The Quarrel Between Two Princes

In The False Prince by Jennifer A. Nielson, a young orphan boy named Sage resides in Carthya. He is known for his rebellious, defiant, and thieving nature. In Carthya, a monarchy government is in place meaning, the kingdom is ruled by the king and his family. Apart of the king’s court of advisers, is nobleman Bevin Conner, who collects Sage and three other orphan boys (Tobias, Roden, and Latamer) for one secret mission: impersonating the long lost Prince Jaron. While Latamer is murdered after trying to leave, the other boys must compete to be chosen as the new king. As a nobleman, Conner is among the few people that know that the king, queen, and their eldest son were recently murdered. He also knows that Carthya is on the brink of war due

He says that force is necessary when the law fails. A prince can use these interchangeable traits to deceive people and break promises.

“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?” (Henry)

a. The British people are referred to as “our British brethren.” They and the colonists share a “common kindred”. But they, like King George, “have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity.” Thus, the British people must be held, like the rest of the world is help, as “enemies in war, in peace, friends.” The king and Parliament bear the brunt of the colonist “wrath.” It is the king who is charged with all their grievances. His history is one “of repeated injuries and usurpations.”

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

“But somehow, fifty years later, I keep thinking that there might have been another way, besides war, to achieve the same end” (Collier and Collier 211). The quote shows how there could possibly be another way to solve the British and Patriots’ argument. In James and Christopher Collier’s historical fiction book, My Brother Sam Is Dead, the story takes place during the American Revolution which occurred in 1775. To many people in the book, both sides believe that war is always unfair. War could tear families or people apart or bring them together as a group to fight. The Patriots fight for their own freedom by revolting and creating the American Revolution. In the historical fiction novel, My Brother Sam Is Dead, there

The war has actually begun”(Henry). He described the advancement of the British military as a “gale” which will “sweep from the north”(Henry). Through the comparison, he is saying that just as a storm cannot be stopped by man’s endeavors, and that the British will not be stopped by man’s human strength. This refers back to his point that it is only through God’s power that the colonists will win. He again calls British rule “chains and slavery”(Henry), as well as that peace and life are not important enough to be purchased at the price of slavery. Lastly, in is his most important line, he concludes, “But as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!”(Henry). Henry uses antithesis in a parallel structure to show that liberty is equally as valuable and desirable, whereas death is destructive and undesirable. By paralleling them in a balanced sentence, he is saying that the outcome will be one or the other and there can be no compromise. This helped to rally the Convention, as well as the troops already fighting, towards a cause. A cause worth fighting

among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature."(Jefferson, 1776)

No one of the time would want to start a war with the most powerful nation in the world, and many colonists demanded that they simply stay under British control. Henry makes a mockery of these men’s ideas. The most obvious form of Henry's attack on submission is when he announces, “Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace but there is no peace”. Henry is explicitly pointing out that, while the colonists claim to want peace, it simply does not exist. Henry furthers the argument of an absence of peace despite such cries with, “The war is actually begun.” While a war had yet to officially begin, Henry dramatizes the unrest that lingers on both sides, demonstrating how impossible peace would be to achieve in such a situation. By condemning the men’s call for peace, on the grounds that peace has already been broken, he forces men to agree that resorting to war is not out of order. In addition, Patrick Henry uses a similar method of rendering a counterargument obsolete to invoke war when he discusses the strengths of the colonies. Henry begins this with the comment of, “they tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable and adversary”. While this may be true, Henry argues that the colonists will be no stronger “by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope”. With this, Henry is able to make his

Context and quote- This quote appears during Henry responds to the opposing argument, giving reasons to refute it. “There is no retreat, but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come” (82).

It is used to make bystanders, and uninvolved people, have to choose. You can not be neutral to witches or terrorists. The consequence of not joining the side would be to become the adversary, even if you have no horses in the race. This statement also allows any tactics to be used against the opposing side, it is no longer neighbor versus neighbor, it becomes a war like environment when lines like that are

War is a human endeavor. Humanity continually pursues solutions to counter evolving threats with the end of preserving power while also enabling peace. Civilizations resort to war to maintain their perception of this equilibrium. Defined threats and adversaries have changed throughout history, however, the essence of human nature and the base concept of conflict itself have not. Carl von Clausewitz’s theories on warfare capture the relationship between humanity and its application of war, remaining relevant in today’s era through their pensive explanations of timeless philosophical principles regarding the concept of war. These theories regarding war in politics, the key factors affecting war, and the extent that war is applied are inherently interconnected, providing insight on the relationships between humanity and its application of war.

We start to see this in his talks with the queen. He defended England because he does not want to admit that the queen is right, that her country is better than his is and that England does not have its country set up so that everyone is equal. Gulliver does know about his change in talk about England, he even admits it to the reader. He says, “It was vain to discover my Resentments, which were always turned into Ridicule; And I was forced to rest with Patience while my noble and most beloved Country was so injuriously treated” (123). This change is not as harmful to Gulliver’s state of mind as the next change that he endures.

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.

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