Compare And Contrast Elizabeth I Of Russia And Machiavelli

When a prince is in need of force, he must channel his inner beast. Machiavelli believes that it is good to be both a fox and a lion, but it is wiser to be a cunning fox because lions are stupid. Machiavelli says, “It is necessary to be a fox to discover the snares and a lion to terrify wolves… Those who rely simply on the lion do not understand what they are about… He who has known best how to employ the fox has succeeded best.” What he means is that foxes are cunning and smart enough to get out of traps, but they are not able to defend themselves against wolves. Lions on the other hand are perfectly capable of keeping the wolves at bay, however they are susceptible to traps He says that lions are stupid as where foxes are cunning and thus it is better to be a fox. As a fox, the prince would know when and where to keep his promises as long as it still benefits him.

Machiavelli tackles the question “is it better to be loved or feared by people?”. Giving his insight on the matter, it is clear to see the benefits and downside to both. Every prince should desire to be perceived as a kind ruler rather than cruel one. However, he must avoid misusing or overusing his compassion. Cesare Borgia was considered cruel, yet his oppressiveness ended up resulting in peace and unity in Romagna (Machiavelli,trans; W. K. Marriott). Meanwhile on the other hand of mercifulness, when the Florentines tried to avoid cruelty, this allowed Pistoia to be destroyed (Machiavelli,trans; W. K. Marriott). Machiavelli argues once a

From the 14th century into the 17th century of European history, a cultural revolution took place. The renaissance came to Europe and pushed out old middle age ideals and brought in new humanistic ones. The renaissance brought new cultural ideas, new ways of learning, new art, and new standards of how to rule a Kingdom. Kingdoms were coming and going fast at this time, rulers were slipping under the pressures of expanding rule and it seemed that a new kingdoms were continuously being conquered. The guidelines set up in Machiavelli’s The Prince, help to define what makes up a good and bad leader in terms of the new Renaissance ideals.

Considering the fact that a female successor to the throne of England was ascending, there was a tremendous amount of political influence on her reign. The Act of Supremacy (Doc. 3), declared by King Henry VII, assured that Elizabeth would be the rightful heir to the throne of England; this parliamentary act stated that Elizabeth is the most superior

Elizabeth I of England was able to act as a "fox" by preventing England from being torn apart over matters of religion. By repealing The Catholic Legislation of Mary Tudor 's reign, she was able to make the New Act of Supremacy which dsignated her as the supreme govenor of spritual and temporal affairs. Also she restored the church service of the Book

Queen Elizabeth’s reign lasted from 1558-1603 during the Protestant Reformation, the Counter Reformation, and the Renaissance (when it was brought to England). She achieved major successes and established a stabilized nation during her reign. When she assumes the throne, after the death of her half sister, Queen Mary I, she faced many challenges, such as the bankruptcy of England, European powers that were trying to reestablish Catholicism, such as Spain and France, and negative criticism denouncing her as a ruler and as the head of the Church of England. It was against church teaching and Bible teachings, for any woman to rule over a country. Elizabeth I inherited the responsibility of governing the kingdom of England despite criticism. In

Machiavelli’s interpretation of human nature was greatly shaped by his belief in God. In his writings, Machiavelli conceives that humans were given free will by God, and the choices made with such freedom established the innate flaws in humans. Based on that, he attributes the successes and failure of princes to their intrinsic weaknesses, and directs his writing towards those faults. His works are rooted in how personal attributes tend to affect the decisions one makes and focuses on the singular commanding force of power. Fixating on how the prince needs to draw people’s support, Machiavelli emphasizes the importance of doing what is best for the greater good. He proposed that working toward a selfish goal, instead of striving towards a better state, should warrant punishment. Machiavelli is a practical person and always thought of pragmatic ways to approach situations, applying to his notions regarding politics and

