The Prince
The Prince: Analysis Paper
Good Qualities of a Leader:
A good leader is one who does not promote liberality because liberality makes the leader despised, hated and poor. If he is despised by the people, the people will arrange a conspiracy against the prince; therefore, the prince needs to satisfy the people to some extent (Machiavelli 3). To do this the prince will arm the people and soldiers (5). Nicolo Machiavelli also states another quality that the prince must lack is greed and abuse of woman (3). Machiavelli’s ideal leader uses meanness and cruelty as a weapon to instill peace and loyalty (1). The good leader is merciless so disorders like robberies and or murders cannot arise (1). A wise leader can carefully utilize wealth properly …show more content…
avoiding poverty (1). A wise leader is feared rather than loved by the people in order to discipline the people and restricting their popular power (2).
The leader has manipulated the political and militaristic issues to be in his favor so that he may retain his power (2). A successful prince must use deception to “maintain the state, to act contrary to faith, friendship, humanity, and religion” (3). It is also imperative that the prince that he keep the strong (aristocrats, bureaucrats, and the soldiers) his friends so that he may maintain power during his reign. I believe that these qualities surely are the basic characteristics that an iron leader needs. Through discipline and unity, Machiavellian leaders can accomplish much in a single reign. Too much freedom in a society can cause the overthrowing of the king. Machiavelli also sets a particular limit for the prince to abstain from which is really good. If too much power is given to the king then …show more content…
the whole kingdom will be in danger of the revolting residents.
Machiavelli’s Good and Bad Leaders:
In Machiavelli’s perspective, Cesare Borgia’s cruelty made him a successful leader, “Cesare Borgia was considered cruel; notwithstanding, his cruelty reconciled the Romagna, unified it, and restored it to peace and loyalty…to avoid a reputation for cruelty, permitted Pistoia to be destroyed” (1).
He was cruel but to some extent, an extent that was allowed some mercy. Alexander the Great, Cyrus, and Caesar became effective leaders because they were thrifty, “…be a ready giver, as were Cyrus, Caesar, and Alexander; because it does not take away your reputation if you squander that of others, but adds to it; it is only squandering your own that injures you” (1). Wasting money extravagantly was something that these great leaders fortunately lacked. Hannibal is one of the many military leaders that Machiavelli respects because he could maintain such a huge army through rough strictness, “Hannibal…his inhuman cruelty, which, with his boundless valour, made him revered and terrible in the sight of his soldiers, but without that cruelty” (2). Similarly, Scorpio of Spain enforced militaristic discipline which was the key element in winning the rebellion in Spain “…Scipio, that most excellent man…which gave his soldiers more licence than is consistent with military discipline” (2). These masterminds utilized control through intense discipline. Alexander’s VI tactics were to trick men so then he can use the false image to manipulate the people. “Alexander VI did nothing else but
deceive men…he well understood this side of mankind…useful; to appear merciful, faithful, humane, religious, upright, and…to change to the opposite…in order to maintain the state, to act contrary to faith, friendship, humanity, and religion” (2, 3). Through his sly strategy, Alexander VI was able to preserve loyalty in his kingdom. Messer Annibale Bentivoglio was a prince in Bologna and was conspired against because of his ill treatment of many, not just one. “Messer Annibale Bentivoglio, who was prince in Bologna (grandfather of the present Annibale), having been murdered by the Canneschi, who had conspired against him, not one of his family survived but Messer Giovanni, who was in childhood: immediately after his assassination the people rose and murdered all the Canneschi” (3). This conspiracy was successful because the majority of the populace disliked how he neglected the satisfaction of the people, a main aspect that Machiavelli highlights. Machiavelli also describes how Italian Princes incorrectly divided Pistoia into revolting factions, “I do not believe that factions can ever be of use…fostered the Guelph and Ghibelline factions…disputes amongst them…distracted by their differences…weakness in the prince, because these factions will never be permitted in a vigorous principality” (5). These rebellious factions of the Italian Princes proved to be a sign of a weak leader.
