What Is Machiavelli's Purpose Of The Prince

The political situation that prompted Machiavelli to write The Prince was that Italy wasn’t a unified country yet. It was a bunch of city states.

“Since, then, a prince must know how to use well the nature of the beast, he should choose from among the beasts the fox and the lion; for the lion cannot defend itself from traps, while the fox cannot protect itself from the wolves. It is therefore necessary to be a fox, in order to recognize the traps, and a lion, in order to frighten the wolves’ (Machiavelli 60).” When must the Prince be the lion and when must he be the fox? In The Prince written by Machiavelli, Machiavelli writes to the Prince to tell him the best way to rule over a principality, and the consequences of the decisions he makes in his ruling. Machiavelli applies figurative language, such as metaphors to explain the way a situation will often play out. He represents different roles of leadership as animals. The different animals, lion, wolf, fox, have varying characteristics. Machiavelli uses the metaphors of a lion and a fox in order to illustrate the need for a prince to be both strong and brave and sly and cunning. The effect of these metaphors is to demonstrate that a prince must demonstrate more than just one characteristic in order to lead with power and authority.

In The Prince, Machiavelli discusses ways in which a ruler should obtain power and maintain power, emphasizing the concept of gaining power through virtue versus fortune. Virtue, or virtu in the original Italian, is defined as the masculine quality of power, and not necessarily tied to ideas of morality as it is in the English definition.

Machiavelli is known as the first modern political thinker because his view of the state, and the state’s relationship with the Church, were revolutionary. Prior to Machiavelli, 15th Century politics was simply an extension of the Church with the pope as the primary political actor. However, the Renaissance brought back ancient and classical thought that allowed thinkers like Machiavelli to flourish. Machiavelli is immersed in the struggling Italian city-state of Florence where he writes a text with the intention of unifying Italy into a single political entity. He argues the best approach is a secular one, and in this line of thinking, he effectively defines human nature as that

unique voices. While some philosophers have similar opinions on what it takes to be an effective leader, such as intelligence and worldliness, there are many that disagree on traits they find beneficial. The reasons for these disagreements are vast but one of the crucial factors are the societies and historical eras these authors were nurtured within. Through their own experiences with government and turmoil, philosophers are able to give their critiques on government and human nature as a whole. Socrates and Machiavelli, both philosophers in what it means to be a proper leader and the role of the people within a society, share contrasting views.

History 's most prominent leaders have shown extreme congruence. These leaders almost always hold reality over ethics. How can we classify lying and manipulative leaders as immoral when their duplicity is the very reason a society can maintain stability? This idea has of "means justifying the ends" has been a staple in History 's most prosperous of societies. Machiavelli 's novel The Prince was the first stab at understanding this human tendency of what is now known as Machiavellian. Machiavelli grasped the sad reality of our world and did not fall prey to other 's idealistic propaganda. Great leaders understand what the endless potential they hold, they can manipulate their followers to make best of what is possible and above all they understand sacrifice. Modern day Machiavellians and successful leaders think realistically and communicate through idealism. No matter the extremes of your belief, utilizing Machiavellian tactics have the capability to bring anyone to power.

“It is much safer to be feared than loved.” This quotation was just a specimen of the harsh and very practical political annotation of the legendary historian, Niccolò Machiavelli – philosopher, patriot, diplomat, advisor and statesman. He was born as the son of a poor lawyer in 1498, but he never let boundaries restrict him. He still received an excellent humanist education from the University of Florence and was soon after appointed as the Second Chancellor of the Republic of Florence.2 His political importance to Florence would soon give him the opportunity to write what is disputed as one of the most significant works in history, The Prince.

Outside people relations, Vlad embodied one of the most crucial principle Machiavelli stressed in “The Prince,” Principle 10 - How the Strength of All States Should be Measured. Machiavelli believes that for a prince to maintain his control over the state in times of war, he must be ready to fight for his people. Vlad went beyond that by succeeding his predecessors through weaponizing Wallachia for battle and personally leading the charge against neighboring states. His first hurdle was his confrontation with Hungary where “he tried to maintain a fragile peace, skillfully balancing the interests of the Hungarian and the Ottoman Empire in Wallachia. However...conflict broke out between Wallachia and Hungary…[eventually] Vlad succeeded to obtain

Niccolo Machiavelli was an Italian philosopher, politician, historian, and writer who wrote “The Prince” which coined the word Machiavellian, which is used to describe a person that is ruthless in the way that they pursue their goals and or means. I believe that when putting the work of “The Prince” by Machiavelli into conversation with the film “The Marriage of Maria Braun” that the main character Maria Braun is acting in a very machiavellian way, and since the character Maria Braun is an embodiment of post war Germany, it showed the status that Germany was in at the time and the lengths at which the country was going to survive and rebuild.

In The Morals of the Prince Machiavelli expresses his presumption on how a prince should act. He expresses that a prince should be feared, merciful, stingy, etc. He is right because if a prince is loved and too generous then people will take advantage of him and that will lead to his down fall. A prince must act appropriately to remain in power. Machiavelli gives his best ideas to keep a prince in power.

Nowadays, it is politically impossible to commit to paper a "training guide" for leaders. There are innumerable detractors to any possible stance or strategy a leader might adopt. As a result of this, all "training" must take place behind closed doors, far from the prying eyes and ears of the news media or the public. But this has not always been the case.

Niccolo Machiavelli and Karl Marx developed theories concerning wealth and poverty in our society, as well as different types of governments. For instance, Machiavelli supported a capitalist economic system, unlike Marx, who embraced socialism in the society. Machiavelli wrote a book "The Prince" that explained how to be an effective leader. The theme of the book is "the end justifies the means." A person could or should do whatever is necessary to achieve the desired goal. According to Machiavelli, there is no concept of a perfect ruler, but only effective or ineffective leaders. Therefore, he claims that there are no fair fighters, but only losers and winners. Contrary, Marx embraced democracy as good practice for the government. This paper will analyze whether Marx would buy Machiavelli 's thought that states "desired ends justify undesirable means" (Weng 1).

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

Machiavelli’s The Prince can be utilized as a guidebook to answer: “How best can a ruler maintain control of his state?” Therefore, if any employer reads it as a how-to-book rather than just a work of political theory, they can be seen as the ruler while the state would be the rest of the employees. If this is followed like an agenda, the sole purpose of government is not the good of the people but the stability of the state and the perpetuation of the established ruler’s control. It would define the city as an entity existing to serve its ruler rather than its populace. Obtaining the support of the people is not a goal in itself, but rather a means for ensuring that the city remains fortified.

Relying on the needs of the society of that time, Machiavelli comes to the conclusion that the most important task is the formation of a single Italian state (Machiavelli 15). Developing his thoughts, the author comes to the following inference: only a prince can become a leader capable of leading people and building a unified state. It is not a concrete historical personality but someone abstract, symbolic, possessing such qualities that in the aggregate are inaccessible to any living ruler. That is why Machiavelli devotes most of his research to the issue of what qualities should the prince possess to fulfill the historical task of developing a new state. The written work is constructed strictly logically and objectively. Even though the image of an ideal prince is abstract, Machiavelli argues that he should be ruthless, deceiving, and selfish.