Violence In The Broken Warrior

1102 Words5 Pages
Approaches to the justification, methodology and exercisers of violence and its relation to the sovereign in three different contexts are covered. The Broken Spears by Aztecs, The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli, and Levithan by Hobbes are the three contexts discussed.
In Broken Spears, violence needs to be considered in two different aspects. First one is the violence among the natives of Mexico. The sovereign of the natives was called Motecuhzoma who had the authority to order violence when necessary, as happened to the magicians. Motecuhzoma ordered the killing of magicians’ families, including their children and wives, along with the request of razing their houses just because they could not explain what bad omens meant . On another
…show more content…
This punishment is decided by the sovereign in all cases. The key difference in the nature of this violence is however different. Machiavelli believes the sovereign should adapt violence to keep his position and maintain a stable relation with his subjects. Hobbes’ approach differs from this because violence used by the sovereign in his opinion benefits his people the most. This is because the sovereign has no problem keeping his position, the usage of violence will only be adopted to maintain the peace and security of the people under the contract. Both of these approaches presume the evil nature of man which justifies the usage of the violence. In the Broken Spears, Spaniards are a great example of such an evil nature. The violence committed by them is to become the absolute leaders, kind of like the sovereign described by Hobbes. Sacrifices in the Broken Spears shows that violence could also be adopted by the sovereign to practice religious rituals. This approach is different than the other two approaches because source of the power of the sovereign in this case comes from the god. Sacrifice is used to please the god as an attempt to strengthen the position of the
Open Document