Good Prince example essay topic

How does Machiavelli define the state? What is involved in the formation of the state according to Machiavelli? What are the relevant contrasts between Machiavelli's state described in The Prince and Aristotle's Polis? Machiavelli's definition of state is that in which an institution holds authority over man.

In The Prince, Machiavelli discusses the state, what is involved in its formation, and his concept on the end of politics. I will discuss these things and contrast Machiavelli's view on the end of politics with Aristotle's view on the end of politics. The formation of a principality has usually been hereditary where rulers are established within the family but there are other kinds of principalities: constitutional, composite, and ecclesiastical. A constitutional principality is formed through the people or nobles. The people "crown" one of their own as prince to represent them against the nobles or the nobles "crown" one of their own against the people. It is far easier to be for the people than against them because if you have their respect, then all they want is to not be oppressed.

On the other hand, if the prince is against the nobles he may have to face active opposition but in the end, the people are more important because they are unchanging whereas the prince can make and unmake the nobles everyday. An ecclesiastical principality is maintained by religious institutions. The prince possesses states but does not defend them and has subjects but does not govern them. Instead, they are controlled by a higher power that is over man-God. Through the Church, the Pope maintains power with a great army, his goodness and countless other virtues. In a composite principality, the old is mixed in with the new.

What I mean by this is that 1 when a new ruler comes to the forefront to an old state, he is compelled to subject the people to his ways-establishing his troops and imposing his laws. He comes out looking like a "bad idea" rather than a good one because the people were not anticipating the changes imposed on them. So Machiavelli says that if a new ruler wants to keep his new possessions then he has to keep two things in mind: for one, the family of the old prince has to be destroyed and two, he should not change the people's law or taxes. The new principality will be composite or mixed. How is a new principality acquired? Machiavelli says that a new principality is acquired by fortune or prowess.

He says that fortune is perhaps responsible for half the things that happen and that we know this through our experiences that are not under our control. He compared fortune to a violent river where the river is enraged, powerful, and unpredictable as it damages anything in its way. Then he equates a quiet river with free will by saying that when a river is quiet it is not impossible for one to regulate it by constructing dykes and embankments in order to prevent it from causing damage in the future. He is saying that we may be able to hinder fortune.

A prince should not solely depend on fortune for if it changes he comes to grief. A prince who wants to be prosperous should make policies that suit the times. By whatever a prince chooses his means of obtaining his ends, one has to know when it is time to be circumspect or when it is time to be impetuous. When Pope Julius II was in rule he was impetuous. Machiavelli believes his success was existent upon his impetuousness that agreed with the time and circumstances that he faced as ruler. For example, he expedited Bologna.

He was able to do this because it was mistrusted and the Venetians and Spain were 2 ill-prepared and afraid. The weaker powers gave in to him. He maximized his power and authority. #"A prudent man must always follow in the footsteps of great men and imitate those who have been outstanding". The most difficult thing in sustaining a new principality is the actual keeping of it.

A prince's prowess should be greater than his reliability on fortune so that he can strengthen and maintain his rule. #"It should be borne in mind that there is nothing more difficult to handle, more doubtful of success, and more dangerous to carry through than initiating changes in a state's constitution". He mentions Cyrus, Theseus, Romulus, and Moses as good examples of men who through their own abilities and prowess, acquired and founded kingdoms. A prince who possess prowess knows that in order to gain and keep power and authority he has to know when to use force to maintain persuasion of the people even when they lose it-all armed prophets have conquered while unarmed prophets have come to grief. A strong principality is one in which the city is well-fortified. A prudent prince will have a strong army and the respect of his people to carry him through if he is faced with opposition.

Machiavelli stresses the importance of good armies and good laws as the foundation of a state. Good laws are influenced by good armies because armies are the enforcement that is needed to rule a principality efficiently. Machiavelli says that a prince's arms are based on his own, a mercenary, auxiliary, or composite. He says that mercenaries and auxiliaries are the most dangerous and wise princes would not prefer them because they will never help to maintain stability and security within the state-mercenaries are too cowardly and auxiliaries are too bold. Instead, a wise prince would rather to use his own forces to execute a "true victory". Composite troops are troops that are partially citizen and partially mercenary.

Cesare Borgia was the 'master of his armies' and Machiavelli talks about him as being a wise ruler because he made the right decisions when it came down to his army. Borgia used auxiliaries for his invasion of Romagna and when he thought they were unsafe he turned to mercenaries. He then felt they were also unsafe so he built his own forces. His prudence gave him the power and security to be a good ruler. Machiavelli believes that virtues are important and are linked to acquisition. A good prince has virtues that help him to acquire what he needs to maintain power and stability.

They must show and be recognized or they would not be virtues because the people can not acknowledge them as 'good'. This is why virtues are that in which a prince is reputed for and not exactly his virtues. Prudence is most important because it is wisdom that a prince needs to make good decisions for the state. He has to be able to know when being good is bad and being bad is good because either or can make him or break him such as being generous or compassionate. Machiavelli says that it is okay to have these virtues but since they are 'good' they may go unnoticed so one should get used to being referred to as the opposite. Cesare Borgia was considered cruel but he brought unity to Romagna and restored order and obedience.

4 Machiavelli's ends of politics is simple-power. Power is the ends of politics-to acquire it and maintain it through rule. In chapter 8 in The Prince, Machiavelli supports this view with an example of power by crime. The first example was of a man name Agathocles. He was a private citizen who lived a life of crime but ended up becoming a civil officer of Syracuse. He was determined to acquire the power he felt was before him.

He and his army had the senators and richest citizens killed. He was besieged by Carthaginians but ended up making a pact with them. He won his principality but can not be considered one of prowess because there is nothing 'good' about killing and betraying your own people. Aristotle's views on the end of politics was that the Polis was the foundation for politics. The polis would be a good city and have good people because it is the best place to live politics and virtue. It is where a citizen could participate in activities within their nature that maximizes the practice of a 'good' life.

A citizen can be a good man and practice his virtues. Politics is a way of life and one's virtues are embedded within the polis. Machiavelli would not agree with this because he thinks that the state's purpose is through acquisition of power. In the end, people need to be ruled and want to be ruled by a good ruler. Aristotle's virtuous leader would not match up with Machiavelli's prudent leader. Aristotle thinks that a good leader has to be a good man first (especially the virtue of prudence) while Machiavelli thinks that a good ruler has to have a reputation for being good, not necessarily a good man but for the sake of what is needed of him and for the respect of his people.

I agree more with Machiavelli because I believe that power is the means of 5 politics even though views of Aristotle such as a good citizen can not be a good man is proven true. It is in our human nature to seek and acquire what we need as well as desire; and we do so through politics.