Machiavelli's The Prince

Machiavelli expressed in The Prince that he believed that a prince or ruler should be one that appeared to be very compassionate and caring towards others, one that others or the subjects could truly rely on and trust as well as one that is appears to be kind and righteous, however this should all be an illusion. He believed that princes should only appear to be this way so that the subjects or the public would be more submissive to his rule. He felt that the more respect that a prince gained would mean the more likely his subjects would take his side and be more willing to protect him and his honor during a war or battle. Machiavelli also believed that it was okay for a ruler to break their word to their people if that said ruler was at a
disadvantage of any kind. He thought all princes and rulers should also take the time out to study the art and the proper ways or war, he made this known when he stated “A prince ought to have no other aim or thought, nor select anything else for his study, than war and its rules and discipline.” (Machiavelli. The Prince. Chapter XIV. 23.) He felt it was also important that the ruler had a major role in the appointment of the ministers and government because he would be able to appoint those with a like-mind to decrease the chance of conflict.
He thought in order to be successful a ruler should also drain the subjects of all of their resources so that they could rely solely upon him. He also encouraged the conflict amongst subjects so that no one would think to join and ban together in order to rebel against him and challenge his authority. Machiavelli thought that this was in the best interest of the ruler. It was frowned upon by Machiavelli if a ruler was not strategic in his moves, “The lion cannot protect himself from traps, and a fox cannot defend himself from wolves. One must therefore be a fox to recognize traps and a lion to frighten wolves.” (Machiavelli. The Prince. Chapter XVIII.
27.) Machiavelli also expressed that it was very important for the prince or ruler to gain complete control over the armed forces. He thought that logic outweighed the importance of morality. In Chapter XV of The Prince, Machiavelli went into deep detail about how being morally correct should not ever come in between being and maintaining all political powers and if this was thought to be the case that it would be perfect fine to go against one’s morals. Princes or rulers were to be skilled to fight with both law and force when absolutely necessary and know when to discern between the two. Rulers were to realize when they were at a disadvantage of some sort and should know what their next move should be. According to Machiavelli, it was very important that the ruler established the intimidation of him from his subjects. He believed that a prince should be more concerned with being feared opposed to being admired. However, he did state that, “Every prince ought to desire to be considered kind and not cruel. Nevertheless he ought to take care not to misuse this kindness.” (Machiavelli. The Prince. Chapter XVII. 26.) He thought that things should be this way because the more a prince was feared the less the chance it would be for people to come together and rebel against him and threaten his rule and authority, “A prince that is feared may be less likely to be confronted by any challenge to his authority.” (Machiavelli. The Prince. Chapter XVII. 26.) One of the three rulers I will be discussing would be Roland from The Song of Roland. Roland was depicted to be a ruler who possessed many heroic qualities. However, he was far from perfect. He was highly trusted by Charlemagne which really spoke volumes. He was a very popular ruler amongst his subjects because of his numerous brave and honorable actions. He was a very noble, strong willed man who was well respected and possessed full control. Roland was described as the “emperor’s right arm, and that if Roland was to die, the army would not be able to fight without him.” (The Song of Roland. 596-97.) I think that if Machiavelli was to judge Roland’s leadership skills based solely upon this he would be very pleased. However, the slight difference between Roland’s way and Machiavelli’s was that Roland actually chose to earn the respect of his subjects opposed to fooling them such as Machiavelli suggested in The Prince. He also kept his word and promises to his subjects and others always in despite of the situation opposed to Machiavelli who felt that it was okay to break your word or promise if you were at a disadvantage. People really thought highly of Roland’s opinion and trusted his direction. However, Roland was very prideful and this ultimately led to his downfall. His pride prevented him from blowing the Oliphant horn during war, “God forbid that any man alive should say that the Pagans made me blow the horn.” (The Song of Roland. 1073-74.)
I am sure Machiavelli would be very disapproving of this and judge Roland very harshly because of this one action simply because it thought that it was very important that “A prince should not have too much confidence for that it would make him careless.” (Machiavelli. The Prince. Chapter XVII. 27.) I believe Machiavelli would judge this to be a very immature and foolish move on Roland’s behalf because he obviously did the exact opposite and allowed his pride and ego to take over. This one crucial and vital mistake of Roland claimed the lives of 20,000 of his men. For this reason, I actually agree with Machiavelli stating that a good ruler or prince should be one that calculates all his moves before making them and putting extensive thought behind his actions.
The second ruler I will be discussing will be Sir Gawain from Sir Gawain and the Green Knight.
Sir Gawain was another interesting leader I felt who also possessed many knightly qualities as well. He was very courageous, loyal and brave which I think Machiavelli would have been very approving of while judging him. However, I think he would disagree with the fact that Sir Gawain tended to be very naïve, too trusting of others and too kind. “Like purified gold, Sir Gawain was known for his goodness.” (Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. 634-35.) I feel like this would be frowned upon by Machiavelli because according to him this was something that could really land a ruler in deep trouble and not only make him a target but open would possibly even open the door to the possibility for his subjects to unite and rebel against him and his authority. I think one thing that Machiavelli would however in exchange be in favor of is the fact that Sir Gawain understood his concept of not keeping his word when at a disadvantage. Overall, I felt that Sir Gawain was a good leader but he was just very immature and he still had some obvious learning to do and I feel Machiavelli would agree with that because of some of the actions done by
Gawain.
I personally felt that Parzival in Parzival by Wolfram von Eschenbach, particularly books 1-8, would be the one ruler that adhered to and would be pleasing to Machiavelli’s concept of a being a prince or ruler the best. There are numerous different reasons why I feel that this is the case. I think that Machiavelli would enjoy judging Parzival. He honestly possessed traits that resembled those of a knight. He was a ruler who was however very big on and true to his moral compass. He was very compassionate towards others and even towards those who might not have deserved it, Parzival “ordered for the prisoners to be treated well.” (Parzival. Wolfram von Eschenbach. 89.) This showed just how much a generous person Parzival was and why so many thought so highly of him in the first place. Although prisoners were enemies of others and Parzival he still wanted them to be treated properly. His subjects, particularly the hungry, deemed him to be “so noble that in order circumstances he would have no requirement of such hospitality as they could offer.” (Parzival. Wolfram von Eschenbach. 79.)
I think, however, that this would be the only thing that Machiavelli would disagree upon that Parzival not consume his attention and time on doing what is right to be well liked. He thought that all the subjects needed was an illusion to get his subjects to trust him and that would be enough to make them susceptible to submit to his authority or easily to agree with him. It was honestly his honorable actions that led him to become the king and he deserved that position. He was a very brave and courageous ruler even during the times he felt he was unsure and scared which is one thing I think Machiavelli would have been very impressed by because he deemed that this was how a prince or ruler was supposed to act or conduct themselves. We also know how courageous he is because “he fought far in advance of his men.” (Parzival. Wolfram von Eschenbach. 88.) He also was deemed as a ruler who always kept a cool head and we know from reading The Prince, Machiavelli felt that “a prince should always proceed in a calm manner.” (Machiavelli. The Prince. Chapter XVII. 27.) This is why I chose or deemed Parzival to be the best fit for someone who resembled and represented the concept of what Machiavelli felt a prince or leader should be.