A prince should first decide how much injury to inflict and strike quickly and all at once. He then, should not bring injury to the people for a considerable amount of time. If a prince does so correctly and consistently, he will not receive glory but his subjects will over time forget the violence and cruelty inflicted upon the state. Machiavelli used Agathocles the Sicilian, to clarify this point and stated, “Yet it cannot be called prowess to kill fellow-citizens, to betray friends, to be treacherous, pitiless, irreligious. These ways can win a prince power but not glory” (Machiavelli 29). The point of using force and violence is not to gain glory but to create fear among the people and to force them to support the prince. Although the prince receives the overall goal, his cruelty toward his people is not appropriate or acceptable. A prince should win the people’s support with his actions and …show more content…
A prince should be concerned about what is best for the state and not about what his people think. If cruelty is necessary and practical, it should be done and the wellbeing of his people should be put aside. Although generosity is sometimes an option, Machiavelli suggests that cruelty is usually the best option and causes the people to fear him. Fear, allows the prince to keep order and guarantee cooperation. Though a prince should want to be both loved and feared, it is “difficult to combine them, it is far better to be feared than loved if you cannot be both” (Machiavelli 54). To explain this concept and convince Medici, Machiavelli used historical people including Caesar, Cyrus, Alexander and Hannibal. Machiavelli suggests that the people of a state should not be any concern to a prince if the state is in danger of rebellion. This view of how a prince should govern, is often considered unethical and cruel. The people of a state should always be treated fairly and should not have to fear their