Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Characteristic of courage
feudalism and its impact
feudalism and its impact
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Characteristic of courage
A good leadership is essential to the survival and success of kingdoms and empires. In the empires to be mentioned further on, there are violent leaders, benign and liberal leaders, and a combination of both. The latter is one who will come to be a leader whose work, will elevate the status of the kingdom and the people in it. A successful leader must be kind and tolerant, but at the same time, must not be afraid of being feared. On the way to become a prince, it is better to be loved, and viewed as benign. But after being established prince, it is better to be feared than loved, because fear is what keeps social order.
A Successful leader, according to Niccolo Machiavelli, is not one who is friendly, honest, and kind. It is someone, however
…show more content…
Although signs of feudalism are seen in both, the citizens were granted protection in exchange for their produce. The political and economic systems of these societies, create trust towards the ruler and respect amongst the people. But however tolerant these societies were, the citizens had knowledge that actions that were to compromise the activities of the empire and therefor its leader, would lead to suffering and punishments. Successful leaders ought to be seen as understanding and a figure the people could trust, but a leader should never lose interest in inspiring fear and …show more content…
This means that however tolerant, kind, and clement people might think he is, he ought to inspire fear. Machiavelli suggested that a leader would be wise to make use of what he called Virtu (virtue). This concept for leaders involves, wisdom, strategy, strength, bravery, and if necessary, ruthlessness. Machiavelli uses the phrase “criminal virtue” to describe the ability that was necessary for leaders to be cruel in the interest of the state, yet good in the eyes of the people as a leader. Violence should be strictly necessary for the security of the state, but these violent acts should not be repeated too often, because a reputation of brutality builds up. As seen with the Mongol invasions, the repeated use of violence built them the reputation of barbaric and brutal – nevertheless, after these invasions, came periods of unification and prosperity-. “Cesare Borgia was considered cruel; notwithstanding, his cruelty reconciled the Romagna, unified it, and restored it to peace and loyalty. And if this be rightly considered, he will be seen to have been much more merciful than the Florentine people, who, to avoid a reputation for cruelty, permitted Pistoia to be destroyed. Therefore a prince, so long as he keeps his subjects united and loyal, ought not to mind the reproach of cruelty” (Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince). Christian leaders suggested that princes should be merciful, peaceful, generous, and tolerant.
The bravery and strength of the lion will not be enough to empower the ruler to escape the snares set by his enemies for and the slyness of the fox is also needed. “The lion cannot protect himself from traps, and the fox cannot defend himself from wolves. One must therefore be a fox to recognize traps, and a lion to frighten wolves.” (The Prince) It is not possible for the citizens to love and fear a prince, but being feared is much safer than being loved.“Since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved” (The Prince) Everything a prince says must be filled with these five qualities: being merciful,being trustworthy, religious,kind, honest. Machiavelli defines virtues as qualities that are praised by others, such as generosity, compassion, and piety. He argues that a prince should always try to appear virtuous, but it is more important for the prince to be practical than it is for him to be morally good. The government that is built of this foundation it
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
It has been shown again and again throughout history and literature that if there is a perfect human he is not also the perfect ruler. Those traits which we hold as good, such as the following of some sort of moral code, interfere with the necessity of detachment in a ruler. In both Henry IV and Richard II, Shakespeare explores what properties must be present in a good ruler. Those who are imperfect morally, who take into account only self-interest and not honor or what is appropriate, rise to rule, and stay in power.
Machiavelli is accurate when he states that it is better to choose being feared over being loved. As a leader you must be willing to do what it takes to gain political success. Show authority and have your followers respect you, not only as a person, but also in
What is the attitude of a true leader? We all have different opinions toward the idea of a “true leader”. Some say a true leader must be loved, others say they must be feared. Some say they should be compassionate towards humanity, others say they should be indifferent. One of the famous theories of leadership is proposed in Machiavelli’s The Prince. Tempered through strife and conflict, characters in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar are forced to undertake harsh, Machiavellian stances to augment their authority. For those who command Machiavellian traits, it is nothing more than a visage–an image that does not reveal the manifestation of the failure to implement Machiavelli’s advice on ruling, where their downfall can be traced.
