Similarly, King Arthur was widely feared throughout Europe. No land could resist King Arthur, and he used that to his advantage in order to conquer more land and command his people. Geoffrey of Monmouth explains the fear of other countries quite elaborately:
“The fame of Arthur’s great generosity and prowess then pressed to the furthest ends of the earth, and the great fear beset the kings across the sea that Author would invade them and seize the land under their rule. Spurred on by these concerns, they refortified their cities and towers and built castles in strategic locations so that, in the event that Arthur attacked them, they would have a safe refuge. When Arthur learned of these things, he rejoiced at being universally feared, and he desired to submit all Europe to his rule” (171).
King Arthur was without a doubt feared throughout the European world. Countries resulted to extraordinary means in order to protect themselves from King Arthur and his troops. They feared their land would be surrendered to Arthur and they were correct. At the same time, Arthur did not fully master Machiavelli’s rule of behavior about public image; he did not appear to be innocent. He was a prideful leader whom thrived on intimidating others. More so, he was most definitely hated by many. King Arthur
…show more content…
According to Machiavelli, a king would gain respect from patrons by winning wars. A well-respected king stems from his courage and prosperity in battle. Machiavelli said, “Nothing makes a prince so much esteemed as to carry on great enterprises and give rare examples of himself” (87). Regardless of a king’s characteristics, the art of victory at war stands out above all. A king could lack all of Machiavelli’s precepts, yet be victorious in war and remain famous and well liked among the people. In consonance to Machiavelli, in order to gain support and respect form patrons is to win
King Arthur, a courageous man, who was able to pull out a sword from a rock as simple as possible. As for everyone else who tired, it was almost impossible. This was just the beginning stage of Arthur becoming a king. The thing that Merlin didn’...
Niccolò Machiavelli was a man who lived during the fourteen and fifteen hundreds in Florence, Italy, and spent part of his life imprisoned after the Medici princes returned to power. He believed that he should express his feelings on how a prince should be through writing and became the author of “The Qualities of a Prince.” In his essay, he discusses many points on how a prince should act based on military matters, reputation, giving back to the people, punishment, and keeping promises. When writing his essay, he follows his points with examples to back up his beliefs. In summary, Machiavelli’s “The Qualities of a Prince,” provides us with what actions and behaviors that a prince should have in order to maintain power and respect.
Who was King Arthur? Most people would tell of a great King; a devoted circle of heroic knights; mighty castles and mightier deeds; a time of chivalry and courtly love; of Lancelot and Guinevere; of triumph and death. Historians and archaeologists, especially Leslie Alcock, point to shadowy evidence of a man who is not a king, but a commander of an army, who lived during the late fifth to early sixth century who may perhaps be the basis for Arthur. By looking at the context in which the stories of King Arthur survived, and the evidence pertaining to his castle Camelot and the Battle of Badon Hill, we can begin to see that Arthur is probably not a king as the legend holds.
One of the most enduring myths in the Western world is that of Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table. Regardless of the origins of the tales, the fact is that by the time they had been filtered through a French sensibility and re-exported to England, they were representations of not one but several ideals. Courtly love and chivalry and the various components thereof, such as martial prowess, chastity, bravery, courtesy, and so on, were presented as the chief virtues to aspire to, and the knights as role models. Arthur's eventual fall is precisely because of having failed at some level to fulfill these ideals in his life.
King Arthur shows to be a very provident king who treats his people with a large amount
Machiavelli believes that a government should be very structured, controlled, and powerful. He makes it known that the only priorities of a prince are war, the institutions, and discipline. His writings describes how it is more important for a prince to be practical than moral. This is shown where he writes, "in order to maintain the state he is often obliged to act against his promise, against charity, against humanity, and against religion" (47). In addition, Machiavelli argues that a prince may have to be cunning and deceitful in order to maintain political power. He takes the stance that it is better for the prince to be feared than loved. His view of how a government should run and his unethical conduct are both early signs of dictatorship.
