More handpicked essays just for you.
Character of a prince by Machiavelli
Character of a prince by Machiavelli
Character of a prince by Machiavelli
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Character of a prince by Machiavelli
The Prince, written by Niccolò Machiavelli in 1513, addresses Lorenzo de Medici who was the ruler of Florence. Throughout the book, Machiavelli offers Lorenzo political wisdom on how to become a great prince and how he should go about achieving this greatness. As he does this, Machiavelli proceeds to list the different types of principalities and the modes in which they are acquired. He states that a great prince is one that "establishes new modes and orders" and gives Lorenzo examples of rulers that he should imitate and ones that he should avoid (Machiavelli, 23). The example of Cesare Borgia is one that Machiavelli refers to often. Cesare was the illegitimate son of Pope Alexander VI, who acquired his state through the fortunes of his father. At first, Machiavelli praises Cesare for possessing great virtue and presents him as an exemplary ruler that should be imitated by others. However, at the end, Machiavelli considers Cesare a failure and blames him for his lack of foresight, which caused him to lose his fortune. Machiavelli praises Cesare, but ultimately blames him
Nevertheless, his deeds were not enough to grant him lasting control over his territory. Having reached the pinnacle of his success, Cesare Borgia is struck back and destroyed by the same fortune that had put him in power. Despite his extraordinary political virtue, Borgia is brought down, first by his father’s death and then by his own fatal illness. Cesare’s intent was to secure himself against enemies “which he would soon have succeeded, if Alexander had lived” (Machiavelli, 30). Even after his father’s death, Cesare had found solutions for everything except that he never prepared for his own death. What condemns Borgia is that both events happened simultaneously. And because Borgia lacked foresight and wasn 't capable of “seeing inconveniences from afar” he couldn’t find remedies for them (Machiavelli,
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.
The book “The Prince” was made by Nicolo Machiavelli and is still followed by politicians to this day. Nicolo Machiavelli was an Italian politician, writer, historian, philosopher and humanist in the 16th century. He wrote a book describing many aspects on how he believed the “Perfect Prince” should act like. The book was first written in 1513, but it was not published until 1532 and it was dedicated to Lorenzo di Piero de’ Medici. Many people say that Machiavelli would (in some aspect) consider Adolf Hitler a true prince. Adolf Hitler was born on April 20th, 1889 in Braunau am Inn, Austria-Hungary. When he first came to Germany he joined WW1 and that is when his love for war developed. After WW1 Hitler entered politics, and since Germany was
In fact, Machiavelli’s morals are as questionable as those of Ferdinand II. Because Machiavelli believed that “it [was] unnecessary for a prince to have all the good qualities [he had] enumerated, but it [was] very necessary to appear to have them” (62), Ferdinand II seemed to be an excellent example of the advice given in the book. However, Machiavelli fails to see that Ferdinand II’s actions opposed one of his primary beliefs. Machiavelli specified that princes did not have to avoid cruelty and dishonesty if and only if their actions benefited the state, and that a prince must consider every action he took based on its effect on his country. As previously stated, Ferdinand II’s actions exclusively benefited himself. Considering the fact that this was a principal theme throughout Machiavelli’s book, why he saw Ferdinand II as such a “great and extraordinary” ruler is baffling. His love of the king is as hypocritical as the King’s character. There is a strong possibility that Machiavelli had a bias towards Ferdinand, considering he was the ruler when he wrote The Prince, and Machiavelli did not see his rule’s final outcome. This presents the question of how Machiavelli’s partiality affects his credibility. Provided he did, in fact, have that bias, what does that say about the rest of his work? Since Machiavelli did not have a neutral stance on politics, he may have steered Prince De’ Medici and all other political leaders who read The Prince in the direction of his own opinions, thus singlehandedly shaping history into his
“Once upon a time in a far away land” in every imagination, is the start of how a prince and a princess live happily ever after. The fairy tales come to mind when thinking about princes, how charming, intelligent admiring, and many more characteristics that the “idyllic” prince has in many minds like my own. The question is simply asked, “What makes the idyllic prince?” most of us think of someone who has high quality and very first class. Niccolo Machiavelli describes an ideal prince as someone who is in control and dominant. The ideal prince should understand warfare and statecraft. Machiavelli was born in Florence Italy in 1496. He served as an administrator and a diplomat in the Florence Republic, and was imprisoned at various points of his career. One of his notable positions was serving as a political advisor to the Borgia family. He knew many political leaders of Italy, particularly Cesare Borgia, who he wrote The Prince about. Machiavelli judges Gilgamesh as a prince based on his behavior, qualities, and characteristics that Machiavelli describes in The Prince and the behavio...