Machiavelli writes the ‘Prince’ while away in exile which by most people, is interpreted as his manual or guide on how to rule. It is quite clear that he demonstrates political interest and advocacy in his work through the many stories of past rulers he shares as examples of what to do and what not to do. An example of a ruler who came from a lower position, meaning no riches or status, was Agathocles (son of a potter, who became the King of Syracuse) (Machiavelli [1532] 2006) which is similar to the status of the man Plato speaks of, Socrates. However, Machiavelli speaks for power politics and the importance of the ruler being in total control since “a wise prince should establish himself on that which is in his own control and not in that of others” ([1532]

Machiavelli says that a ruler must be a combination of a fox and a lion. A ruler needs to have the cunning mind of a fox but also needs to have the strength of a lion so that he can destroy anyone who opposes him.

The ideal ruler according to Machiavelli is one that easily gains and maintains his power and is the undeniable central influence of his realm. Louis XIV, “The Sun King”, is perhaps the greatest personification of a Machiavellian ruler. He was personable enough to usurp all power and become an absolute monarch whose subjects feared him to an extent of reverence. The Prince was written a century before Louis XIV would take power but reads as a checklist of all facets of Louis XIV’s reign. Louis was through and through a Machiavellian leader, exemplifying nearly every chapter within the essays detailing how a great ruler would rule his kingdom.

On 15 January 1559 Elizabeth was crowned in Westminster Abbey. One of the first things she did was restore the Church of England, she did this with restoring the Act of Supremacy. This Act made Queen Elizabeth I "Head of the Church of England". Her father first passed the Act of Supremacy in 1534. Her sister repealed the Act because she was a Catholic and wanted the pope to be in charge of the church and otherwise it would be treason against the church. All public officials were to swear an oath of loyalty to the monarch. The new Act of Supremacy became law on 8 May 1559.

Niccolò Machiavelli was an activist of analyzing power. He believed firmly in his theories and he wanted to persuade everyone else of them as well. To comment on the common relationship that was seen between moral goodness and legitimate authority of those who held power, Machiavelli said that authority and power were essentially coequal.9 He believed that whomever had power obtained the right to command; but goodness does not ensure power. This implied that the only genuine apprehension of the administrative power was the attainment and preservation of powers which indirectly guided the maintenance of the state. That, to him, should have been the objective of all leaders. Machiavelli believed that one should do whatever it took, during the given circumstance, to keep his people in favor of him and to maintain the state. Thus, all leaders should have both a sly fox and ravenous wolf inside of him prepared to release when necessary.10

Throughout the course of history, political philosophy has been dominated by two great thinkers: Niccolo Machiavelli and Socrates. Although both highly influential, Socrates and Machiavelli may not see eye to eye. When it comes to the idea of how an “ideal prince” would act, Machiavelli believes that they should lead through fear and follow a thirst for power, no matter the cost. Socrates, on the other hand, believes that they should lead through morality and have a healthy thirst for knowledge. Overall, these two would not exactly agree on what the actions of a good leader would look like or how a political system should be run.

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.

A family of monarchy which tortured Machiavelli for months causing him great suffrage and sorrow. He writes to Lorenzo “May I trust, therefore, that Your Highness will accept this little gift in the spirit in which it is offered: and if Your Highness will deign to peruse it, you will recognize in it my ardent desire that you may attain to that grandeur which fortune and your own merits presage for you.” This enough is confusing because if this is the same principality that caused so much suffering why dedicate a book to let their reign continue into longevity? As to add to this confusion, Machiavelli explains how a prince should use cruelty and violence correctly against the people. To use cruelty and punishment all at once so that the people learn to respect you by fear. He includes that if you had a choice on either being loved or feared, be feared for love can change as quick as it came. Fear of punishment, people would avoid and be subservient. He also goes on to put out that a prince must be cunning like a fox yet strong and fearsome like a lion. To use Realpolitik, morality and ideology left out for the world is not these things as you should not be as well. Furthermore, Machiavelli explains what must happen when a new ruler overtakes a new city and the people in it. “And whoever becomes the ruler of a free city and does not destroy it, can expect to be destroyed by it,