Comparing Machiavelli's The Prince And The Discours

Otto von Bismarck Otto von Bismarck was the first chancellor of the German Empire. He was a master strategist who used realpolitik. As an aristocrat, he “adopted the liberal goal of national unity, giving the German Empire a broad political base” (Background essay). Otto von Bismarck could be considered Machiavelli's model of the ideal ruler in that, he was feared by his people and he used any ends to justify the tactics he used in bringing about the unification of the German states. Niccolò Machiavelli was a diplomat for many years in Italy’s Florentine Republic during the Medici family’s exile.

In Niccolo Machiavelli's book, The Prince (1513), he evaluates on how a prince can be a successful leader. Machiavelli’s purpose of this guidebook was to construct his argument to the rising ruler Giuliano de Medici for when he comes to power in Florence. He adopts a casual but authoritative tone in order to convince the prince that Machiavelli’s evaluation on how to be the best prince, is the right thing for the prince to do without coming off as he knows more than the prince or is trying to intimidate him.. Machiavelli’s reference to previous rulers and whether their tactics failed or succeeded helps to benefit his credibility along with his allusion to historic text. He appeals to our logic by simply stating a prince can only do what is within his power to control, and his use of an analogy furthers his argument.

Thomas Jefferson and Niccolo Machiavelli both believe that the actions of the people shape the characteristics of the ruler and define the type of authority that will be held towards the people. Machiavelli, the first great political philosopher of the Renaissance, argues all men are untrustworthy due to their selfish, self-interested and impulsive ways of life in his writing, The Morals of the Prince, and therefore, to keep the people under control the ruler must be prepared to be cruel and instill fear among the people. Opposing Machiavelli is Jefferson. In The Declaration of Independence Jefferson believes people can be trusted since they have the ability to make their own decisions. Whereas Machiavelli supports tyranny, Jefferson believes

Clinton’s Failure As “Prince” In Machiavelli 's " The Prince" numerous rules were presented as to what a ruler should do to succeed. From ruling with an iron fist to protecting their country 's citizens, a ruler has no choice but to be on his best mindset at all times. Machiavelli made it very clear that a fit ruler must have military experience, take religion seriously, and have the support of his own people. Usually, leaders follow these rules whole-heartedly to make sure they are represented positively and are taken seriously.

Niccolò Machiavelli, better known as the father of modern political theory, wrote the famous socio-political treatise The Prince, during a dark time in his career. In The Prince, there are several policies that can be found in the American government, specifically in the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights. Many of our American leaders have adopted similar policies as Machiavelli's book is recognized as a political manual for many leaders. Obviously, there are many common themes in The Prince and The United States government's policies, such as the idea of arming one's citizens along with how leaders are brought to power; however, there are also many differences, in particular, the distribution of power in government.

One aspect of Machiavelli’s theory which significantly contributes to his reputation as the “philosopher of evil,” is his advice to the prince on keeping their word to the public. In chapter eighteen, Machiavelli states, “a wise ruler cannot, and should not, keep his word when doing so is to his disadvantage, and when the reasons that led him to promise to do so no longer apply” (pg. 37). To simplify, Machiavelli says princes are obligated to lie in certain circumstances. He also states that while it is unnecessary for the prince to have positive qualities, such as honesty, trustworthiness, sympathy, compassion, or be religious, it is essential for the prince to be viewed so by the public (pg. 37). While many people argue that Machiavelli’s legitimization of lying and deception in politics is immoral, I argue the opposite.

Machiavelli has clearly started a lot of thought on how the school of Realism operates. Though his view on humans and some of his methods may be extreme, The Prince and the Discourses shows a lot of insight on what do if a prince wants to hold his power and what action should be done to do

Both of these highly influential authors had different opinions on ruling that would shape how people would rule during their time and for rulers to come. One of Machiavelli’s major points in The Prince was that it was better to be feared than to be loved. He said this was because while both ways can be useful tools to help one rule, men are less likely to turn a ruler if they were afraid of punishment. Machiavelli had little faith in the common man and had this to say about them, “They are ungrateful, fickle, deceptive and deceiving, avoiders of dangers, eager to gain”(pg.353).

