Niccolo Machiavelli Analysis

When looking back at what has become of modern western civilization, one would find that the circumstances of the earliest generations of rulers to be quite like the circumstances of those unstable, “barbaric” developing nations. When carefully observing this, one would find those nations typically stabilize after the rise of strong personalities and entities who can assert their dominance in a state of turmoil. As once stated by the 14th-century sociologist Ibn Khaldun in one of his most prized works, The Muqaddimah: An Introduction to History, he claims, “The term of life of a dynasty does not normally exceed three generations. For in the first generation are still preserved the characteristic features of rough, uncivilized rural life, such
This subject was introduced in a format with the resemblance to a handbook in Machiavelli’s The Qualities of the Prince. Machiavelli would clarify his main principles and ideals by referencing previous significant historical events and further solidifying his claims by means of logic and reason. In one claim, his argument asserted the importance of exhibiting military prowess as a leader. Machiavelli reasons in his argument, claiming that a prince must be well versed and familiarized in military matters, as this is a skill that can be a decisive measure in the case that the ruler’s position of power comes under threat. He states, “And it is of such importance that knowing warfare not only maintains those who were born princes, but on many occasions allows men of private stations to seize those positions” (86). I would find myself to approve of this idea that a leader should have the aptitude of the field commander on the battlefield, and in consensus that this can be applicable today. In fact, it would not be difficult to find examples of leaders in recent times who would support Machiavelli’s argument, like George W. Bush, whose policies performed rather poorly in the military campaigns of Iraq and
Despite the solid justification for this position, I feel that one can misinterpret this concept of maintaining order and use this as an excuse to commit atrocities in the name of unity. A more modern example of how a careless approach can possibly doom a region into a worse predicament is the Syrian Civil war. Had the Syrian government taken a more cautious approach to quelling the unrest which had initially begun in the southern city of Dara’ a, the regime could have possibly avoided the deaths and displacement of 1/3 of its population. Despite that notion, I stress that this is merely my own observation, which can be subjective and open to discourse. Nevertheless, my disposition pivots closer to the realist point of view, knowing very well the moral implications. I do find it applicable at times to take a harsh approach, but at the same time, being careful to avoid adding fuel to the flame by exemplifying cruelty in the most judicial and bureaucratic manner to maintain legitimacy while at the same time asserting the authority of the