King Arthur was a very well known person and the story of his life has been told in many different ways. Two different versions of King Arthur's life were "The Passing of Arthur" by Alfred, Lord Tennyson and "The "Death of Arthur"" by Sir Thomas Malory. The two stories shared many similarities, but had no shortage of differences even though they were both about the same person.
fears of being conquered is sure of defeat.””. he was considered a tyrant by his opponents he is
For all of Machiavelli’s ruthlessness and espousal of deceit, he knew the value of authenticity and relying on his administration. A true leader cannot achieve greatness alone. Machiavelli says that the prince is the state, and the state is the prince. This means that whatever vision and principles the leader holds in the highest regard, they must be known to the state so that they can be realized. He believed that no matter how a prince was elected, his success would depend largely on his ministers. Collaboration between a prince and ministers would create an atmosphere of harmony and camaraderie, highly reducing the chances of rebellion. Without the support and cooperation of the people, military action is not possible, expansion is not possible and most importantly, governance is not possible. If a leader does not satisfy the needs of the people, they have the power to overthrow him through strength in numbers. Thus, a leader depends just as much on the people as they do on him. A leader must be able to convince the people to buy into his visio...
Niccolo Machiavelli stressed that “one ought to be both feared and loved, but as it is difficult for the two to go together, it is much safer to be feared than loved…for love is held by a chain of obligation which, men being selfish, is broken whenever it serves their purpose; but fear is maintained by a dread of punishment which never fails.” He felt that a true leader must be cunning and deceptive, winning the hearts of his people through power and influence. If he could not be liked, he could at least get by knowing he has intimidated these below him into submission. However rash or cruel this may seem, Machiavelli’s argument is not one to be countered easily.
In regards to glory, Machiavelli argues that, rulers should study the actions of admirable men. They should learn how to conduct themselves when at war, study why some battles were won and others lost, so they will know what to imitate or to avoid. In regards to such education, he states, “above all [the ruler] should set himself
In the end, however, the forces of good triumph. Beowulf and his followers defeat the evil beasts through honest combat, proving that the warrior’s path is always the highest. But that does not change the fact that the monsters remain terrifying. Born from our most basic and primal of fears, fictional monsters have grown to become a key component of the social and spiritual lore of the human race. In every story, in every time, there will always be the Grendel outside of Herot, the predator in the darkness, the monster under your bed.
Although Machiavelli gives numerous points on what it takes to excel as a prince, he also shows some raw examples of how he feels a prince should act in order to achieve maximum supremacy. First, when he says, "ought to hold of little account a reputation for being mean, for it is one of those vices which will enable him to govern" proves Machiavelli feels mighty adamant about his view that being mean will help a prince achieve success (332). It is absurd to imagine the meanest prince as the most successful. Also, when Machiavelli states, "our experience has been that those princes who have done great things have held good faith of little account, and have known how to circumvent the intellect of men by craft" revealing his attitude to manipulate people into fearing and respecting the prince (335). Also, Machiavelli shows that for a prince to be successful, he must not think about good faith.
Likewise, Plato’s philosopher king also uses the same concept but calls it “Justice” or “Good.” Similarly, to Machiavelli, who needs his Prince to have virtù to lead the people, Plato necessitates that his king use philosophical knowledge and emphasize justice to guide the unenlightened masses towards a just and stable society as well. When Socrates discusses the allegory of the cave, he remarks how when rulers must descend “to the general underground abode” where the masses “reside,” the ruler “will see a thousand times better than [the inhabitants of the cave]…because [the ruler has] seen the truth about things admirable and just and good” (Plato 520c). Plato believes that by seeing beyond the cave, and understanding the situation he exists in, the leader will have the appropriate ability to bring foresight and intelligence when making difficult decisions. While Plato’s and Machiavelli’s means of educating, changing and legitimizing political communities differ, the two philosophers share the same goal of using the benevolent dictators’ attained knowledge to lead the masses and their governments to prosperity and good fortune.
Through his many years of experience with Italian politics Machiavelli wrote “The Prince”; a how-to guide for new rulers. We are given descriptions of what a leader should do to effectively lead his country. A leader should be the only authority determining every aspect of the state and put in effect a policy to serve his best interests. These interests are gaining, maintaining, and expanding his political power. Machiavelli’s idea is that a ruler should use a variety of strategies (virtues) to secure his power. Machiavelli lists five virtues that a ruler should appear to have; being compassionate, trustworthy, generous, honest and religious. A ruler should possess all the qualities considered good by other people.