Machiavelli View on the Nature of Man The prince also needs to have a mind which understands the natures of man through discipline and to use and approach the reciprocally different twin nature of man. “Achilles and many other princes of old were given to the Centaur Chiron to nurse, who brought them up in his discipline; which means solely that, as they had for a teacher one who was half beast and half man, so it is necessary for a prince to know how to make use of both natures, and that one without the other is not durable. A prince, therefore, being compelled knowingly to adopt the beast, ought to choose the fox and the lion; because the lion cannot defend himself against snares and the fox cannot defend himself against wolves. Therefore, it is necessary to be a fox to discover the snares and a lion to terrify the wolves...Of this endless modern examples could be given, showing how many treaties and engagements have been made void and of no effect through the faithlessness of princes; and he who has known best how to employ the fox has succeeded best” (2). The prince is also required to forge alliances regardless of how strong he is because he will always yield a weakness, the nature of man. Machiavelli uses the analogy of the fox and lion to portray this. Another one of Machiavelli’s views on the nature of man is the weapon of sham is a widely used technique. He describes how man’s use of trickery is something that man uses to boost his power and control, “Every one sees what you appear to be, few really know what you are, and those few dare not oppose themselves to the opinion of the many…” (3). This deception is how man cheats his way to fame and glory.
Machiavelli Observations on Society and History Machiavelli was a great thinker of his time and he compiled The Prince with a detailed explanation on how to become a successful leader supported with many historical events and people. Many of these figures had one thing in common – they inculcated discipline. In The Prince, he continually refers to the benefits of discipline and how leaders hold on to their headship by invoking fear and strength on he people. Though he prefers strict laws to ensure the loyalty of the people, he fortunately realizes that some boundaries must be made to satisfy the people. This mix of austerity and recognition of the people’s rights is what The Prince is based upon. I agree with Machiavelli’s main idea about the prince’s control is based on what disciplinary measures he chooses to take. The more the prince is feared the better because by being feared, the people will have no choice but to submit entirely to the prince. Allowing a democracy or popular sovereignty with ruin the kingship and not permitting a centralized power house, the prince. Once the prince gains control through cruel discipline, he MUST maintain a satisfactory connection with the people, otherwise, a revolution will start to boil. Machiavelli’s balance in these two theories is what will give the edge in control to any prince in any vast kingdom.
Assigned Absolute Rulers
• Charles II of Spain: Charles II would be considered a disgrace under Machiavelli’s The Prince. His reign did not bring any prosperity during Spain’s harsh times of hunger and economical decline. This feeble “prince” had factions with a dying monarchal control. He was so unfit for the position of Prince, the court and foreign influences like the French governed the affairs in Spain. The true acceleration and the highpoint of his time in power were not even completed by himself – he needed the foreign Italian expertise of Count-Duke of Olivares. This pitiful prince could not get a control of himself, let alone a whole country. Towards the end of his kingship, he became hypersensitive and strange. This mental instability forced him to mourn over his deceased wives. Machiavelli would definitely regard Charles II a maniac with no control or discipline in all aspects – his country, his army, his people, and most sadly, himself.
• George III of England: He would somewhat be classified as good ruler in the sense that he won the Seven Year’s War against France and a series of wars against revolutionary and Napoleonic France, over a twenty-year period, finally concluded in the defeat of Napoleon in 1815 which obviously takes military proficiency. Outside of those successes he did not main a firm rule especially in America. He enforced taxes but not an extent that Machiavelli would be pleased with. He imposed the Stamp Act in America which forced a taxed stamp on every document in America. When the Stamp Act was repealed in 1766, George III started to reveal some weakness and leniency towards the Americans which allowed a big blow to occur against England – The Boston Tea Party. This was a sign of George’s III loose control, but in response George III enforced The Intolerable Acts which shutdown the Boston port. Altogether, Machiavelli would comment and complain over the George’s III pathetic control of the foreign faction of America. One more facet that Machiavelli would regard as a fault is the excessive generosity George III had. George III was in a £3 million debt yet he managed an openhandedness to make secret funds to The Royal Academy almost totaling up to half of his earnings. Luckily, his debt was taken care of by the Parliament. In Machiavelli’s standpoint George would be judged as fairly strong military leader but the other issues of controlling and maintaining separate factions and his thriftiness would be seen as harmful for the attributes of a leader.
