In Chapter 21 of The Prince, Machiavelli states that the best way to boost a prince’s reputation is to put on displays of great ability such as conquests and demonstrations. A good example of such a prince is Ferdinand of Spain, whom Machiavelli regards as a new prince because he became one of the most famous kings in Christendom by his own strengths (Machiavelli, Ch. 21, p.88). He attacked Granada, used religion to unify his kingdom by driving the Moors out of Spain and also attacking Africa, Italy and France. Ferdinand was so successful because he kept his subjects amazed, and always planned his next move. Reputation is one of Machiavelli’s main themes in the work. It can be obtained through conquest, spectacle and military deed. What we …show more content…
Both Cesare and Ferdinand are admired by Machiavelli as perfect examples as to how princes are to conduct themselves and how they are to rule their principalities. Both “new princes” were able to build the foundations necessary for their rule, overcome possible threats and most importantly, made sure they were not hated by the people. The only difference was that Cesare was not able to rule to his full potential. Borgia was just as ruthless as Ferdinand and so talented, that he knew how to win over people or destroy them and he had built up such solid foundations for his power for such a short time that if weren’t for his bad choice regarding the papacy and his illness, he would have overcome every obstacle. In comparison to Machiavelli, Ferdinand is also similar in that both understood the nature of beings and both understood that any action pursued under the name of God would be justified. Religion, in Ferdinand’s case was simply a tool to foster his love of power. Machiavelli’s approval of Ferdinand is mainly focused on the king’s recognition and ability to use religion to fuel his power, politics and military endeavors. He had the virtue required to carry out these acts and he did so with such frequency and in a way that prevented his people or anyone else from catching on to his real motives of expanding and solidifying his power. In
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.
Throughout The Prince and The Discourses of Livy, Niccolo Machiavelli demonstrates multiple theories and advocacies as to why popular rule is important to the success of a state. Popular rule is a term that will be used to define an indirect way to govern the people of a state. In order to rule the masses, a leader must please the people or revolts will occur, causing mayhem and a lack of stability in one’s state. During both written works, Machiavelli stresses the importance of obedience and order needed for a state, and especially for a leader to be successful. Machiavelli thoroughly states that anything and everything must be done to keep the peace of the masses, even if acts of immorality are used. However, instead of advocating immorality, Machiavelli is saying that to serve the people and the state well, a ruler must not restrict himself to conventional standards of morality. His use of immoral tactics in leadership would appear to be unpopular; however the acts of immorality have limitations and are done solely to avoid displeasing the masses or creating disorder. Therefore it is acceptable to practice immorality if it is done only to a small number of constituents, if it is not repeated, and if it is performed to please and benefit the public. It is these limitations that prove Machiavelli is arguing that the use of immoral tactics, to rule the people and in turn be ruled by the people, is needed. He suggests that if the majority of the population is unhappy with a leader, that particular leader’s rule would be in jeopardy, thus falling victim to popular rule.
By the turn of the sixteenth century, the Italian Renaissance had produced writers such as Danté, Petrarch, Boccaccio and Castiglione, each with ideas rooted in the revival of Greek and Roman Classics, localization of the Christian traditions, idealistic opinions of women and individualism. From these authors spread the growth of the humanistic movement which encompassed the entirety of the Italian rebirth of arts and literature. One among many skeptics, including Lorenzo Valla, who had challenged the Catholic Church fifty years earlier in proving the falsity of the Donation of Constantine, Niccolò Machiavelli projected his ideas of fraudulence into sixteenth century Italian society by suggesting that rulers could only maintain power through propaganda, as seen with the success of Ferdinand of Aragon in Spain circa 1490. Today, the coined term Machiavellian refers to duplicity in either politics or self-advancement. Unlike most philosophers of the sixteenth century, Machiavelli wrote from the perspective of an anti-Humanist; he criticized not only the Classics and the Catholic Church, but also encouraged the deceitful use of religion and hated the humanist concepts of liberty, peace and individualism.1
In The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli considers Cesare Borgia to be perfect example for princes or whomever, to follow if they wish to apprehend how to secure and strengthen their principalities. Cesare Borgia, for Machiavelli, is an ideal lesson of a prince who had great prowess, gained his principality through good fortune by his father Pope Alexander VI, showed continuous actions by his efforts to secure his state quickly, and then lost it to adverse fortune, which led to his fall and death. Machiavelli uses many events of Cesare Borgia’s to show how and why he was successful, and should me imitated as a model of prudence by ambitious princes.
