When comparing Machiavelli and Rousseau’s presentation on human nature, one can see that Machiavelli’s idea of human nature was completely opposite compared to Rousseau’s idea of human nature. Machiavelli was a realist, and had a rather negative view on human nature. He assumed that men by nature are evil, and are driven by their own selfish wants and needs. In a society where they are free, everything becomes unorganized and confusing. In Machiavelli’s, The Prince, he states that, “Men never do good except out of necessity, but when they have the freedom to choose and can do as they please, everything becomes confused and disorderly (182).” Thus Machiavelli believed that the best form of society was one where the Prince ruled his kingdom
The Magna Carta is a very important document that greatly impacted the United States. Throughout, the years the Magna Carta greatly established the principle rules that made everyone subjected to the law, even the government. The Magna Carta provided a visual outline while setting down the foundations for modern society, by establishing a justice system, individuals granted rights, and the rule of law.
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
Louis XIV was the best example of an absolute monarch. Louis XIV ruled in France from 1643 until 1715. During his reign, he ensured that he was in absolute power, and control the whole time. Louis XIV thought that the world should revolve around him. Louis XIV did not do anything for the good of France, he would only do things that benefited him, and he treated the people of France very poorly.
Even though Philip II and Louis XIV use supreme power for different purposes, they both thought every decision they made was the correct one. This confidence would lead to the people of their regions having trust in their decisions, which is one of the reasons they did not revolt against these absolute monarchs. The sourcebook reads, “During his reign, Louis did not once call a meeting of the Estates General, the medieval council made up of representatives of all French social classes.” Louis XIV was so confident, he felt that he did not think anyone’s opinion but his own mattered. Everyone saw Louis confidence so much that he received the nickname, “the grand monarch.” Louis did not even bother to ask for anyone else's input, he just did what he thought would be best for himself. Philip had quiet confidence, which means he did not think that he was the smartest, he knew he was the smartest and so did everyone else. The sourcebook reads, “Philip surpassed Ferdinand and Isabella in making every part of the government responsible to him. He reigned as an absolute monarch, a ruler with complete authority over the government and the lives of the people.” Philip used his supreme power appropriately and confidently, which made Spain flourish while he was in control. While Louis XIV’s confidence came from speaking selfish and cocky phrases like, “I am the state”, Philip’s confidence and good reputation amongst the people came from doing the right things at the right
Absolutism was a period of prosperity during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Absolutism is a form of government, a monarchy, in which a monarch has full governmental control. This is different from that of a limited monarch whose power is kept in check by a constitution or other government officials. Absolute monarchs gain their power in one of two ways: being born into a royal family and being in line for the throne or seizing control. Absolutism meant prosperity because monarchs were considered gods (or God 's power on earth), they changed countries for the better, and could be liked by the people for not doing everything in a harsh way.
The Dark Ages were a time in history that was tragic to the people of Europe. One third of the whole population in Europe died from the effects of the Dark Age. The Dark Ages started after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. Most of the people who died were poor because they could not escape or find protection for themselves. In addition, people lost a lot of money due to the disruption of trade and the downfall of many cities. The Dark Ages had many social and political changes in Europe due to religion, law, and trust/leadership.
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. Despite this, he notes that a ruler must avoid his people hating him. A hated ruler possesses no power since the people hold the power. Therefore, a ruler can be miserly, unfaithful, and ruthless, but they must appear to be the opposite. Machiavelli concludes that it is important for a ruler to balance his reputation and his actions, which I agree with, however others may argue that a ruler can posses both qualities.
"During the "Middle Ages", from 476 to about 1100, European civilization slipped into semi-barbarism". It was a very hard and bad time, but a lot of historians debate about if Europe was in a "dark age" or not. The evidence states that Europe was a dark age.
A single monarch ruling is not the most effective way to control the country due to how “There will be no liberty where the executive, legislative, and judicial powers are united in one person or body of persons.”(Doc 6). The primary benefit an absolute monarchy has is how it stabilizes a country, but it is not a government form that will aid the country for an extended period of time, especially with how a single person makes all the decisions in society. A democracy allows different groups of people to negotiate and decide what occurs in the branches of government, making the decision and compromise more reasonable than when a single person executes a sudden idea. With everyone compromising the best solution, the result will satisfy everyone’s interests. In an absolute monarchy, the monarch does not have anyone to criticize his decisions, leaving him with all the power to change anything in his country, which increases the chances of the nation meeting its downfall from one bad choice. In addition to uses of power, Montesquieu wrote in his work, “The Spirit of the Laws”, “...a such concentration is bound to result in arbitrary despotism…”(Doc 6). Not only does an absolute monarch increase the chances of a nation crumbling, but it could also damage the citizens with the monarch’s executions of
This can help to increase the land of country. It is also important that the ruler has to have a superior knowledge about politics and economy. So that they will have less possibility of getting into trouble with other countries and they can prevent the country from having a lot of debt. He should not share his power with anyone such as parliament, because he should have full power over his country. He should have the courage to make any sort of decisions without any hesitation and according to me they should also think about themselves and have a bit self-interest . An ideal example for an absolute monarch is Louis XIV. Louis XIV was France’s king in 1643, He became the king at the age of 4. Louis XIV had control over everything after reconstructing the french government and he had all the decision making power. During his period of rule, which was from 1643 to 1715 he had brought his empire to the top of the chain. He made it very clear that he would hear everyone’s opinion but his decision would be his decision and wouldn’t be influenced by
During the time of revolution, France had an absolutist government that was ruled by the monarch Louis XVI. However, monarchies are known to be hereditary and are only successful if the ruler was smart and good at ruling the country. This was not the case for Louis XVI. The legal system in France was inefficient. Positions in the government were sold in order to provide
How do you think you would feel if you were someone living in an Absolutist Monarchy? Absolutism is the rule of a monarchy that holds complete political power over their kingdom or state. Absolutism began to rise up in popularity at the time of Louis XIV Bourbon of France (r. 1643-1715), as he started the era of Absolutist rule in Western Europe. During the late 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries, kings previously used Absolutism in their rule, and all of them had a slightly different approach to their rule. The question remains of how those within the monarchy viewed the absolutist rule. Certain groups believed the monarch should work together with people and state, others thought of their country running only off taxes and payment. Then there are those
In his famous work the Prince Niccolo Machiavelli exposes what it takes to be a good prince and how only this good price and keep control over his state. There are many different qualities that make a man a good ruler but there are some that are more essential than others. In this work Machiavelli stresses the importance of being a warrior prince, a wise prince, and knowing how to navigate the duality of virtù and vices. Without these attributes there was no way that a prince could hold together their state and their people. This is a work that still influences us today and is still relevant in today’s complex society. Some of the most prominent leaders of the 20th century have been influenced by Machiavellian ideas. U.S Presidents like Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton and U.K Prime Minister Anthony Blair are called Machiavellian leaders today.
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. His ideas seemed utterly straightforward as he used simple logic, thus i liked his view points, even though i had a few disagreements with his ideas of solutions to some problems. Some of his central opinions based around the idea that its better to be feared than to be loved by people. to not be unbiased and to disregard flattery.