What Makes A Good Ruler?

Abryl Navarro DBQ Essay During the 1500s and 1600s, Western Europe experienced a period of governments ruled by ab-solute monarchs. Absolute monarchies are forms of government in which the monarch has abso-lute power over the people. The absolutism was caused by religious and territorial conflicts which was crated fear and uncertainty. Rulers/ Kings abused their power of absolutism over their sub-jects.

From the 14th century into the 17th century of European history, a cultural revolution took place. The renaissance came to Europe and pushed out old middle age ideals and brought in new humanistic ones. The renaissance brought new cultural ideas, new ways of learning, new art, and new standards of how to rule a Kingdom. Kingdoms were coming and going fast at this time, rulers were slipping under the pressures of expanding rule and it seemed that a new kingdoms were continuously being conquered. The guidelines set up in Machiavelli’s The Prince, help to define what makes up a good and bad leader in terms of the new Renaissance ideals.

In The Prince, Machiavelli doesn’t hesitate to recommend that a ruler employ conventionally immoral methods against his own subjects to maintain authority over them, but he does imply that whatever a ruler does should ultimately benefit the community. A Prince’s actions may be cruel, manipulative, or otherwise immoral, but they put him in the position to govern. On occasion, Machiavelli even suggests that gaining power through immoral acts is the best way to improve a community because immorality is pragmatic in a way morality is not. A strong ruler established by immoral means can then do good for his state; Machiavelli indicates that simply having power is not enough. A ruler should also use it well. Admittedly, a ruler may only want to do good for his state in an effort to secure his own position at its head, but the effect he has is no less good for the lack of selfless reasoning behind it. Machiavelli implies that a strong ruler who necessarily acquires and keeps power through immoral actions has a generally good effect on his state, which is a naturally moral byproduct of otherwise immoral deeds.

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 recommends the rulers to follow the good qualities, unless needs to protect himself from a vice who would not lose the state for him or be prudent enough to escape a vice who would lose the state for him.

Machiavelli believes that the foundation of a strong Nation State is a strong army. According to The prince the most important part of being a leader is studying the art of war. Staying in power is a main point in the prince and to stay in power a Prince must conduct a strong army. The Prince proclaims not only do you need a strong army but also you need to be in total control of that army. “Prince ought to have no other aim or thought, nor select anything else for his study, than war and its rules and discipline; for this is the sole art that belongs to him who rules, and it is of such force that it not only upholds those who are born princes, but it often enables

Many great leaders have ruled throughout history, but what made them great? Throughout the ages many very intelligent men have sought to enlighten the world on how to best govern their people. Many of these ideas were written down in great literary works, including: Plato’s “The Republic”, Marcus Aurelius “Meditations” and Machiavelli’s “The Prince”. Plato Sculpted his ideal society with his philosopher king at the head. Marcus Aurelius lead by example as the poster child for stoicism. Machiavelli on the other hand broke away from Plato’s ideal society and placed the strong above all others with his real politik. While these men were all very intelligent and sought the same goal of security, there can only be one victor. The best way to govern a people is the Machiavellian way, his methods are based on historical events, his methods were proven effective and they are based on realism.

The Prince is essentially a guide book on how to acquire and maintain political power. We can think of it as a collection of rules and methods to achieve a level of superior authority. Its main focus is that the ends—no matter how immoral—justify the means for preserving political authority. While some may agree with this mindset of thinking many today dismiss Machiavelli as a cynic. The book shows rulers how it is that they should act to survive in the real world to maintain authority. While Niccolo Machiavelli’s ideas can be radical, they helped to spark a revolution in political philosophy. Although his ideas might have not been completely original, they were very different and unheard of at the time, The Prince, was published. Machiavelli uses many methods to convey his messages including biblical comparisons and of course metaphors. This character can be viewed in several manners. He is almighty and powerful, stopping at nothing to achieve his goals or have his ways. While this quality does qualify him to be a might leader it also raises the question of immorality. How far will one go to maintain order? Would you stop at nothing to achieve this task? Machiavelli shows this by saying, “it is

People are unlikely to overthrow a ruler that they fear, for they dread the punishments of failure. If the ruler is not feared by the people, he will eventually upset enough of them that they will rise up against him. They will overthrow him because of his perceived weakness, and his name and image will be shamed in the eyes of both his government and his people. Machiavelli believes that the state is completely separate from the ruler’s private life. No matter how immoral or heartless the ruler may be in private, only his public image is important. A ruler can be a terrible, sleazy person on their own time, and when not involved with matters of the state, but at any time when the leader is involved in politics and the state, you cannot afford to injure the image of the ruler or else anarchy will develop. With this kind of rebellion can come revolution, war, and many other tragedies that could be otherwise avoided.

