Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince

Machiavelli wrote The Prince in 16th-century. His methods of acquiring and maintaining rule over people are not relevant in today’s modern American society. There are many principles that are still true in politics today, but the methods of ruling can no longer be used in American society today.

The Oxford Dictionary defines the term “Machiavellian” as someone who is cunning, scheming, and unscrupulous, especially in politics or in advancing one’s career. These principles, as well as others, were established in Niccolo Machiavelli’s book, The Prince. The Prince dwelves on what a person needs to do to obtain and maintain power in a principality. Although it was written nearly 500 years ago, it has influenced countless rulers over time. A great example of one of these rulers is Joseph Stalin, dictator of the U.S.S.R (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) from 1929 - 1953.

From describing world leaders to political antiheroes in television dramas, characterizing someone as a “Machiavellian figure” is perceived more as derisive description than an accurate representation of that person’s philosophical views of power. This popular depiction is due to Niccolo Machiavelli’s harsh portrayal of the interlaced relationship between power and politics in his treatise, The Prince. Machiavelli begins his work by contending that it is “more effective” to reveal the “practical truth of a subject” rather than “depend on [his] fancies for it”(Machiavelli 2524). His rejection of idealism and focus on realism impels him to claim that a ruler has to be acquainted with and effectively use both virtue and vice to wield power over his subjects. However, Machiavelli’s philosophical justifications which allow him to arrive at such a conclusion are based on three problematic beliefs which are that the public is easily gratified with a fulfillment of their most basic desires, the ruler has to develop a narcissistic personality to understand how to wield power and the ruler, as a man, must beat the woman Fortune to have dominion (Machiavelli 2531). These assumptions are what gives the term “Machiavellian” such a negative connotation; more importantly, they reveal that Machiavelli’s understanding of power is problematic since it is not based on realism but on an idealized view of the general public and masculinity.

Machiavelli’s opinion is that being feared is better than being loved since individuals can more easily break the bond of love whereas fear “is supported by the dread of pain”

Today, society goes to great lengths to project the illusion that genuine leadership signifies only a steadfast commitment to upholding the moral and ethical high ground. Culturally, it’s expected that great leaders must be individuals personifying solely the grandest principles of that society, while excluding and condemning the less admired ones. While this conviction is prevalent throughout our society, this belief is most perpetuated each year in the upper echelons our government during presidential and congressional elections, when candidates are asked inane questions about family values rather than political experience and ambitions. On this basis, our society consequently tends to overlook what true leadership is by choosing our leaders only on the basis of moral merit rather than real political accomplishment. With regard to that, in his work, The Prince, Machiavelli offers a contrasting and humanizing view of leadership when he suggests that successful leaders must be half animal, with equal parts fox and lion. Machiavelli proposes this concept to insinuate that a proper ruler must exist as a courageous and charismatic individual on the surface, but cunning and self-preserving one beneath it. He illustrates this argument through his depiction of leaders possessing an animalistic alter ego, his understanding of a ruler’s behavior, his description of the various forms in which one can acquire power, and his preference over being thought of as

Can five century old ideas still be relevant in modern times? Niccolo Machiavelli, author of The Prince, wrote a book to give advice to rulers both young and old. He introduced a multitude of bold ideas that help a prince rise to power and prosper there. Machiavelli’s concepts include killing off competitors, the prince and army becoming one, and using cruelty to the prince’s advantage. Although The Prince was written over five-hundred years ago, the beliefs of Machiavelli are still useful as shown by Germany’s dictator on the twentieth century, Adolf Hitler.

For Machiavelli himself, the "bigger objective" was typically not unimportant individual desire yet something like the steadiness or flourishing of a city-state or the unification of Italy under Italian standard. Machiavelli distinguishes the hobbies of the sovereign with the hobbies of the state (a presumption that can unquestionably be addressed!), accordingly directing Renaissance independence. Regardless, Machiavelli was an example of "force legislative issues."