Throughout history, it can be argued that at the core of the majority of successful societies has stood an effective allocation of leadership. Accordingly, in their respective works “The Tao-te Ching” and “The Prince”, Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli have sought to reach a more complete understanding of this relationship. The theme of political leaders and their intricate relationship with society indeed manifests itself within both texts, however, both Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli approach this issue from almost entirely opposite positions. Lao-Tzu appears to focus the majority of his attention on letting problems or situations take their course and allowing good to prevail. On the contrary, Machiavelli advocates the necessity for a successful leader, or prince, to take control of his endeavors, and the skills or qualities necessary to maintain power, at any cost. Since these thinkers both make an inquiry to what is essentially the same dilemma of effective leadership, it becomes almost a natural progression to juxtapose the two in an effort to better understand what qualities a prosperous leader must possess. In this sense, when we utilize the rhetorical strategy of compare/contrast as a vehicle to transport us to a more enlightened interpretation of Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli’s conclusions, it becomes apparent that Machiavelli’s effort is much more successful as his practicality serves its purpose much more effectively.
“A leader or a man of action in a crisis almost always acts subconsciously and then thinks of the reasons for his action.” (Jawaharlal Nehru) Leaders throughout history have been idolized as the magnificent humans with the ability to sway the heart of man with both silent and thunderous footsteps. One such man being Shakespeare’s Hamlet. Shakespeare dictates that a leader is cunning, sharp minded, and a caring person who is prepared to dedicate their life to a goal and to the people they care for; the reason be “right” or “wrong”.
How to become a successful and strong leader? What are essential characteristics that are imperative to become one? These questions were asked many centuries ago, as well as they are asked today. Niccolo Machiavelli wrote one of the most influential treatises on leadership that is still utilized in politics and management today. One of the defining conceptions he explores is locating a balance between being virtuous and righteous and practicing carefully selected deceit and cunning. Gilgamesh’s exhibition of leadership is much more primordial and archetypal, which is the product of different eras, where the notions of power and the state were at opposite ends of a spectrum, as were the structures that organize people. Although Gilgamesh fulfills most of the characteristics of Machiavelli’s definition of a strong leader, who is feared, has power and support of his comrades; he still has to improve his public image, which happens throughout his journey.
Although, Machiavelli argues that an ideal ruler must be cruel, feared and unjust in order to maintain power in his paper, "The Prince", this is not necessary true. An ideal ruler must be assertive, just and filled with integrity to maintain power, prestige, and the loyalty of those he governs.
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 redefined the term virtue from the classical understanding. He did this by incorporating vice into virtue. Machiavelli new understanding of virtue is required and by rulers and soldiers in order to maintain power. The Prince determined that men were not all good. He believed that the classical understanding of virtue could only be applied or used by men in what Machiavelli called imagined republics or kingdoms. Because men were not all virtuous and did not keep their promises, Machiavelli believed the ruler should not be all virtuous or always keep his promises. The necessity to maintain power drives a ruler to step...
Niccolo Machiavelli stressed that “one ought to be both feared and loved, but as it is difficult for the two to go together, it is much safer to be feared than loved…for love is held by a chain of obligation which, men being selfish, is broken whenever it serves their purpose; but fear is maintained by a dread of punishment which never fails.” He felt that a true leader must be cunning and deceptive, winning the hearts of his people through power and influence. If he could not be liked, he could at least get by knowing he has intimidated these below him into submission. However rash or cruel this may seem, Machiavelli’s argument is not one to be countered easily.
Leadership is something that has been around since civilization. You would think that an idea so old would be straight forward but, we can see completely different ideas of what a leader, good or bad, should look like. While some of these stories may be fictional, they line up with a historical timeline of expectations. We can also see how the role of a king and how their duties have evolved in real life. The Epic of Gilgamesh shows us how to control your power. In 1 & 2 Samuel, we see what makes a ruler great and obstacles they have to over come. When we read The Theban Plays we saw how smart a ruler had to be to please his people. While all of these leaders may seem great there are plenty of reason that makes them not great. They
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.
What is leadership, and how do we attain the best and most effective leaders? These are questions that are as old as civilization itself. Bass (1974) wrote that, “from its infancy, the study of history has been the study of leaders” (as cited in Wren, 1995, p. 50). Since the study of history in the West is commonly held to begin with Herodotus of ancient Athens, it is not surprising that we should examine the historical views of leadership through the eyes of two titans of Greek thought: Plato and Aristotle.