Then for Machiavelli he talks about how a prince should show no fear instead for him to show that he is the one with power. That a prince's people should fear him. Both authors go on to talk on how their people react based on the prince and princesse act. The authors then go on to explain how they should view and run their people. Both authors also reflect the fact that the way their people are going to act towards them is mainly based off of how they treat them.

Although Dante Alighieri and Niccolò Machiavelli lived in two different times, they both experienced political turmoil that impacted their lives. Living during times of conflict shaped the way they each looked at violence, virtue, and reason, which is evidenced in Dante’s Inferno and Machiavelli’s The Prince. Dante and Machiavelli both viewed violence, virtue, and reason as an interconnected triangle, but their realities created different ideas on how virtue and reason impact violence. Living a century apart, both authors’ lives show similarities. Both lived amid political turmoil that weakened Florence, and both were exiled from Florence because of politics.

Niccolo Machiavelli and his influence on the Enlightenment Niccolo di Bernardo dei Machiavelli, also known as the father of “Modern Political Theory” was a well-known Italian diplomat, politician, humanist, historian, philosopher and writer from the era of renaissance philosophy. He belonged to several schools of thought, namely: Renaissance humanism, Political realism, Classical republicanism. His claim to fame was his popular book, “The Prince”, which was a handbook for politicians on the use of ruthless, self-serving, cunning inspiring the term “Machiavellian.” Before he wrote his book, Machiavelli was a diplomat for 14 years in Italy’s Florence Republic during the Medici family’s exile.

In his novel, the prince, nicolo machiavelli guides us to be a fruitful ruler. He clarifies the best routes for any ruler or sovereign to govern a region, bring prosper to the society, and keep up their position. This book can be read by anyone to get a few pointers on political issues. Most of the thoughts held by machivelli were linked to mercilessness and evil, hence they raised a considerable number of eyebrows. He maintains that the ruler 's primary goal should be conquering, staying in control of the general public and to always have the idea of war in mind.

The Prince, written by Machiavelli, is a candid outline of how he believes leaders gain and keep power. Machiavelli uses examples of past leaders to determine traits that are necessary to rule successfully. Leaders such as the King of Naples and the Duke of Milan lacked military power, made their subjects hate them, or did not know how to protect themselves from the elite, causing them to lose power. He says that these rulers should blame laziness, not luck, for their failures. By looking at these historical successes and failures, Machiavelli is able to develop his own thoughts on how politics and leaders should be in the future.

In Machiavelli’s book, The Prince, he maintains a harsh perspective on reality. His advice on how to maintain power leaves no room for compassion or generousity. While some may believe that these are qualities of a good person, Machiavelli believes these qualities lead to the downfall of rulers. He acknowledges that, in reality, it is impossible for someone to have qualities of a good person and simultaneously a good ruler. Machiavelli’s realistic outlook causes him to emphasize that it is better to maintain power through fear, rather than compassion.

John Webster, the great Elizabethan dramatist was little admired during his life time. The Elizabethans failed to appraise his genius as a dramatist and after his death he fell for nearly two hundred years into the lap of oblivion to be brought back into the limelight by the criticism of such distinguished critics as Lamb, Swinburne, Rupert Brooke, who popularised his works and establised his claim to be recognised as a great dramatist of Elizabethan age. But now the tide has turned in Webster 's favour and he is recognised today not as a dramatist who carried forward the revenge theme in drama but as a great poet, and above all, a great moralist, who held aloft the moral vision of life at a time when the dramatists of the age were piling horror and glorifying murder into a fine art. This tragedy THE DUCHESS OF MALFI, the revenge is further degraded and the moral motive of the dramatist come to the forefront. There are some influences of other Elizabethan authors.