The idea of fear is usually given a negative connotation but this is not the case. Yes fear is not particularly healthy all the time but what people do not understand is that, that does not limit its meaning. Some parts of the world are led by treacherous, violent, feared, and hated people but what humans sometimes do not understand, is that fear and hatred have very different definitions. This is one of the concepts that the book ‘The Prince’ by Machiavelli conveys. In the book, Machiavelli shares the characteristics that a good leader should possess.

Machiavelli’s the Prince is a highly acclaimed and influential book to read by wide crowds of audiences. Machiavelli is not evil, he’s just a political expert that’s trying to return Florence to the former glory of itself before the liberation and drive out the foreigners. Throughout the book, it has historical examples on how to properly conquer a kingdom, marketing ploys, and colonizing tips. Also, this was how society was in the period of Medieval times and Renaissance because you would either need to conquer as many lands as possible in order to be seen as powerful and wealthy or be conquered by wealthier enemies.

Sixteenth century Western Europe was ruled by kings chosen by divine right. Convincing a nation of people that their king deserves his power because an unseen creator made it so is not an easy task, therefore every action a king makes must be carefully constructed to balance all things that produce a beloved leader. A politician during this time named Niccolo Machiavelli wrote the world renowned book entitled The Prince which advised soon to be kings how to maintain control over their peoples without being a tyrant and losing their head. In his book Machiavelli stated that, “It is better to be feared than loved, if you can not be both” (Machiavelli). He felt that when governing a state, a king was more powerful if he was feared by his people

A major part of present day culture focuses on visual appearance. An example of this is in politics and the other is the differing perceptions people have about art and personal experiences. Though there were many influential individuals in the Renaissance period, the ideas of Niccolo Machiavelli and Leonardo Da Vinci are still relevant today for their ideas about politics and people’s visual perception. Niccolo Machiavelli, a political thinker, wrote The Prince during the Renaissance period and analyzed how to acquire and maintain political power as a leader. He is remembered today for his opinion that the means to achieve power, no matter how immoral, are justified if the success of the government prevails. Leonardo Da Vinci is one of the most remembered

Machiavelli elaborates on how fortune is a woman and also how fortune can take control. I found his theory to be true. Women are fortunes men will never understand. Fortune is something men will never cherish correctly. In today’s society men overlook how highly they should treat a woman. No men open doors, lend a helping hand, or ask how their day have been. Many people believe fortune controls everything, so they let it. As years went by men have slacked off the respect for women and their fortune. In Machiavelli selection of The Prince, he seems to have it all figured out.

In 1513, an Italian man named Niccolo Machiavelli, wrote The Prince. Machiavelli was positioned as Second Chancellor of Florence after being a man of letters. He then failed in serving as a diplomat until 1512, but showed strength in wanting to unite the states. After leaving his diplomatic position, Machiavelli was forbidden to face politics and only focused on writing. His writing was suspected of conspiracy. It is also suspected that Machiavelli wrote The Prince to gain office and to have an affect on policy. Generally in his text, Machiavelli discusses several philosophies on how to be a good ruler. The Prince is a classic form of text because it has crossed over time and people have been reading it for thousands of years. It has also provided

Autocratic regimes, to the general population, seem asinine and inefficient. However, Niccolò Machiavelli, a Renaissance philosopher, thought it could be possible to create a functional autocratic regime under the right guidance and influence. He proved he differed from philosophers and political theorists of his time with the novel, The Prince. In his novel The Prince, Machiavelli states his opinion on how principalities should be obtained and managed through the use historical references and scenarios. At the time of his work his ideas were radical and a first of their kind. Machiavelli had many interesting views such as his opinions on justice, morals, and human nature. He believed justice was non-existing, morals shouldn’t play a role in

Niccolò Machiavelli “The Prince”. Using bad or immoral methods to achieve something good by using them. At least once in everyone’s life, at one point they’ve made a dishonest decision. Some of us have even tried to explain our actions by bending the truth. Being dishonest is not the best, but at times it is the best answer. It may not seem to be the faithful thing to do, but the outcome will always be judged as honorable. It doesn’t matter how people reach what they want as long as the outcome is what they had hoped. The end goal doesn’t necessarily have to be good and noble. It is acceptable to go to any extent to obtain something that is for a good cause.