An analysis of Machiavelli’s The Prince showcases the importance of war, and Shakespeare’s Henry V personifies Machiavelli’s views. Machiavelli encourages rulers to “aim at conquering and maintaining the state,” and war is the prince’s tool to use (The Prince, 66). War is justifiable but only when necessity compels the prince. Shakespeare’s King Henry epitomizes Machiavelli’s ideas. Henry manipulates the law and promotes his self-interests, asserting that he conquers France in defense of England. War becomes the backdrop for Henry’s conquest, and he uses Machiavelli’s teachings to ascend quickly to power. A prince must use force to advance his principality. Using warfare develops a nation because “where there are good arms there must be …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-interests (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 “mow[s] like grass/ [their] fresh fair virgins and [their] flow’ring infants” (Henry V, 3.3.13-14). He threatens 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,
Henry's confidence is somewhat based on the curiosity of his young age. He is confident that war will bring him honor and glory, but he doesn’t yet realise the hardships that are associated with war. “He felt that in this crisis his laws of life were useless. Whatever he had learned of himself was here of no avail. He was an unknown quantity.”
President Obama echo a leadership of both Niccolo Machiavelli "The Qualities of the Prince" and Martin Luther King Jr. "Letter from Birmingham Jail". Machiavelli point of view to become a successful prince was that you must lead your people. He talks about how a prince should appear to his people for authority. There are different types of principles such as war and is it better to be loved or feared.
Despite their different opinions on the role fear should play in preserving a political order Niccolo Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes both assert that fear is an important element of functional societies. Machiavelli’s The Prince primarily focuses on preserving and expanding a ruler’s position, while Hobbes’s Leviathan primary focus is on constructing an ideal commonwealth to escape the “state of nature”. Machiavelli believes that a ruler should use fear as a tool to maintain his position of power, while Hobbes believes that the use of fear should be to ensure the sanctity of contracts in a Commonwealth, the most important contractual obligations being the obligation between sovereigns and their subjects. Hobbes’s belief that fear should be used
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.
Machiavelli argues the perfect prince will be both feared and loved by his people, and if unable to be both he will make himself feared and not hated. Machiavelli believes it is much safer to be feared than to be loved because people are less likely to offend and stand up against strong characters, also people are less concerned in offending a prince who has made himself loved. Accordingly, Machiavelli believes generosity is harmful to your reputation and the choice between being generous or stingy, merciful or cruel, honest or deceitful, should only be important if it aids the prince in political power. All in all, Machiavelli believes the ruler must be a great deceiver and do what is essential to uphold power over the
Shakespeare’s play, Henry V, portrays the newly crowned king of England, King Henry V, as a committed, fearless, and relentless leader. France is England’s archenemy and their relationship only worsens after the Dauphin delivers a mocking message to England’s new king. The Dauphin frequently ridicules the English and King Henry, whereas, the King of France, Charles VI, does not underestimate Henry and his people as his son does. (Source B) Throughout the play, the two leaders display their differences in terms of personality, leadership, communication skills, and ethics.
But they put themselves in a level with wood and earth and stones [...] than men of straw or a lump of dirt’’. Henry’s ethos shows the audience of his strategy of going against the government corruption. Henry’s speech was well-planned out to shows his audience of his experience when rebelling the government; in addition, receiving forced punishment for not paying his poll-tax. He thought out things that made himself to commit this disobedience against the government and wanted to express his experience of his ideas and strategy to disobey the government.
When Henry VIII came to the throne he wanted to be a powerful king throughout Europe. For the first two years of his reign, he took a non military approach like his father, but after this he began to take a more confrontational approach. One of his main aims was to win back land in France conquered by Henry V and to lay a claim to the French throne. Sadly, he did not achieve this and did not have enough resources to defeat the French while they had a wide range of resources at their disposal. Another negative was that Henry was also manipulated
Secondly, he also used a rhetorical question when he said, “Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation,” (Henry 101). This quote also shows how it’s obvious that we need to fight for what is right. It wasn’t a matter of if, but when.
His well structured speech touched the people, gave them courage. Henry's speech made them consider he was right and war was soon to begin. Henry's use of of rhetorical devices helped make his speech more powerful. Henry’s use of ethos helps him gain people's trust and helps encourage them to do what is right.
The implication is that the people are being ruled. Henry used his skills in speech to persuade the Council or Parliament that trying to rule over others was wrong. He spoke out against the way things had always been done and
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.
He gives credit to their power as coming only from God and give the credit of raising up allies. Henry argues that the country should fight. In order to support his argument, he uses an appeal of vanity to point out he wants peace. Leading to this, Henry talks about working together and fight. Henry reveals his idea when he states, “ Peace, Peace”.
Probably one of the most infamous and controversial ideologies of the 16th century, the prince by Machiavelli has been a reference for many great leaders and academicians since it was published. The book provides historically tested and proven principles of leadership. The prince has been described as a manual for those who want to win and retain power. While some may argue that leadership is an inherent trait in human, leaders are made, not born. Making a great leader out of a person is not just a matter of identifying the leadership traits, skill and talents of the individual, but harnessing the traits, develop them and eventually mastering how to be leader.
In chapters six and seven of his book, “The Prince”, Niccolo Machiavelli stated that the difficulty in keeping and maintaining new principalities depends on how the prince acquired them. The principalities can be acquired either by one’s own arms and abilities or by the arms of others and by relying on luck or good fortune. Although the two options will both mitigate different problems and issues, Machiavelli argues that those who rely least on good fortune will come out the strongest. In this chapter, the dependent variable would be the difficulty a prince would experience in acquiring a principality. The independent variable then will be the method in acquiring the principality, whether through ability or good fortune.