A family of monarchy which tortured Machiavelli for months causing him great suffrage and sorrow. He writes to Lorenzo “May I trust, therefore, that Your Highness will accept this little gift in the spirit in which it is offered: and if Your Highness will deign to peruse it, you will recognize in it my ardent desire that you may attain to that grandeur which fortune and your own merits presage for you.” This enough is confusing because if this is the same principality that caused so much suffering why dedicate a book to let their reign continue into longevity? As to add to this confusion, Machiavelli explains how a prince should use cruelty and violence correctly against the people. To use cruelty and punishment all at once so that the people learn to respect you by fear. He includes that if you had a choice on either being loved or feared, be feared for love can change as quick as it came. Fear of punishment, people would avoid and be subservient. He also goes on to put out that a prince must be cunning like a fox yet strong and fearsome like a lion. To use Realpolitik, morality and ideology left out for the world is not these things as you should not be as well. Furthermore, Machiavelli explains what must happen when a new ruler overtakes a new city and the people in it. “And whoever becomes the ruler of a free city and does not destroy it, can expect to be destroyed by it,

Machiavelli also considered it imperative to conquer other lands to expand a kingdom’s territory and wealth. He studied empires of the past to decipher why they succeeded or failed and decided on three essential rules for governing and holding conquered polities securely. The first was to devastate them, second was to live there in person, and third was to allow them to maintain their own laws. “If the inhabitants are not dispersed and scattered, they will forget neither that name nor those institutions; and at first opportunity they will at once have recourse to them.” (The Prince, 21) He regarded it essential for the Prince to be hands-on with his conquered polity because it was harder for people to go behind his back if he was present all the time. And by allowing them to maintain their own laws it created some sense of friendship between the prince and the people, or at least a sense of mutual respect.

Although written nearly two centuries apart, The Republic by Plato and The Prince by Machiavelli offer important views on political philosophies of rulers. Plato writes of a perfect society where status as ruler is naturally selected through innate abilities. These abilities are used to sustain the society, better it, and preserve it. Machiavelli writes of a society where anyone can be a prince; which for our purposes is a synonym for ruler, if they follow his instructions. These instructions are to ensure a new ruler can take control of new lands and maintain order in them for the sake of conquering and expanding power.

When examining Machiavelli political ideals, it is hard to look at it without saying this is cruel and not ideal in any sense. Machiavelli is a prime example for a strong leader that pursues justice through unification and has shown to be very open-minded. Justice doesn’t just come through cruelty and strength, it also requires intelligence with careful studies. As exhibited in the prior quote, he takes in historical mistakes and success to shape his ideal. To have a culture with justice, Machiavelli pushes that “It is necessary for a prince who wish to maintain his position to learn how not to be good, and to use this knowledge or not to use it accordingly” (224). It is quite evident that Machiavelli is willing to use the full extent of his power without fear. Through his willingness and open-mindedness, he examines both side, good and the bad, for the benefit of his country. He believes only those that can utilize both knowledge is fit for the position of being a prince. When he says knowledge, it goes deep into the studies of history and past experiences. It is shown time and time again throughout his

“Machiavelli wrote The Prince to serve as a handbook for rulers, and he claims explicitly throughout the work that he is not interested in talking about the ideal republics or imaginary utopias, as many of his predecessors had done” (Harrison). There is an ongoing debate about which philosopher’s ideas are most correct on the subject of leadership. Two main philosophers come to mind when thinking of this topic and they are Machiavelli with his book The Prince and Plato’s dialogue The Republic. The Republic takes a very theoretical point of view on leadership and portrays life as it should be in an ideal state, whereas Machiavelli’s The Prince, takes a more realistic point of view. Machiavelli is less interested with what things should 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.