The Way a Prince Should Act According to Niccolo Machiavelli
Essay Preview: The Way a Prince Should Act According to Niccolo Machiavelli
Report this essay
The Way a Prince Should Act According to Niccolo Machiavelli
Niccolo Machiavelli was a bright political philosopher who questioned how power could be controlled within its own state. He had come up with various unique ideas that may compel or move people within the Renaissance or even in society today. The book Niccolo Machiavelli wrote, The Prince, focuses on how a monarchy should be organized in order to be successful. Some of his ideas are quite skeptical and cruel, but according to the Florentine, it is the proper way for any monarchy to become favored over other powers who try to control one others land.
In the beginning of the book, Niccolo Machiavelli introduces the two ways a state can be governed, which is either a Republic, or a Principality. However, he focuses more on the way a monarch should be governed because it was clearly mentioned in his previous novel. As a principality, Machiavelli thought that there were two ways in which a monarch could be ruled, either as a hereditary, or as an entirely new one.
Within a hereditary principality, Niccolo believes that the best way to govern and preserve this state is by only maintaining what your family has started from generations before. They are easier to keep than a new principality because all the prince would have to do is follow in his previous familys footsteps without changing too much during his reign. If this idea is sustained, any new monarch that would try and take control of the state would just fail miserably unless if there is a drastic positive change or the previous hereditary prince was plain dull. Even if there was a new power to the state, the slightest mistake would get the people to reform for the previous hereditary ruler. Machiavelli even thinks that the old leader of the state could easily win the peoples affection than a new leader because people are used to the way a state was ruled from generations before. To conclude Niccolo Machiavellis argument, he finalizes that in order for a new leader to govern successfully from a hereditary monarch, the principality must be just evil to its people of the state.
As a fresh principality that was just been won or conquered by a previous hereditary monarchy, Machiavelli believes that there are three ways to be successful as a new leader. The first method is by destroying everything. Niccolo likes this method the best because there is a rare chance the people of the state would rebel against the new ruler. The second theory is to reside in the state. If the ruler were to live in the state, the people would praise his commitment and leadership, which gives the new prince more affection towards his citizens. The last idea Machiavelli believes should work within a new principality is to form a self-government that is both friendly to the prince and to the public. The people would praise him due to the public having a role in leadership to control what is going on in the state. According to Niccolo Machiavelli, if a prince were to use one of these three concepts towards his new state, he would maintain a controlled principality from a hereditary monarch.
The next attribute Machiavelli states the way a prince should act is concerning cruelty; should a prince be favoured if he is loved or if he is feared? Being loved by the citizens is very important and generally speaking it should be preferred over cruelty. Still, Niccolo believes that brutality is better for running a state due the fact that it brings peace and stability. Nevertheless, to bring peace and stability the prince must have enforced such cruel action so that he does not bring destruction to that area. People would eventually consider the prince rather kind because he did not bring any problems to the state. For example, rare executions will only affect a few people, but it is a good for the state because it gets people feared of their leader in a positive way. Machiavelli further discuses his opinion by stating if a prince was scared about his state collapsing, he would secure his role as a leader by being feared rather than being loved. Fear,