Current Machiavellian Rulers
• Manmohan Singh: He is the current Prime Minister for India and he is more of economical Machiavellian leader than the political Machiavellian leader. As a economic specialist, Manmohan Singh was effective in reducing the fiscal deficit, providing debt-relief to poor farmers, extending social programs and advancing the pro-industry economic and tax policies that have launched the country on a major economic expansion course since 2002, a attribute of thriftiness that Machiavelli would like. If Singh had not wisely spent the money to please the people, he would be “hated and despised” and eventually be conspired against because economy was so bad in India when he became Prime Minister. Like Machiavelli admires, Singh sustains firm ties between stong political figures like Barney. One way Singh strengthened his power and created alliances is through the Nehru. The Nehru set the pattern for the formation of Indian foreign policy: a strong personal role for the prime minister but a weak institutional structure. Nehru served concurrently as prime minister and minister of external affairs; he made all major foreign policy decisions himself after consulting with his advisers and then entrusted the conduct of international affairs to senior members of the Indian Foreign Service (Answers).
• Hu Jintao: The current Communist president of China has and will have a tight grip on the political and economical issues of China. He resembles much of the Machiavellian leader by increasing his military strength and enforcing strict laws on liberalism. Hu has contradicted initial expectations that he was a closet liberal. He is currently seen as a hard-liner in regards to liberalizing the Chinese media, as well as in regards to political reform. Hu has been very cautious with regards to the Internet, choosing to censor politically sensitive material to a degree more strict than the Jiang era. Hu also manages to build a growing economy through cheap labor in places such as Africa. Although he has been considered a reformer by some, Hu also has demonstrated his loyalty to traditional policies of Beijing, including the rigid control over political opposition; in 1989 Hu imposed martial law in Tibet to deter pro-independence demonstrations. Since taking office as president, Hu has taken charge of the China's military and reached out diplomatically to countries around the world (Answers). Machiavelli would truly honor the harsh rules that Hu decided to take to become an efficient leader.
Good Qualities of a Leader:
A good leader is one who does not promote liberality because liberality makes the leader despised, hated and poor. If he is despised by the people, the people will arrange a conspiracy against the prince; therefore, the prince needs to satisfy the people to some extent (Machiavelli 3). To do this the prince will arm the people and soldiers (5). Nicolo Machiavelli also states another quality that the prince must lack is greed and abuse of woman (3). Machiavelli’s ideal leader uses meanness and cruelty as a weapon to instill peace and loyalty (1). The good leader is merciless so disorders like robberies and or murders cannot arise (1). A wise leader can carefully utilize wealth properly …show more content…
avoiding poverty (1). A wise leader is feared rather than loved by the people in order to discipline the people and restricting their popular power (2).
The leader has manipulated the political and militaristic issues to be in his favor so that he may retain his power (2). A successful prince must use deception to “maintain the state, to act contrary to faith, friendship, humanity, and religion” (3). It is also imperative that the prince that he keep the strong (aristocrats, bureaucrats, and the soldiers) his friends so that he may maintain power during his reign. I believe that these qualities surely are the basic characteristics that an iron leader needs. Through discipline and unity, Machiavellian leaders can accomplish much in a single reign. Too much freedom in a society can cause the overthrowing of the king. Machiavelli also sets a particular limit for the prince to abstain from which is really good. If too much power is given to the king then …show more content…
the whole kingdom will be in danger of the revolting residents.
Machiavelli’s Good and Bad Leaders:
In Machiavelli’s perspective, Cesare Borgia’s cruelty made him a successful leader, “Cesare Borgia was considered cruel; notwithstanding, his cruelty reconciled the Romagna, unified it, and restored it to peace and loyalty…to avoid a reputation for cruelty, permitted Pistoia to be destroyed” (1).
