from totally different time periods and different places in the world. Which could possibly be the reason The Analects and The Prince are so very

Niccolò Machiavelli suggested in The Prince that a ruler should behave as both a fox and a lion, being both loved and feared. There are clever rulers who were strategic, courageous rulers who were effective, and successful rulers who possessed both qualities. Elizabeth I of England and Henery IV of France were two great rulers from Europe that were able to personify Machiavelli 's advice.

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.

Both men mention that the leaders must have good reasons for what they are doing. Because the good reasons, ruler can dominate people easily. For example, if the prince had used punishment to people without any reasons,

seem like he was a bold conquer who didn't let any obstacles stand in his way. But these

According to Machiavelli's view of how to be an effective leader, a ruler should be one who is feared but not hated. Machiavelli states that fear is better than love because love is unreliable. All of the reasons that Machiavelli gives relate to how human nature controls men and drives them to commit crimes in order to reach their goals and satisfy themselves.

  The Prince is a celebrated and highly controversial piece of work by the Italian aristocrat Niccolo Machiavelli. His work is a summation of all the qualities a prince must have in order to remain in his position. Machiavelli supports the idea that a prince use his power for the ultimate benefit of all, but he also does not condemn the use of any unpleasant means in order for the prince to maintain his power. His ideas both compare and contrast to the methods used by Prince Hamlet of Denmark in Shakespeare's Hamlet. Hamlet, as we know, struggles mightily to maintain his position as the prince, and one must wonder if this is due to some of the highly essential qualities outlined by

Niccolo Machiavelli stressed that “one ought to be both feared and loved, but as it is difficult for the two to go together, it is much safer to be feared than loved…for love is held by a chain of obligation which, men being selfish, is broken whenever it serves their purpose; but fear is maintained by a dread of punishment which never fails.” He felt that a true leader must be cunning and deceptive, winning the hearts of his people through power and influence. If he could not be liked, he could at least get by knowing he has intimidated these below him into submission. However rash or cruel this may seem, Machiavelli’s argument is not one to be countered easily.

The Renaissance, a revival of antiquity starting in Italy around the middle of the 14th century, had broad implications for the way western society would operate thereafter. It would no longer focus on the church and its dictates, although they would still play a part. It would no longer have its government seated in Rome, with small pawns of the church controlling the land, although the church would still have a hand in government. It would no longer shun the vast stores of knowledge created in the past and ignored for a thousand years, although opponents would remain. The ideas of humanism, individualism, and secularism would come to play a role in society as they had in the past. Niccolo Machiavelli lived in a time when the

Machiavelli has long been required reading for everyone intrested in politics and power. In The Prince Niccolo M

affective ruler should be loved and feared at the same time. But since its hard to be

Throughout class one of the major themes has been what qualities make the best possible ruler. Two of my favorite philosophers, Plato and Machiavelli, although very different both attempt to give an answer of what makes a good ruler. Plato’s Philosopher King and Machiavelli’s Prince share their similarities and differences, but in the end Machiavelli paints a more realistic picture of a ruler which makes his prince more favorable.