Machiavelli’s The Prince highlights the importance of war, and Shakespeare’s Henry V exemplifies Machiavelli’s views. Machiavelli encourages rulers to “aim at conquering and maintaining the state,” and war is the prince’s primary tool (The Prince, 66). War is justifiable but only when necessity compels the prince. Shakespeare’s King Henry epitomizes Machiavelli’s views. Henry manipulates the law and promotes his self-interest, asserting that he conquers France in defense of England. War becomes the backdrop for Henry’s conquest, and he uses Machiavelli’s principles to ascend quickly to power. A prince must use force to advance his principality. Warfare improves a nation because “where there are good arms there must be good laws” (The Prince, …show more content…
Henry understands when to seize favorable opportunities and justify his means. He twists the laws to assert his rights to the French crown and make “with right and conscience [his]/ claim” (Henry V, 1.2.96-97). The Bishop legitimizes Henry’s claim because “there is no bar/ to make against [his] claim to France” (Henry V, 1.2.35-36). Invading France is “just and his quarrel honorable” (Henry V, 4.1.130). He manipulates the people to believe that he “justly and religiously” pursues France, but in reality, he follows his self-interest (Henry V, 1.2.10). Henry convinces the people that he follows God’s will, which depicts him as an ideal ruler. He gains authority from “God,/ for it is none but thine” influence that provides power (Henry V, 4.8.112-113). Using God to justify his pursuits complements Machiavelli’s view that a prince should “seem to have” the qualities that the people deem important (The Prince, 65). Doing so wins the people’s trust and legitimizes a ruler’s intent. Henry asserts that his soldiers’ “duty is the King’s,” convincing them to persevere and believe that the war is just (Henry V, …show more content…
Henry represents the beast because he ruthlessly invades France and threatens to “mow[s] like grass/ [their] fresh fair virgins and [their] flow’ring infants” (Henry V, 3.3.13-14). He depicts these atrocities to frighten the people and secure power. Imitating “the action of the tiger” initiates war (Henry V, 3.1.6). Machiavelli encourages violence to instill fear and gain faith because “fear is maintained by a dread of punishment which never fails” (The Prince, 61). A prince’s “end justifies the means,” arguing that the path to power does not matter but only the results (The Prince, 66). Henry is aware that the war incites “much fall of blood,” asserting Machiavelli’s belief that success incurs a cost (Henry V,
Many empirical things can often still be debated and refuted by experts, but there is a general admittance to the idea that power is the root of many evil things. In all fairness, we must admit that a many evil things can in their essence, be great. And that is one of the many theories advanced by Niccolo Machiavelli in his well-known work, The Prince. The Prince serves a dual purpose of both teaching a person how to attain power, but also how to retain it. Incredibly enough, history has proven most of Machiavelli’s findings and theories to work well, while some have failed to effectively secure power for the rulers who did, in fact try them. His work, does obviously highlight one main fact, which is, that power is a well sought-after attribute, and most who attain are willing to do whatever is necessary to keep it.
...rt of War. In Peter Bondanella’s and Mark Musa’s (eds) The Portable Machiavelli. (pp. 480-517) New York, New York: Penguin Books.
In this speech, Henry is alluding to both phrases as a sense of Biblical justification for him to impose destruction on France as a result of the Dauphin mocking him. This passage also displays the religious side of King Henry and his willingness to use evidence in support of his decisions rather than purely making decisions off of first instinct. While at the same time, this passage also shines light on Henry’s strategic, yet arrogant nature as a ruler when making the claim that through God’s will, it is only just that he declares war with the French when clearly there are many different interpretations that can be made when reading from The Bible based on the person’s background and culture. As a result, Henry’s interpretation is shaped by his noble bloodline, as well as his forefathers’ rich history with conquering the French, as King Charles later references in Act 4 of Scene 2. Therefore, King Henry’s usage of biblical allusions to God symbolizes his cunning and decisive nature when making decisions, but also how recklessly he chooses to retaliate against his enemies, and how that ultimately works against him as it severs his relationships with others such as Sir John Falstaff.
The main point that he is trying to get across is the question, “Is it better to be feared rather than loved?” and he explains very thoroughly in The prince his thoughts and views on this question and he says that “it is much safer to be feared than loved because ...love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails” (The Prince: Machiavelli). He also covers the topics of religion, morality, power, and of course politics.
In an earlier century, Niccoló Machiavelli, wrote a document called, “The Prince.” This book was about what it takes to be a successful ruler, and the number one rule of course was: “Power is Everything.” How you acquire the power made no difference as long as you had it. Many people repulsed Machiavelli’s idea of power at all costs, but it would soon be the basis of the government in some countries.
Although Henry appears to rile up his peers for war, his true motive is to convey the urgency of his call to arms against the British oppressors; therefore, asserting that people must act upon injustices they face before it is too late.