He was cruel but to some extent, an extent that was allowed some mercy. Alexander the Great, Cyrus, and Caesar became effective leaders because they were thrifty, “…be a ready giver, as were Cyrus, Caesar, and Alexander; because it does not take away your reputation if you squander that of others, but adds to it; it is only squandering your own that injures you” (1). Wasting money extravagantly was something that these great leaders fortunately lacked. Hannibal is one of the many military leaders that Machiavelli respects because he could maintain such a huge army through rough strictness, “Hannibal…his inhuman cruelty, which, with his boundless valour, made him revered and terrible in the sight of his soldiers, but without that cruelty” (2). Similarly, Scorpio of Spain enforced militaristic discipline which was the key element in winning the rebellion in Spain “…Scipio, that most excellent man…which gave his soldiers more licence than is consistent with military discipline” (2). These masterminds utilized control through intense discipline. Alexander’s VI tactics were to trick men so then he can use the false image to manipulate the people. “Alexander VI did nothing else but
deceive men…he well understood this side of mankind…useful; to appear merciful, faithful, humane, religious, upright, and…to change to the opposite…in order to maintain the state, to act contrary to faith, friendship, humanity, and religion” (2, 3). Through his sly strategy, Alexander VI was able to preserve loyalty in his kingdom. Messer Annibale Bentivoglio was a prince in Bologna and was conspired against because of his ill treatment of many, not just one. “Messer Annibale Bentivoglio, who was prince in Bologna (grandfather of the present Annibale), having been murdered by the Canneschi, who had conspired against him, not one of his family survived but Messer Giovanni, who was in childhood: immediately after his assassination the people rose and murdered all the Canneschi” (3). This conspiracy was successful because the majority of the populace disliked how he neglected the satisfaction of the people, a main aspect that Machiavelli highlights. Machiavelli also describes how Italian Princes incorrectly divided Pistoia into revolting factions, “I do not believe that factions can ever be of use…fostered the Guelph and Ghibelline factions…disputes amongst them…distracted by their differences…weakness in the prince, because these factions will never be permitted in a vigorous principality” (5). These rebellious factions of the Italian Princes proved to be a sign of a weak leader.
Machiavelli View on the Nature of Man The prince also needs to have a mind which understands the natures of man through discipline and to use and approach the reciprocally different twin nature of man. “Achilles and many other princes of old were given to the Centaur Chiron to nurse, who brought them up in his discipline; which means solely that, as they had for a teacher one who was half beast and half man, so it is necessary for a prince to know how to make use of both natures, and that one without the other is not durable. A prince, therefore, being compelled knowingly to adopt the beast, ought to choose the fox and the lion; because the lion cannot defend himself against snares and the fox cannot defend himself against wolves. Therefore, it is necessary to be a fox to discover the snares and a lion to terrify the wolves...Of this endless modern examples could be given, showing how many treaties and engagements have been made void and of no effect through the faithlessness of princes; and he who has known best how to employ the fox has succeeded best” (2). The prince is also required to forge alliances regardless of how strong he is because he will always yield a weakness, the nature of man. Machiavelli uses the analogy of the fox and lion to portray this. Another one of Machiavelli’s views on the nature of man is the weapon of sham is a widely used technique. He describes how man’s use of trickery is something that man uses to boost his power and control, “Every one sees what you appear to be, few really know what you are, and those few dare not oppose themselves to the opinion of the many…” (3). This deception is how man cheats his way to fame and glory.
Machiavelli Observations on Society and History Machiavelli was a great thinker of his time and he compiled The Prince with a detailed explanation on how to become a successful leader supported with many historical events and people. Many of these figures had one thing in common – they inculcated discipline. In The Prince, he continually refers to the benefits of discipline and how leaders hold on to their headship by invoking fear and strength on he people. Though he prefers strict laws to ensure the loyalty of the people, he fortunately realizes that some boundaries must be made to satisfy the people. This mix of austerity and recognition of the people’s rights is what The Prince is based upon. I agree with Machiavelli’s main idea about the prince’s control is based on what disciplinary measures he chooses to take. The more the prince is feared the better because by being feared, the people will have no choice but to submit entirely to the prince. Allowing a democracy or popular sovereignty with ruin the kingship and not permitting a centralized power house, the prince. Once the prince gains control through cruel discipline, he MUST maintain a satisfactory connection with the people, otherwise, a revolution will start to boil. Machiavelli’s balance in these two theories is what will give the edge in control to any prince in any vast kingdom.