In the television series, House of Cards, a position in Congress is the basis of the show and the main character, Frank Underwood, thrives for his goals of personal achievement and working his devious plans into a profit for himself and ultimately achieving anything he wants no matter what it takes. Frank Underwood is an extremely intelligent congressman, who lives in Washington D.C. representing his home state of South Carolina, but has always put his self first. At the introduction of the show he states, “I see two different types of pain, useful pain, that helps you grow, and useless pain that does nothing but cause suffering”. These sorts of pain, but more importantly the meanings, explain a specific part of his distinctive morals that carry his actions along and show how he works with certain people or conflicts. His eminent colleagues of the U.S. legislative branch, specifically congress, perception of Frank is that he does whatever he can to make the government stronger while his intellectual perception is the contrary. While his colleagues trust him, it is hard for Frank Underwood to show a virtuous personality, enough to have full faith and trust especially regarding a huge decision he makes to murder a member of the Legislative branch. This internal situation, mirrors the philosophy (shown in the book, “The Prince”) of the political Philosopher, Niccolo Machiavelli, who has provided many with the conflicting opinion of modern times political contemplation. The scene in the last few minutes of “House of Cards: Chapter 11” exemplifies Frank’s means for consequentialism by, the fact of achieving his ultimate maxim or intended end. There is no skepticism that Frank’s actions do not follow solitarily consequentialism but ther...
In the many sections Niccolo Machiavelli writes he constantly compares to extreme qualities, one of which is ideal, the other real. These extremes include love(ideal) vs fear, clemency(ideal) vs cruelty, generous(ideal) vs stingy, and integrity(ideal) vs lying. In comparing these different traits Machiavelli highlights the merits of opposing characteristics and (specifically)when it is effective to act in certain ways. He argues that a balance of both are vital as to prevent a prince from dipping too far into a pool of inescapable extremism. The following excerpts display the author’s contrast-centered style: “ Thus, it's much wiser to put up with the reputation of being a miser, which brings you shame without hate, than to be forced—just
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...
Indeed, prudence and cunning can be considered to be important elements inherent in the accomplishment of virtuous actions. In the case of Agathocles, Machiavelli recognises a practical element of virtù. Agathocles’ prowess ultimately resulted in being able to perform deeds that required a high level of skill (Strauss, 1995: 44). Nevertheless, the moral implications of his actions restricted the possibility that his undertakings might be considered virtuous. On the other hand, the actions carried out by Cesare Borgia are indicative of a marriage between rational and moral pursuits (Fischer, 2000: 66). To begin with, the actions undertaken by Oliverotto did not result in the preservation of peace and unity; elements that indicate the existence of virtù in state matters (Mansfield, 1996: 71). Conversely, the actions carried out by Cesare Borgia showed the existence of a martial attitude in order to preserve the power of the ruler and the state (Bobbitt, 2013: 43). It must be added that in Machiavelli’s schema, there is a predilection for a strong ruler capable of preserving some kind of political unity amongst the Italian states. Although the actions exercised by Cesare Borgia necessitated the exercise of violence, his ulterior motives had attached to it an important moral element, leading us to conclude that
In virtually every Western nation, people elect other people to play crucial roles for our countries. These crucial roles can include creating new laws and even starting a war with another country if it was necessary. In the past, though, leaders such as, Niccolo Machiavelli ran many areas. In “The Qualities of the Prince,” Machiavelli defines and defends those qualities, chief among them an awareness of the state he rules and the potential enemies that surround him. When ruling, Machiavelli warns his Prince not to misuse his power, and to have high confidence in himself. While Machiavelli’s sixteenth-century Italian Prince might have profited from such qualities, would they help a modern day politician win a presidential election in the U.S.?
