Countries rise and fall, but within this chaos is the certainty that new leaders will emerge to fill the shoes of those fallen. What is it that separates the great leaders from the lesser? This question weighed heavy on the minds of many great Renaissance thinkers due to the power that derives from this knowledge. In the 16th century, Niccolò Machiavelli sought out to answer this time worn question. It was in his publication of The Prince, that Machiavelli spread his cold and practical formula of how to rule. In The Prince, Machiavelli clearly states what characteristics great ruler have. These Machiavellian traits show themselves in the life of Alexander the Great and some of the traits used by Machiavelli were taken from Alexander’s style of ruling. Even though he lived before the creation of The Prince, much of Alexander’s success stems from his Machiavellian principles of war, deception, and his ability to absorb the culture of conquered territories by limiting changes in their government.
War is an unavoidable part of history and it was not in peace that Alexander the Great acquired one of the largest empires on earth. As said by Hugh Liebert, “Alexander the Great is understood to be the first statesman to attempt a ‘universal state’” (Liebert 1). This “universal state” was not obtained by peaceful methods. It was in Alexander’s conquest of all that stood in his path that he exhibits excellent understanding of the Machiavellian principles of war. Chapter fourteen of Machiavelli’s The Prince begins by stating: “A Prince, therefore, should have no care or thought but for war” (Machiavelli 37). If war should be a primary concern for a leader, then who else demonstrates a better understanding of warfare than Alexander the Grea...
... middle of paper ...
...f the conquered territories to remain relatively unchanged, Alexander was able to subdue potential unrest before it occurred. However, Alexander’s rule was not without discord though. Many Machiavellian actions for the good of the empire were seen as unsavory to a select few. While this created some distrust, Alexander’s power and governing expertise were enough to overcome these adversities. Because of the characteristics mentioned above, Alexander the Great is as close to a true Machiavellian ruler as humanly possible.
Works Cited
Liebert, Hugh. "Alexander the Great and the History of Globalization." The Review of Politics 73 (): 533-560. Print.
Machiavelli , Niccolo. The Prince. 1st edition. New York: Dover Publications, 1992. Print.
Martin , Thomas, Barbara Rosenwein, and Bonnie Smith. The Making of the West. Third Edition. 1. New York: Bedford, 2010. Print.
...here are few people in history that can claim the military prowess, uncanny political maneuvering, and the overall lasting effect of the dissemination of a particular culture such as Alexander. Alexander’s exploits led to the spread of the Greek culture throughout Asia and Africa. They even went so far as to impact the Romans who dominated Hellenistic Egypt. He left in his wake and expansion of territory and commerce, with expanded trading ports and the exportation of the Greek political system. Christianity emerged with the Hellenization of the Jews and spread throughout Hellenized gentile communities. It seems impossible to catalogue every impact of Alexander’s empire. In the end, I have to conclude that Alexander does ‘fully deserve’ the title of “the Great.”
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.
In an earlier century, Niccoló Machiavelli, wrote a document called, “The Prince.” This book was about what it takes to be a successful ruler, and the number one rule of course was: “Power is Everything.” How you acquire the power made no difference as long as you had it. Many people repulsed Machiavelli’s idea of power at all costs, but it would soon be the basis of the government in some countries.
Alexander the Great was only 20 years when his father Philip of Macedon died. Even though he was a young man, he had an unusual talent for politics and military tactics. After his father’s death, Alexander moved to continue Philip’s invasion of Persia. In the ten years of his war campaigns, Alexander conquered a large portion of the then-known world. (Judge & Langdon, 2012.)
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...
Alexander the Great (July 356BC – June 323BC) was King of the ancient Greek Kingdom of Macedon. By the age of thirty he had created one of the largest empires of the ancient world. He remained undefeated in battle and is considered one of history’s most successful Military commanders. Historians’ have offered theories which could explain Alexander’s motivation to conquer so much of the known world. Some suggest that Alexander was an idealistic visionary who sought to unite the world, whereas others argued that he was a fascist whose hunger for power drove him. The Ancient Greeks were driven by love of honour (philotimaea) and their desire for greatness. They were competitive, always striving to better one another.