Assigned Absolute Rulers
• Charles II of Spain: Charles II would be considered a disgrace under Machiavelli’s The Prince. His reign did not bring any prosperity during Spain’s harsh times of hunger and economical decline. This feeble “prince” had factions with a dying monarchal control. He was so unfit for the position of Prince, the court and foreign influences like the French governed the affairs in Spain. The true acceleration and the highpoint of his time in power were not even completed by himself – he needed the foreign Italian expertise of Count-Duke of Olivares. This pitiful prince could not get a control of himself, let alone a whole country. Towards the end of his kingship, he became hypersensitive and strange. This mental instability forced him to mourn over his deceased wives. Machiavelli would definitely regard Charles II a maniac with no control or discipline in all aspects – his country, his army, his people, and most sadly, himself.
• George III of England: He would somewhat be classified as good ruler in the sense that he won the Seven Year’s War against France and a series of wars against revolutionary and Napoleonic France, over a twenty-year period, finally concluded in the defeat of Napoleon in 1815 which obviously takes military proficiency. Outside of those successes he did not main a firm rule especially in America. He enforced taxes but not an extent that Machiavelli would be pleased with. He imposed the Stamp Act in America which forced a taxed stamp on every document in America. When the Stamp Act was repealed in 1766, George III started to reveal some weakness and leniency towards the Americans which allowed a big blow to occur against England – The Boston Tea Party. This was a sign of George’s III loose control, but in response George III enforced The Intolerable Acts which shutdown the Boston port. Altogether, Machiavelli would comment and complain over the George’s III pathetic control of the foreign faction of America. One more facet that Machiavelli would regard as a fault is the excessive generosity George III had. George III was in a £3 million debt yet he managed an openhandedness to make secret funds to The Royal Academy almost totaling up to half of his earnings. Luckily, his debt was taken care of by the Parliament. In Machiavelli’s standpoint George would be judged as fairly strong military leader but the other issues of controlling and maintaining separate factions and his thriftiness would be seen as harmful for the attributes of a leader.
Current Machiavellian Rulers
• Manmohan Singh: He is the current Prime Minister for India and he is more of economical Machiavellian leader than the political Machiavellian leader. As a economic specialist, Manmohan Singh was effective in reducing the fiscal deficit, providing debt-relief to poor farmers, extending social programs and advancing the pro-industry economic and tax policies that have launched the country on a major economic expansion course since 2002, a attribute of thriftiness that Machiavelli would like. If Singh had not wisely spent the money to please the people, he would be “hated and despised” and eventually be conspired against because economy was so bad in India when he became Prime Minister. Like Machiavelli admires, Singh sustains firm ties between stong political figures like Barney. One way Singh strengthened his power and created alliances is through the Nehru. The Nehru set the pattern for the formation of Indian foreign policy: a strong personal role for the prime minister but a weak institutional structure. Nehru served concurrently as prime minister and minister of external affairs; he made all major foreign policy decisions himself after consulting with his advisers and then entrusted the conduct of international affairs to senior members of the Indian Foreign Service (Answers).
• Hu Jintao: The current Communist president of China has and will have a tight grip on the political and economical issues of China. He resembles much of the Machiavellian leader by increasing his military strength and enforcing strict laws on liberalism. Hu has contradicted initial expectations that he was a closet liberal. He is currently seen as a hard-liner in regards to liberalizing the Chinese media, as well as in regards to political reform. Hu has been very cautious with regards to the Internet, choosing to censor politically sensitive material to a degree more strict than the Jiang era. Hu also manages to build a growing economy through cheap labor in places such as Africa. Although he has been considered a reformer by some, Hu also has demonstrated his loyalty to traditional policies of Beijing, including the rigid control over political opposition; in 1989 Hu imposed martial law in Tibet to deter pro-independence demonstrations. Since taking office as president, Hu has taken charge of the China's military and reached out diplomatically to countries around the world (Answers). Machiavelli would truly honor the harsh rules that Hu decided to take to become an efficient leader.