Many people, such as Girolamo Priuli, began to believe that Alexander had made a deal with the devil. This supposed deal with the devil encouraged Protestant attacks on the papacy, therefore creating more rumors about the Borgia family. In The Borgias, Cesare appears to have an incestuous relationship with his sister, Lucrezia. However, this relationship was more likely a tale reinforced during the Protestant attacks on the papacy, after being made up during della Rovere’s attacks on Alexander. Finally, the relationship between Niccolo Machiavelli and Cesare Borgia hurt both of their reputations.
Stability in government is the bottom line for every political decision made for that particular government. Regardless of the type of government, or who is in office, everyone desires their position to be secure. Whether or not this equals stability and prosperity for the people is questionable. According to Niccolo Machiavelli in The Prince, stability is based upon the ruler alone, and how he gets the people in line does not matter as long as he plays his cards right. Cruelty is acceptable, if he can later divert the outrage to another party, and in so doing make himself look the hero. This totalitarian view of government and authority works for a time, but, when compared with a more republican government, cannot hold ground.
Being a successful leader also means being able to anticipate trouble even when everything seems fine, and this forethought is what so many fail to consider. Using Italian rulers as an example of why Italian princes have lost their estates, Machiavelli writes, “ Their own indolence was to blame because having never imagined when times were quiet they they could change (and this is a common failing of mankind, never to anticipate a storm when the sea is calm), when adversity came their first thoughts were of flight and not of resistance. (page 78). A successful prince needs to be skilled in the art of war, but Machiavelli would agree that this skill is very useful for affairs aside international ones, such as domestic affairs. At one point or another a leader is faced with an arduous decision that involves hurting a part of the population. Machiavelli realizes that there is no realistic way of governing a group of people and keeping them all content at the same time, therefore a prince must systematically make tough decisions, keeping the majority content as the minority can not overthrow once you've taken everything they have. It may seem immoral to hurt the minority simply because they can not rebel, however, it makes far much more sense than causing hurt upon the majority, as that would make a prince contemptible, therefore staggering his political
“The Prince”, by Niccolo Machiavelli, is a series of letters written to the current ruler of Italy, Lorenzo de’ Medici. These letters are a “how-to” guide on what to do and what not to do. He uses examples to further express his views on the subject. The main purpose was to inform the reader how to effectively rule and be an acceptable Prince. Any ruler who wishes to keep absolute control of his principality must use not only wisdom and skill, but cunning and cruelness through fear rather than love. Machiavelli writes this book as his summary of all the deeds of great men.
Niccolo Machiavelli was a political philosopher from Florence, Italy. The period that Machiavelli lived in was the "rebirth" of art in Italy and rediscovery of ancient philosophy, literature and science. He wrote The Prince, in which he discusses the proper way of living as a prince. His ideas, which were not viewed as beneficial at the time, were incredibly cynical and took time for the rest of the population to really catch onto the ideas. Machiavelli’s view of human nature was that humans are born evil, and while they can show good traits, and the common man is not to be trusted. Unlike Confucius, Machiavelli believes that human nature cannot be changed, and unlike Plato, where Plato believes in humans as social beings. Each respected view
The book The Prince was a book of advice to politicians regarding how gain power and keep that power. The title The Prince is not about someone who has inherited land and a decedent to a king. In Machiavelli’s perspective a prince was a man of the citizens....