According To Machiavelli: Is Napoleon The Better Leader

108 Words1 Page
bulb-icon

Recommended: Machiavelli ideas of leadership

According to Machiavelli Napoleon is the better leader. He's the better leader because to Machiavelli you have to use and have the qualities of the fox and the lion. And, Napoleon is menacing, and he is not afraid to use force. Also, Napoleon is like kind of tough. The way the author describes Napoleon it's as if he's not afraid/scared of anything now. Or even then. But he's also very selfish and self centered. Which is a bad thing, because you have to look out and be helpful to other people in order to be a good leader. But Napoleon would still make a better leader according Machiavelli.

Show More
Related

  • Comparing and Contrasting Mirandolla and Machiavelli

    610 Words  | 2 Pages

    This compare and contrast essay will focus on the views of leadership between Mirandolla and Machiavelli. Mirandolla believes that leadership should not be false and that it should follow the rule of reason. He believes that leaders should strive for the heavens and beyond. On the other hand, Machiavelli believed that leadership comes to those who are crafty and forceful. He believed that leaders do not need to be merciful, humane, faithful or religious; they only need to pretend to have all these qualities. Despite both of them being philosophers, they have drastically different views on leadership, partially because of their views on religion are different. Mirandolla was very religious, and Machiavelli was a pragmatist, which means that he was not interested in religion.

    Read More

  • American Government in Contrast to Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli

    841 Words  | 2 Pages

    Niccolo Machiavelli believes in a strong government. The leader should be strong and feared. I believe he gets this idea from the fear of God; no one is supposed to question God because he is so feared, and in the same sense, no one should question a strong leader. Machiavelli realizes that the leader should be feared, but not hated. A hated leader will probably be killed in a rebellion. One also can not be loved. Any compassion towards your citizens will make them believe you are weak, and they will rebel. He thinks a very strong military is necessary at all times, and that powerful arms should be available and in hand. This idea is similar to that of right wing America and our friends, the National Rifle Association, who believe assault rifles are America’s pastime. The nation should always be prepared for war, and should always be searching for new lands to conquer. T...

    Read More

  • Plato vs. Machiavelli

    1692 Words  | 4 Pages

    A longstanding debate in human history is what to do with power and what is the best way to rule. Who should have power, how should one rule, and what its purpose should government serve have always been questions at the fore in civilization, and more than once have sparked controversy and conflict. The essential elements of rule have placed the human need for order and structure against the human desire for freedom, and compromising between the two has never been easy. It is a question that is still considered and argued to this day. However, the argument has not rested solely with military powers or politicians, but philosophers as well. Two prominent voices in this debate are Plato and Machiavelli, both of whom had very different ideas of government's role in the lives of its people. For Plato, the essential service of government is to allow its citizens to live in their proper places and to do the things that they are best at. In short, Plato's government reinforces the need for order while giving the illusion of freedom. On the other hand, Machiavelli proposes that government's primary concern is to remain intact, thereby preserving stability for the people who live under it. The feature that both philosophers share is that they attempt to compromise between stability and freedom, and in the process admit that neither can be totally had.

    Read More

  • Contrasting Leadership: Napoleon vs Snowball

    318 Words  | 1 Pages

    Napoleon, he is a hard leader and want's to be right all the time. He is more of the boss and is more about rules. If you brake them, there will be consiquensis/punishment. In the end he want's to be like the human and have power so he changes farm to just like it was with the Jones animals work and barly get anything.

    Read More

  • Machiavelli vs. Lao-Tzu

    284 Words  | 1 Pages

    Perhaps the most distinct differences between Machiavelli's and Lao-Tzu's are their beliefs in how a government should be run. Whereas Machiavelli writes about the qualities a prince should have while instilling a totalitarian government, Lao-Tzu strongly believes that one cannot have total control, so everything should run its course.

    Read More

  • Napoleon Bonaparte Research Paper

    959 Words  | 2 Pages

    Napoleon was undoubtedly one of the greatest leaders of the world, He was known for many things. Napoleon was a military general and the first emperor of France. A man known only by his first name, says a lot about him. Napoleon, known as a military leader, a political leader, and a self proclaimed Emperor, He reformed the French educational, political, financial, and religious system, When Napoleon had his mind set to do something, it was done. He was born to a wealthy family with political connections, He was a national hero who brought the direction, and the must needed stability to the country.