In Henry V, the actions of King Henry portray him as an appalling leader. Among Henry's many negative traits, he allows himself to be influenced by people who have anterior motives. This is problematic because the decisions might not be the best decisions for the country, or neighboring countries. The bishops convinced Henry to take over France because they would be able to save land for the Church. Henry doesn't have the ability to accept responsibility for his actions, placing the blame on others. Before Henry begins to take over a French village, he tells the governor to surrender or risk having English troops terrorize civilians. This way, if the governor declines, it would be the governor's fault for the atrocities that would occur. Henry has gotten his troops to go along with the take over by manipulating them. He tells the soldiers that what they're doing is noble, and that they should be proud. In fact, they're attacking another country in order to conquer it. Henry's character comes off as coldhearted and careless. Henry shows ruthlessness towards civilians, threatening them with atrocities. He's careless with his soldiers, thoughtlessly allowing their executions, or playing hurtful games with them.
"The Prince," written by Niccolo Machiavelli in 1513, is a political treatise addressed to the Medici family of Florentine. "The Prince" was written to analyze and explain the acquisition, perpetuation, and use of political power in the west. Machiavelli’s theories in the work describe methods that an aspiring prince could possibly use to acquire power, or an existing prince could use to keep power. Though this work was written in 1513 and published in 1532, its context can be applied to foreign policy in today’s world. The principles suggested by Machiavelli provide insight into the issues that arose with the war on Iraq and issues involved with occupation and transition to a new government.
To begin with, Machiavelli’s “The Prince” laid out the foundation of what absolute rulers should be. Machiavelli thought that princes should be well educated in war since he would then have the power to stop uprisings. “The quickest way to lose a state is to neglect this art [war]; the quickest way to get one is to study it. Thus a prince who knows noth...
For hundreds of years, those who have read Henry V, or have seen the play performed, have admired Henry V's skills and decisions as a leader. Some assert that Henry V should be glorified and seen as an "ideal Christian king". Rejecting that idea completely, I would like to argue that Henry V should not be seen as the "ideal Christian king", but rather as a classic example of a Machiavellian ruler. If looking at the play superficially, Henry V may seem to be a religious, moral, and merciful ruler; however it was Niccolo Machiavelli himself that stated in his book, The Prince, that a ruler must "appear all mercy, all faith, all honesty, all humanity, [and] all religion" in order to keep control over his subjects (70). In the second act of the play, Henry V very convincingly acts as if he has no clue as to what the conspirators are planning behind his back, only to seconds later reveal he knew about their treacherous plans all along. If he can act as though he knows nothing of the conspirators' plans, what is to say that he acting elsewhere in the play, and only appearing to be a certain way? By delving deeper into the characteristics and behaviors of Henry V, I hope to reveal him to be a true Machiavellian ruler, rather than an "ideal king".
After letting the church convince him to go war something changed in henry. His mood changes because he was ready for war after the unexpected gift of tennis balls from the Dauphin. Henry stated whatever happens it’s the will of God. Yes, the childish gift from the Dauphin offends him but instead of conquering France out of anger. The Church influences him to fight with God on his side and God will lead him to victory. As Henry put all his trust in God that demonstrated another characteristic of an ideal Christian king. Regardless of what he might face, he has no fear because he knows that God is with him.
Machiavelli in his famous book “The Prince” describes the necessary characteristics for a strong and successful leader. He believes that one of the most important characteristics is to rule in favor of his government and to hold power in his hands. Power is an essential aspect of Machiavelli’s theory, and a leader should do whatever it takes to keep it for the safety of his country because “the ends justifies the means.” To attain and preserve the power, a leader should rather be feared than loved by his people, but it is vital not to be hated. As he states, “anyone compelled to choose will find far greater security in being feared than in being loved.” If a leader is feared, the people are less likely to revolt, and in the end, only a threat of punishment can guarantee obedienc...
the state. When the ruler is in danger they turn against him. Machiavelli reinforces the prince's need to be feared by stating: “
Machiavelli's views have been misinterpreted since his book was first written, people take him in the wrong way, and are offended by what he says. Careless readers take him in a completely wrong way, such as they think that he believes that the end justifies the means, that a leader should lie to the people, and that a ruler has to rule with force. In actuality, Machiavelli means no such thing, he says that there are times when the common good outweighs the means, and the morality of a rulers actions. He also says that you cannot be loved by everyone, so try to be loved and feared at the same time, but of the two, choose to be feared. The Prince is considered to be one of the most important of nonfiction literature written in the history of mankind. It gave an accurate and truthful description of the method of governing.
While “every sensible prince wishes to be considered, merciful and not cruel”(pg. 35), one should learn to be merciful in moderation. Not doing so can lead to unintended effects where if you are too “good” it can lead to being taken advantage of, or to “uprisings and civil war” because then you will be looked at as a pushover by your citizens and other neighboring countries. Therefore if you were to be cruel, people will fear you enough to, in theory, not go against you and stay united. But I think this concept seems more like a dictatorship, which thrives on citizens fear, and I don’t think it should be instilled in our government considering that most dictatorships end poorly and lead to more uprisings and civil war than with a merciful leader. And this is why the question in this section on whether it is better to be feared or loved also comes up. Machiavelli believes that a prince should find a balance of being both feared and loved and in general just try to escape hatred. If you are loved by your people, rarely will they betray you, but it is also good to be feared by other nations so that you are not looked upon as a target. So in this section of the prince I think the concept of ruling only on fear should not be used, however I do think that a leader should try balance being loved and