Machiavelli the Prince - Essay Example

Task Machiavelli the Prince Introduction The book by Niccolo can arguably be considered as an exceptionally fashionable book all about history. The book presents various observations concerning human mannerisms. According to the book, the author tries to convey extremely essential information on to the politicians on various ways about leadership, the gain and maintenance of power (Crboehmer 20). Most modern readers have alleged that prince represents someone whose destiny was to take over the control of the country. The prince just like other prince in Machiavelli’s princes, he must be careful on democracy in order to gain people’s favor (Machiavelli 43). The people’s favor plays a chief responsibility in ensuring that princes remain in control of the realm. The kingdom, therefore, offers a lot of challenges to princes in order to stay in power since lack of community hold up leads to kingdom loss to preferred princes (Machiavelli 43). In regard to this problem, Machiavellian has proposed various ways in which princes and leaders in general should adopt to linger in power. The methods presented by the author are served to keep citizen support at all times both for the earlier leaders and leaders of today and tomorrow. However, despite the teaching of these methods in education institutions, most of the methods only apply for the case of the prince. The methods are specifically designed as tools for the prince’s selfish welfare. In the book, the author presents the question, and responses have been developed to criticize the thinker’s position, through various accounts presented by comparing it to the dangerous approach of elitism. Presented Question The question presented by the thinker does not gyrate about what makes human good but rather what makes a compelling prince. The question has been perfectly answered by the writer through the application of the thinker ideologies. The ideologies are the methods that the thinker presents to the prince in an attempt to ensure the public remain on his side. The prince through the thinker must come up with stratagem to ensure loyalty from the masses, to keep the large population on his side. The issue brought about is that the prince has no regard for the human morality rather he cares more about retention of his realm. Critical Response The ideologies presented by Machiavelli can be regarded to be purely scientific. Machiavelli utilizes the classification system in which he treats kingdoms as the different species that have been prearranged into a political nomenclature. Machiavelli also provides suitable historical examples to back up his claims. He exhibits his clear knowledge of past chronological events and develops the whole story through a clear argument. The prince has to uphold influence in his kingdom, and this necessitates the installation of fear into the citizens through various strict rules. However, while still maintaining power, the head has to take into thought the implications of the strict measures. The price has to install fear into the populace while still preventing an unnecessary cruelty since unnecessary cruelty may work against him. The prince has, therefore, to balance between cruelty and installation of fear as well as show respect to his subjects to prevent any unnecessary rivalries. The matter presented through the analysis, brings into light the idea that Machiavelli observes modest value in love, as well as the loyalty, that it might acquire from the populace. Machiavelli has the feeling that rulers have the obligation of making their citizens aware of their authority or powers (Machiavelli 38). The author provides that competent princes have to establish themselves in their individual control of their realm instead of concentrating on other leaders. The author adds that the princes have to attempt to steer clear of hatred through any means possible. According to these statements, the author conveys the message that the rulers have to stay compact although they ought not to invite hatred because this will seek to compromise their stay in power (Crboehmer 20). With reference to many of Machiavelli’s proclamations, the ideas presented may lead one into thinking that Machiavelli has one sole goal which is to convince the masses into thinking that he supports an administration that contends hostility and antagonism being fundamental to maintenance of authority (Machiavelli 38). Throughout the book, he presents discussions that depict violence as an essential part of maintenance of authority for rulers although, at the other end, he puts out the fire ignited by the discussion by applying certain softening elements. At some case, he proposes that rulers have to be aggressive towards citizens within a certain region that have proved uncontrollable. The cruelty towards such a region may serve to establish a sense of trepidation for the inhabitants of such a region. Although the idea presented may be for self interests to the prince, it does not in any approach mean that the ruler has to be cruel on towards the populace even if authority allows anything that the prince may decide to undertake. Even with Machiavelli observing the antagonism and hostilities as solutions to the problem for any leadership, the idea may not exist in real living circumstances. Different scholars have brought forth different arguments for and against the theory that Machiavelli almost presents within the book. According to author, violence only serves as short time activities within the presented political environment. Any actions taken such as welfare and installation of fear into subjects only serve a short-term purpose, and in certain situations, it may serve as, the tool that holds citizens together although through an intimidation or compilation approach. However, the argument has no legitimate basis for addressing the significance of Machiavelli connections with a sagacity of magnificence. A leader lacking the certain traits that are well thought-out to be necessary cannot be regarded as a competent leader. The leader may possess the attributes that are insisted by many people, which may be strength, aggression, and superiority to enemies but unless they possess the necessary traits they cannot be regarded competent enough to take up to the task. The presented ideas by Machiavelli regarding the misguided notion that any ruler should be feared more than loved has ties on what makes the prince praiseworthy. The author presents the idea that a ruler has to retain authority rather than show love for his subjects comes as a contradiction. The concept concerning glory still maintains the author’s statements concerning aggression and cruelty. Although the author discusses the instances when cruelty may be unnecessary, Machiavelli does not disregard comprehensive brutality at all times. Instead, Machiavelli presents the idea that he favors the cruelty that happens in a single instance rather than making it a continuous process where subjects are regularly subjected to violence. The author thinks that diplomacy plays a better role than having a large that may engage in welfare and aggression. This means that utilization of army might in terms of welfare and aggression cannot be considered in the determination of successful leaders (Crboehmer 22). 