Alexander believed he was a divine mediator for the world. In other words, he believed he was chosen by god to solely lead the world. Thus, Arrian wanted to emphasize Alexander's arrogance because he believed that he was god-like and should rule over everyone. Furthermore, after Alexander’s death, he still had extravagant plans for his empire. Alexanders wanted ridiculous projects to be completed. He wanted to build one thousand war ships to fight the Carthaginians and other African nations, and create cities and populate them with his people in Europe and Asia to expand his empire. In Diodorus’ Alexander’s Last Plans, He explains Alexander’s final wishes from a realistic standpoint. Diodorus writes, “When theses plans had been read, the Macedonians, although they applauded the name of Alexander, nevertheless saw that the projects were extravagant and decided to carry out none of those that had been mentioned.” Diodorus emphasized that Alexander believed his people should continue to follow him and his beliefs long after his death. The projects in Alexander's will spoke about were time consuming, and extravagant. Furthermore, many people did not share Alexanders beliefs of world
In the countries who believed Alexander was the son of the devil or the devil himself, will say he is not ‘great’ but a demon who did evil. The countries who were on his side would say he was the greatest conqueror to live. He began as a Macedonian cavalry commander at eighteen, king of Macedonia at twenty, conqueror of Persia at twenty-six and explorer of India at thirty [Foner and Garraty]. The amount of large scale accomplishments he managed to finish in a span of six years is astonishing. Alexander’s tomb was the largest tourist attraction in the ancient world. The tomb was even visited by Julius Caesar, Pompey, Caligula, and Augustus. Alexander the Great’s accomplishments set a bar in which provided a standard that all other leaders would match their careers too. Many leaders after Alexander could not reach the standard left by him [Foner and
Alexander the Not so Great:history through Persian eyes by Prof Ali Ansari Paragraph 1 Page
An effective leader is one that understands that a society must evolve and revolutionize, in order to meet the needs of the state that are of immediate concern. As a society we are able to build off prior knowledge of once existing methods of living, and adjust them to meet current demands. Both Thomas Hobbes, and Nicolo Machiavelli’s concept, and perception of an ideal sovereign remains present in current forms of government. Machiavelli’s ideas in The Prince indicate that it is simple for any civilian to gain, and maintain power
Alexander the Great is hailed, by most historians, as “The Great Conqueror” of the world in the days of ancient Mesopotamia. “Alexander III of Macedon, better known as Alexander the Great, single-handedly changed the nature of the ancient world in little more than a decade. Alexander was born in Pella, the ancient capital of Macedonia in July 356 BCE. His parents were Philip II of Macedon and his wife Olympias. Philip was assassinated in 336 BCE and Alexander inherited a powerful yet volatile kingdom. He quickly dealt with his enemies at home and reasserted Macedonian power within Greece. He then set out to conquer the massive Persian Empire” (Web, BBC History). It is important to note, which will maybe explain his brutal actions, that Alexander was only twenty years old when he became the king of Macedonia. “When he was 13, Philip hired the Greek philosopher Aristotle to be Alexander’s personal tutor. During the next three years Aristotle gave Alexander training in rhetoric and literature and stimulated his interest in science, medicine, and philosophy, all of which became of importance in Alexander’s later life” (Web, Project of History of Macedonia). “In, 340, when Philip assembled a large Macedonian army and invaded Thrace, he left his 16 years old son with the power to rule Macedonia in his absence as regent, but as the Macedonian army advanced deep into Thrace, the Thracian tribe of Maedi bordering north-eastern Macedonia rebelled and posed a danger to the country. Alexander assembled an army, led it against the rebels, and with swift action defeated the Maedi, captured their stronghold, and renamed it after himself to Alexandropolis. Two years later in 338 BC, Philip gave his son a commanding post among the senior gener...
McNeill, William H., 1998. How the West Won. New York: The New York Review of Books, 2-4
After five hundred years, Niccolo Machiavelli the man has ceased to exist. In his place is merely an entity, one that is human, but also something that is far above one. The debate over his political ideologies and theories has elevated him to a mythical status summed up in one word: Machiavelli. His family name has evolved into an adjective in the English language in its various forms. Writers and pundit’s bandy about this new adjective in such ways as, “He is a Machiavelli,” “They are Machiavelli’s,” “This is suitable for a Machiavelli.” These phrases are almost always the words of a person that understands more about Niccolo’s reputation than the man himself. Forgotten is that Machiavelli is not an adequate example of the ruler he is credited with describing; a more accurate statement would be to call someone a “Borgia” or a “Valentino.” Most of the time they are grossly mistaken in their references. All these words accomplish is to add to the legend, and the misinterpretation, of the true nature of Niccolo Machiavelli.
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.
Lynn Hunt et al., The Making of the West: peoples and cultures, a Concise History (Boston:Bedford/St. Martin's, 2003), 43, 45, 132, 136, 179-180