Machiavelli The Prince Rhetorical Analysis

2082 Words5 Pages

The Prince, by Machiavelli is inovative in its approach to seperate politics and ethics. Machiavelli is successful in distinguishing the differences and seperation neccessary to govern accordingly by his use of historical evidence to ground The Prince in real situations. He uses many Roman/classical examples to illuminate his points. Machiavelli's knowledge and study of classical history allows him to strengthen his ideas, by rooting them to an era of growth and prosperity. Machiavelli also uses the Roman/classical era to learn from the failures of these civilizations and suggest ways to better his own Florentine society. Machiavelli’s ethical paradigm can be summarized very well in the phrase, “the end justifies the means, if the end is …show more content…

In general, he feels that men are "ungrateful, fickle, liars, and deceivers." "They shun danger and are greedy for profit; while you treat them well, they are yours. They would shed their blood for you ? but when you are in danger they turn against you." Machiavelli basically has little respect for the people, and he feels as though they have not earned much either. He uses this as justification for the use of fear in order to control people. He also feels that men are "wretched creatures who would not keep their word to you, you need not keep your word to them." This sense of fairness justifies breaking one?s word to men. Machiavelli also writes about how hard it must be for a prince to stay virtuous. He concludes that with so many wretched men around virtue is hard to create in oneself. "The fact is that a man who wants to act virtuously in every way necessarily comes to grief among so many who are not virtuous." Overall, Machiavelli is very pessimistic about the abilities of the people. He feels that after examining people through history, his conclusions of wretched men are …show more content…

Particularly, he stresses the importance of having a strong army and popular support by the army and people. The Roman emperors proved to us many times that a ruler who is perceived to be weak is the most vulnerable to attack. Alexander Severus was controlled by his mother and considered feminine by his troops. He was a good ruler, but it was this appearance of weakness that led his troops to kill him. Antonius Caracalla is another example of an erroneous ruler. He was a very strong military leader who was a great fighter. Unfortunately, he became an incredibly cruel and harsh ruler over time, and he was hence killed by a

Open Document