2 Guicciardini is termed the biggest historian of the renaissance history. His clan was known in times of Medici regime. In his times of life, the Medici clan was banished from Florence and cat the same time there was the restoration of the republican regime. Leo and Clement, being members of the papacy were voted for hence the Medici gained power of Florescence again establishing them as being hereditary princes. It is then that Guicciardini, a lawyer by profession, served as the senior most administrators participating in the Italian Habsburg-Valois war that he told of in his last largest work of the Storia d’Italia and Maxims and reflections. All his writings were narrated in the 19th century, providing a complicated man’s picture and at the start of the 21st century studies of new-fangled editions and translations keep on surfacing. A number of his works are rations, memoirs and letters, which dealt with inside issues of foreign policy that he encountered during his time as a political adviser, governor and political adviser in the eras of the Medici, Clement VII and Adrian VI. The most noteworthy thing of his works is the fact that the writer is the protestor and observer of the things unfolding. He was acquainted personally with a number of figures that portray the people in his narrative. His views are presently the most valued comments in the vital time of the political history of Italy. Guicciardini’s stories were never published in the whole of his life! 21 years after he had died, is when one of his nephews published The History of Italy. After three hundred years, Giuseppe Canestrini, published the remaining works of Guicciardini under Opere indite as the title. Minor works were discovered after the edition, the most noteworthy being Cose fiorentine which means Florentine Affairs published in 1945. After the 16th century, this History was converted into other European languages namely; English, Latin, Spanish, Flemish and German. Guicciardini had a broader perspective as compared to his fellow aristocrats. This was never his main concern but was troubled to ensure that the experienced men viewpoint would prosper over the idiots and inexperienced in government businesses. Just as Machiavelli, he endeavored in gaining the intellectual hold of the determination of political and military events in his whole life.( Machiavelli, 51) They did not possess the intelligence to help them, or any parliamentary government by planned political parties’ experience, but had Roman and Greek ways of war literature, politics and conquering methods. Their own experience in fighting and politics was like that of the ancient world as compared to that of civilizations of the 19th, 20th, or the 21st century. The personal characters of leaders, their personal advisors, and the deliberation process were emphasized. Even though Guicciardini used his power directly, he did not do that in the circumstance of affairs of state in Florentine. Him being an administrative leader in the northern region of the States of Papal (something compared to the Roman governor), he mostly ventured on that experience. Each of these experiences gives an insight into the person character and conduct, decision of choice of how things unfold and the happenings of fortune. Florentine rulers argued about the aspects of Medic rule and how it should be for the presently widely based regime and the one that had more foresights is considered the most negative (Najemy, 156). Machiavelli used the Roman Empire, which had the majority of conquests in European History, as means against which the assessments of the states of present Italy. Guicciardini then replied with a brief set of Machiavelli’s considerations Discourses, emphasizing the uniqueness of each distinct situation of history and its illegitimacy effects of analyzing and prescribing case of paradigm Guicciardini was a lawyer by profession, an aristocrat and had a strong sense of intelligence, aided by his ambitions. He became a public figure in 1512sfter his appointment to Ferdinand the Catholic of Spain’s ambassador. He lived there for a period of two years. Guicciardini rose to being one of the vital players in a renaissance critical stage of Italian History, when he planned the anti imperial League of Cognac, and operations of the military in 1952. Its distinction is by the characteristics that are rare in works of youth, a careful look for truths and causation, full grown and an overall judgment having an acute representation of historical events. Guicciardini’s perspective of the Florence government emerges from the dialogue on the government based on “Ottimati” rule, the intelligent and men of reputations, which the author dictates, by his own familiarity. Conclusion The History of Italy’s theme is not politics but the conflict of Interstates in Europe in the epochal period dating from 1494 to approximately 1530. In the entire Western Europe, the modern state coalesced, and the European organization was presumptuous of the changing form it was supposed to keep in the entire early modern time. Italy rose to being the place of acting and victim of Hasburg-Valois with the reason being that its own complicated system of state was not large enough, to hold the blow of large militaries that were led there by European monarchs of France. Guicciardiardini’s capability to organize the array of events into a greater narrative is a reason for his works quality status. His proclaimed analysis into complicated systematic way in the whole picture are determined, a number of personalities who are leaders and those who advise them in the entire Italy and Europe, with all their individual mistakes, repeatedly analyze the intentions, abilities and actions of the rest and their individual courses of deeds. The humanists' technique abandoned only a little principal sources, aiming instead aspiring fictitious expressiveness and stylishness and at inspirational readers with the "correct" standards of contemplation and deed. Dissimilar from humanistic recitation, which focused on one area of Italy, Guicciardini's account brings to existence the whole globe of the isthmus in its intricacy and, throughout the consequences of its policy overseas, also that of other states. The lesson learnt from experience that permeate the Considerazioni is brought to light by events, and personalities in the History of Italy that covers chronological era of Lorenzo, and Pope Clement VII in the years 1492 and 1534 respectively. Guicciardini established a come through in writing of all times by rejecting the ways and means used by humanists. The humanists’ methods only implemented few vital sources, focusing particularly at literacy fluency and being elegant at encouraging those who read the books with the actual standards of prudence and choice of action. He wrote a whole history of geographical events following the string of various events using documents in archives and available histories that comprised of that of Florentine Republic. This measure makes him an anti-rhetorician. Humanistic history only focused on one Italian geographical area but Guicciardini’s History shows the complex Peninsula world by portraying the effects of politics abroad, and that of other nations. Works Cited Crboehmer. Machiavelli’s the Prince. Nov 28, 2005. Web. Dec 13, 2011. Available at < http://utminers.utep.edu/crboehmer/Machiavelli%E2%80%99s%20The%20Prince%20Part%20II%20full.pdf > Machiavelli, Niccolo. How Many Kinds of Principalities There Are, and By What Means They Are Acquired. Oct 3, 2011. Web. Dec 13, 2011. Available at < http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince.pdf > Machiavelli, Niccolo. "Secular patria" and the creation of an Italian national identity. New York: Peter Lang, 2005. Najemy, John. A history of Florence, 1200-1575. Malden: John Wiley & Sons, 2006. Read More