Human Nature In The Prince By Niccolo Machiavelli

Q5: What might Machiavelli’s prince have in common with Castiglione’s courtier? Both suggest that a leader must be active and eschew laziness and idleness. Castiglione writes that the courtier who is not perfectly endowed can, with ‘study and toil’, polish his natural defects.

With these new things developed he thought that you can’t simply unite those people because they have no common background and therefore won’t want to unite and become one with people they don’t see themselves the same as. Like stated, the views against Italian unification were mainly coming from two people, Vincenzo Gioberti and Daniele Manin. They both believed that Italy shouldn’t unify but there reasons were that if Italy unifies it is taking the princes freedom away and therefore making it easier for foreign invasions and civil wars to occur. Then Menin thought that Italy shouldn’t unify because you can’t force [epp;e with different cultures, customs, and traditions to come

In “The Prince,” Machiavelli discusses the terms and procedures he believes a prince should take to govern his society. Many perceive his views on human nature and leadership as evil and cruel towards his people. He justifies his views on human nature as he draws examples from the tactics and traits of successful leaders from the past. His ideas are comprised from justifying the means of his actions by its ends. Machiavelli selects the aspects of admirable historical figures to produce and describe his ideal prince.

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.

Adams argument is another critical aspect into understanding the legacy of Caligula. The fact that Caligula was basically raised to understand ‘power’ as being an absolute entity, was dangerous in Roman aristocratic society. Caligula was simply acting the way he believed one should rule, especially when everyone was seemingly out to get him. However, aristocrats saw his acts as threatening, they wished to discredit him as best they could, and end up killing him over basically having the wrong upbringing.

Cassius’ ambition for power is easily motivated by the decisions made by Caesar, where he believes Caesar will use his power to advance his own self and will turn his back against the people of Rome. After speaking with Decius, the conflict begins to rise when Caesar’s confused mindset immediately switches to a power-hungry king when he shouts, “How foolish do your fears seem now, Calpurnia! /I am ashamed I did yield to them/ Give me my robe, for I will go” (2.2.110-112). When deciding to go to the capital to collect his crown, Caesar’s “ambition in this regard is seen as an egocentric drive; Brutus comes to believe that Caesar wants power in and of itself, not for the benefit of the Romans” (Hacht). Caesar’s determination for power for himself, no matter how frightening the signs may be, whether it be the nightmares Calpurnia experiences or the soothsayer telling Caesar to “beware the ides of march”, is deeply influenced by the men around them.

Dante strongly believed in the political autonomy of his peninsula and wanted it free from Pope's interference in the management of the temporal power to the point that, when Pope Boniface VIII called in Italy Charles of Valois (brother of the French King Philip the Fair) Dante felt betrayed also by the fact that the Pope had involved in the internal struggles between Guelphs and Ghibellines foreign people that enacted the victory of the Black Guelphs (the political faction that wanted the temporal power in Pope's hands) and Dante's exile. In a few words, on 1st of November 1301, Charles of Valois (brother of the French King named Philip the Fair) invaded Florence with the official intent to bring peace between the two internal warring factions

Creon is guaranteeing that he can be trusted and how devoted he was to gaining their trust. These words alone shows how much he wants to be king and rule them the correct way which is without betrayal. His tone is sincere to show that he actually means what he says. Creon proves his devotion in his speech by stating,”No one values friendship more highly than I; but we must remember that friends made at the risk of wrecking our ship are not real friends at all.” He is referring to Polyneices and how he betrayed his people.

Here, Wiglaf proves himself the better man because he has honor while the others, who willingly abandoned their King in battle, clearly do not. Lastly, Beowulf and Wiglaf both show outstanding loyalty throughout the piece. All of Beowulf’s actions are clearly motivated by loyalty, starting with his decision to help the Danes.

Hastings is the one who’s loyal to the royal family and he is loyal to King Edward and the prince. The difference between them is that one of them is loyal in a good way and the other one is loyal in a cruddy way. Hastings is loyal in a pleasing way to the royal family , he was never thinking about betraying them specially at that time where it was really difficult to stay loyal and integrate to anyone. Buckingham was extremely loyal to Richard , and this may be a similarity between them that they were really loyal to someone , but the difference is that Buckingham was loyal in a bad way to Richard where he was ready to lie and cheat on people so he can get Richard on the crown. (shmoop.com) All over the story you can see a lot of situations where Hastings remained loyal to all the people in the royal family.

As a prince there are many tasks you must follow to be successful. It is not an easy task to rule an entire kingdom. Machiavelli is a well known italian politician who wrote “The Prince” in 1532. Machiavelli proposes cruel tactics in order to preserve power. He argues that using people instead of helping them is the only way to be a successful prince.

A truly powerful leader is cruel and shows little to no accounts of mercy but rather use cruelty to bring order and restore peace and obedience in societies; moreover, while avoiding being hated. Machiavelli argues that a prince should not worry about the criticism of cruelty when it is a matter of protecting his citizens and ensuring they are united, loyal, and obedient. Furthermore, excessive mercy allows for disorder to arise and prosper while creating a dysfunctional society that hurts the future of a prince’s power and credibility. A prince should avoid being hated, but still show no mercy as it establishes him respect and shows his strength, influence, and compassion as a good leader; also, institutes more peace, harmony, and order in

Machiavelli was not looking for princes to become cruel, militant tyrants, but rather wanted effectiveness to unite a kingdom and to unite the people. Through Francesco Sforza, Cesare Borgia, and even Pope Julius II, the author is stating the unspoken truth, supporting it with the figures he derived inspiration, those who used underhanded methods when needed to hold reigns on their power, that "for a man who strives after goodness in all his acts is sure to come to ruin, since there are so many men who are not good. Hence it is necessary that a prince who is interested in his survival learn to be other than good, making use of his capacity or refraining from it according to need" (Machiavelli