The Princeps-Elect: Summary

Niccolo Machiavelli was a unique politician, philosopher, and writer who lived in Florence, Italy during the European Renaissance period of the late 15th and early 16th centuries. He is most famously known for writing his ruthless handbook for rulers, The Prince, during his time in exile in 1513. This contentious piece of literature has been fondly referred to as “the guidebook for tyrants and totalitarians,” according to the documentary, Machiavelli: The Prince by director Jett Rink. However, the document has also been credited with positively paving the way for ethnic and religious toleration, individual rights, and modern democracies all throughout history; and it inevitably set the stage for future governments to come. In this way, it is

Nicolo Machiavelli’s The Prince and Sun Tzu’s The Art of War both both provide directions for leadership with similar goals. The Prince is primarily geared towards providing valuable information about how a ruler of many principalities may govern different populations and acquire new lands. The Art of War provides us with a schematic of the optimal path to victory. This book is instead directed towards generals of powerful militaries with only the goal of winning. Concepts such as Machiavelli’s view of destruction will be contrasted with Sun Tzu’s victory-oriented argument for taking whole and several of their other ideas will be compared. Although Machiavelli and Sun Tzu have different intended audiences, many of their ancient tactics can

Lao-Tzu’s “Thoughts from the Tao-te Ching” and Machiavelli’s “The Qualities of a Prince” both have the ultimate goal of making better leaders. The tactics that each writer chooses to present as a guide for the leader are almost opposite of each other.

In 1984 by George Orwell, the book illustrates a nation in control of all aspects in their citizens’ lives. The nation focused on in the novel is Oceania in which the group in charge is the Inner Party. With the Inner Party in such strict control, two characters, Winston and Julia, attempt to rebel and break out of the Inner Party’s grasp. In George Orwell’s novel 1984, rebellion is expressed through Winston and Julia; this is represented through their actions against the Inner Party, their emotions toward the Inner Party, and their intentions in defiance.

A prince has plenty to worry about during times of war and everyone is out to get you so you must be greedy and heinous in times of war. The prince declares that the nation state comes first before individuals.

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.

His plan to defeat

The Professor pokes holes in the main protagonist’s (David’s) plan to assassinate Steelheart and discusses why the antagonist needs to have people in his dominion in the first place (175-184).

Under all the filth and grime from living in prison, Day is still a determined person

The part of Prodigy that I believe impacted me the most was when Day went against his previous beliefs and decided to stand up for the New Elector, Anden. This happened whenever the people in the Republic were about to revolt against him. The people of the Republic were not happy with the way that they were being treated, especially after Day escaped from being executed. They were not happy with the trials, their living conditions, and how some people were living in extreme wealth, while some were living in extreme poverty. The problem with the people revolting against Anden was that it was not Anden who wanted to treat the people of the Republic poorly, it was his late father, who happened to be the old elector. After Anden's father passed away and Anden took over as the new Elector, he wanted to make some changes. These changes would be to treat the poor sectors (Towns) better so that

He wishes for NATO and the Warsaw Pact, respectively. Both countries tried to get the upper hand by gaining more allies. (Golding 197). Ralph’s regard for the need of a steady signal trusted around our women, an assumption one associates with minds of leader of Waknuk into a hateful man who wishes for revenge. Elias Strorm’s wife also surrender and lose the sense of control given by those allies.

Machiavelli defines what a leader should look like in The Prince. His theories, although proven true, are defined as unattainable and idealistic through close analysis of the actions of King Lear, his two daughters, and the consequences they all face due to their actions. King Lear’s two daughters, at first, display Machiavellian leadership traits, but succumb to lust and personal desire, distracting them from their effective ways of leadership. Both daughters fall from their royal positions as a result and ultimately lose rulership, passing away at the conclusion of the play. King Lear does not exemplify Machiavellian leadership by concealing his insecurities and making poor decisions such as handing rulership of his kingdom over to two of his three daughters. King Lear faces the consequences of doing so, is banished from his own kingdom, and is forced to enter a personal and literal storm, eventually dying from his newfound grief and regret. By closely analyzing these characters’ individual storylines, it is evident that Machiavellian leadership is what every ruler should strive to attain, but human imperfection prevents all from actually being able to achieve it.

The entire ploy sounds like a game of chess where anybody could win. But, the battle itself reflected a modern-day political campaign involving mudslinging. In the Regency Crisis, a sad game of chance that caused father and son to separate. Witness corruption and conspiracy.

There has been controversy between scholars about author Niccolo Machiavelli. His two famous works The Prince and The Discourses are two books which discuss monarchy and republic government and how both need to work to be efficient. The question asked is how can the author of The Prince also have written The Discourses? How can Machiavelli write about a republic with separation of power, then write about how a new established monarchy can work and survive? We will discuss the ideas set forth in both books and decide whether or not Machiavelli works are consistent or contradictory.

Today, The Prince is commonly used to educate readers on how political power can corrupt officials as well as the many adverse effects it has on the government. Although few educators would agree with The Prince’s ideals, few would deny that the methods described would be effective. The cruel and selfish nature of the prince described in the book is frowned upon in modern politics. However, the prince is a prime example of how