Machiavelli's The Prince

Successful emperors throughout history have shared a few characteristics that make the job of being emperor much easier. The demands of ruling an empire are different than the demands of ruling a nation, and a good emperor understands that. An emperor is the sole ruler of his territory, and he must have control over all his people. This means that he must have the characteristics of a good leader. He must be confident in his own abilities and in the people around him. He must be a complex thinker, not too trusting and completely committed to the success of his empire. He must demand the respect of his staff and his subjects, and he must inspire in them the desire to please him and to hold the empire together. A good emporer must also be one

A ruler must always look good too! Below, I will talk about two people, Machievelli and Charlamagne. By the end I will tell you who in my opinion, would be the best ruler to live under at that time. Machiavelli desperately wanted to return to politics. One of his goals in writing The Prince was to win the favor of Lorenzo de’ Medici, then-governor of Florence and the person to whom the book is dedicated; Machiavelli hoped to land an advisory position within the Florentine government. Machiavelli’s book also distinguishes itself on the subject of free will. Medieval and Renaissance thinkers often looked to religion or ancient authors for explanations of plagues, famines, invasions, and other calamities; they considered the actual prevention of such disasters to be beyond the scope of human power. In The Prince, when Machiavelli argues that people have the ability to shield themselves against misfortune, he expresses an extraordinary confidence in the power of human self-determination and affirms his belief in free will as opposed to

Taking Cesare Borgia as a "model," Machiavelli formed his beliefs on rulers into a book called "The Prince." Key to the book is the idea that infighting between family members as well as a lack of central leadership will lead to the instability of a nation. Machiavelli asserted that good rulers must learn "not to be good" but to set aside ethical standards of justice and compassion in order to maintain stability. Unlike medieval and other early-Renaissance writers who advocated that rulers – specifically kings – were sent by God to carry out his moral law, Machiavelli argued that successful rulers are the ones who do whatever they need to in order to preserve order. Machiavelli did in fact have goals. He wanted to prove his value and prove his worthiness. He was a humanist. I think that he was trying to tell us that all good rulers are virtuous. (Pg.61) he also explains that being virtuous, is a better way to obtain territory. The best thing for a ruler to do, is to take the proper path Because all vice leads to ruin. When there is only one leader, they exist. No one else can!! (Pg. 85)