    Read More

  • Ledership Comparsion between Machiavelli and Gilgamesh

    1370 Words  | 3 Pages

    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...

    Read More

  • Napoleon - an enlightened despot

    1003 Words  | 3 Pages

    ... It is important to understand that since France had just exited a revolution, it was pretty fragile; one big mistake and France might have ended up in another one. Napoleon was not only a child of both the French Revolution and the Enlightenment, he was also a very intelligent person. His cunning and wits led him to be one of the greatest, if not the greatest, enlightened despots of all time. Works Consulted (none of the above).

    Read More

  • Machiavelli Vs. King George III

    428 Words  | 1 Pages

    During colonial times, King George III was a tyrant ruler. He was unstable and constantly inflicted hardship upon the people of the American Colonies. King George III thought that imposing more demands on the colonists would allow him to reach his goals such as bringing in more money for the British government. Machiavelli, on the other hand, thought that a ruler needed his subjects to be on his side so that there would be less resistance.

    Read More

  • Napoleon: A Cruel Yet Effective Leader in George Orwell's Animal Farm

    529 Words  | 2 Pages

    Napoleon, a main character in George Orwell's Animal Farm, was very cruel. so why does everyone consider him such an effective leader? In Animal Farm Orwell gives Napoleon, the dictator of the farm, many characteristics that make him an effective leader. Throughout the book Napoleon had a manipulative attitude, a strong support system, and he used scare tactics to intimidate and gain control of the other animals on the farm.

    Read More

  • Napoleon Leadership Style Analysis

    1145 Words  | 3 Pages

    Every Leader is defined by his or her qualities and characteristics. These can determine how effective a leader has become. This statement has been true throughout the history of mankind. However, there are only a handful of specific qualities that can truly determine if someone is an effective leader.

    Read More

  • Why Napoleon Wins

    810 Words  | 2 Pages

    Napoleon was better than Robespierre in all ways. He expanded France's territory farther than Robespierre could have imagined. Napoleon also instituted the Napoleonic Code which has had more impact on France, then and today, then any of Robespierre's speeches. Napoelon was on the front line fighting for his countries freedoms, whereas Robespierre only talked.

    Read More

  • Napoleon Leadership Analysis

    770 Words  | 2 Pages

    Napoleon Bonaparte popularly known as “The Little Corporal”, one of the most notable personages in Europe and greatest military commanders, these are just a few of the qualities that he is known for which made him one of the greatest leaders in history. He addressed many reforms for France but his main ambition was expanding his territory which eventually led to his downfall. He can be defined through the Tao Te Ching’s idea of Best Master which can be justified in two points: First was his leadership during the French Revolution and identifying his qualities as the emperor of France. But does he really fit into the definition of what a good leader is based

    Read More

  • Comparing Machiavelli and Hobbes

    1482 Words  | 3 Pages

    To be successful, one must have the appearance of virtuousness, but not necessarily be virtuous. At least, this appears to be true according to Niccolo Machiavelli's works. Machiavelli's idea of the virtuous republican citizen may be compared to Hobbes' idea of a person who properly understands the nature and basis of sovereign political power. Hobbes' ideas seem to suggest that most anyone can claim rightful authority as there is a belief in God, and one can under Hobbes, claim legitimate authority rather easily. There are few proofs. Machiavelli, on the other hand, takes a strong position and suggests specific criteria in terms of power. With Machiavelli, there is a sense of righteousness and fairness and while he does not sanction authoritarian rule to save man from himself, it is also true that Machiavelli puts a lot of faith in leaders also. In some respects, one can see that the two theorists agree yet Machiavelli’s proposed Political society is more feasible thus superior to that of Hobbes.

    Read More

  • Machiavelli: The Father of Modern Political Science

    1046 Words  | 3 Pages

    During the time 1469, a child by the name of Niccolo Di Bernardo Del Machiavelli was born .Some may know him as an Italian philosopher, humanist, or a evil minded fellow associated with the corruptness of totalitarian government. In Machiavelli’s home state Florence, he introduces the modern political theory. Hoping to gain influence with the ruling Medici family Niccolo wrote a pamphlet call The Prince (Prezzolini).

    Read More

More about According To Machiavelli: Is Napoleon The Better Leader

Open Document