Niccolo Machiavelli lived in Florence, Italy in the 1400’s. The country of Italy was divided into city-states that had their own leaders, but all pledged alliance to their king. In time in which great leaders were needed in order to help the development of a city-state and country, Machiavelli had a theory that man needed a leader to control them. In his book The Prince, he speaks of the perfect leader.
The most astounding aspect of The Prince is Machiavelli’s view that princes may indeed, be cruel and dishonest if their ultimate aim is for the good of the state. It is not only acceptable but necessary to lie, to use torture, and to walk over other states and cities. Machiavellianism is defined as “A political doctrine of Machiavelli, which denies the relevance of morality in political affairs and holds that craft and deceit are justified in pursuing and maintaining political power (Def.)” This implies that in the conquest for power, the ends justify the means. This is the basis of Machiavellianism. The priority for the power holder is to keep the security of the state regardless of the morality of the means. He accepts that these things are in and of themselves morally wrong, but he points out that the consequences of failure, the ruin of states and the destruction of cities, can be far worse. Machiavelli strongly emphasizes that princes should not hesitate to use immoral methods to achieve power, if power is necessary for security and survival.
Machiavelli discusses assertive and bold ideas in “The Prince,” revealing his radical and courageous nature. His treatise is deceptively self-soliciting, because he disguises his extreme notions behind a veil of feigned expertise. His frank approach makes him appear confident and deserving of the utmost respect; however, he cautiously humbles himself by pouring immense flattery for the ruling prince into his work and, in doing so, assures protection for himself and his notorious ideas.
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.
The fortuna-virtù dichotomy has become one of the most fundamental aspects of Machiavelli’s view of the political. The first concept refers to the way in which would-be rulers deal with the contingent occurrences that take place in realm of the political. The second principle is related to the ability to interpret and control the social environment in order to advance the interest of the state and the personal standing of the ruler (Bobbitt, 2013: 43). Most importantly, the existence of virtù entails the possession of a set of skills that are geared towards preserving the viability of the state, even if the means to attain it require the pursuit of amoral actions (Fischer, 2000: 54). This essay begins by outlining the description
Machiavelli’s The Prince shows how to gain political power in anyway possible. He is almost completely pragmatic in the book with little regard to morals. He states at the outset of the book that he is not dealing with republics but with princes and the best ways for them to rule over the people (1). Machiavelli believes that one of the most needed traits in a prince is that he be both feared and loved. He knew this was hard to accomplish and said that if a prince had to choose between being loved or feared he should choose fear. Machiavelli describes men as “Thankless, fickle, false, studious to avoid danger, greedy of gain, devoted to you while you able to confer benefits upon them… but in your hour of need they turn against you”(43-44). This low view of man that Machiavelli expressed impacted the way he felt a prince should rule. He seem...
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.
Niccoló Machiavelli claims in “The Qualities of the Prince” that a prince must have certain qualities that will allow him to seize and maintain his power as a ruler. Machiavelli asserts that these qualities will guarantee the ruler to be able to govern his subjects effectively. According to him, a prince must study the art of war, must understand generosity and to what extent he must be generous to be effective, must choose to either be loved or feared, and be able to keep his word to his citizens according to the situation. These qualities can still apply in today’s politics, and will be useful for a modern time politician as long as they are used carefully.
Machiavelli?s model for his ideal prince was Cesare Borgia, also known as Duke Valentino and son of Pope Alexander VI. He believed Cesare Borgia possessed all the qualities of a prince destined to rule and maintain power in his state. He believed that politics has a morality of its own. There is no regard of justness or unjustness, of cruelty or mercy, of approval or humiliation, which should interfere with the decision of defending the state and preserving its freedom. Therefore, the ruler/prince's single responsibilit...
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.
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....