Machiavelli's Classic Text example essay topic

Ever wonder why politicians are merciless dogs? Of course you have. Well, here's the answer. Machiavelli's classic text on acquiring and maintaining political power laid the foundation for modern politics, for better or for worse, and remains its bedrock. Machiavelli was an Italian patriot and a long-time member of the Italian hierarchy as a sort of political consultant, having been recently ejected from his position when he wrote this manual. Italy was then in a turbulent political situation, seemingly under attack from all quarters, and very unstable.

The author wrote this treatise and sent it to Lorenzo Medici -- the Prince, as it were, who was ultimately responsible for Machiavelli's dis pension. Such a loyal patriot was our good author that he actually wrote this book and sent it to him as a gift. Well, what does it contain? Just about everything that anyone would want to know about how to acquire political power, and how to keep it. Machiavelli covers just about every conceivable situation: how to rule a brand new land col only, or one that has been taken over; how a Prince should bear him or herself; how they should keep faith; how to maintain their army; how to keep tabs on the commoners and the nobles, and much more. He includes many maxims and principles that have been taken up time and time again in the nearly 500 years since the publication of this slim volume.

One need only look at the current political landscape to see just how inundated these principles have become in the political philosophies of our world leaders, e. g., Machiavelli's idea that it is better to go to war on your enemy's turf before they come to your own, in order to minimize losses, and his famous statement that it is better to be feared than to be loved -- but try your best not to be hated. Many have condemned the ideas and principles contained herein because they eschew moral and ethical standards in deference to pragmatic political gain. Well, wake up, folks. Politics is a dirty game and always has been. It is vicious, ruthless, and takes no prisoners -- a truly dog-eat-dog world. It is not for the faint of heart.

Machiavelli tried to tell us this 500 years ago; it's about damn time we started listening. The writing style used in the book is very, very simple, and it is extremely short. Machiavellis states his points, offers then-contemporary and also classical examples to justify his various points -- and then stops. I agree with what another reviewer said that, if this book was written today, especially by an academic, it would be much, much longer. Machiavellis states clearly what he wants to state, and spends no time on anything else: not a word in the text is wasted.

So, who would read this book? Well, if you are looking to enter the field of politics, or to assume a leadership position in general, then you probably already have. If not, you are probably wondering why you are failing. It is also an essential read for anyone in the fields of political science or Rennaisance literature. It is, also, a classic text, a long-surviving piece of Italian Rennaisance literature, and an easy, short, and worthwhile read for the general classical reader. With a great and widely-read book like this one, making fresh observations is difficult.

While some of the historical examples seem arcane, the basic principles expressed throughout are as true today as when the book went to press almost 500 years ago. Besides being applicable to politics, 'The Prince' can also be applied to business (especially in today's world) and even love. After all: 'All is fair in both love and war. ' Machiavelli himself was a very astute Italian politician during the Renaissance and not surprisingly, a womanizer too. He would most likely approve of the lasting popularity of his work despite the fact that during his own life, he tried to hush it up.

Page for page, no book in history has said more in fewer pages. Of all the books in the elite category of 'Must Read' this book stands out like a beacon. Those who complain that this book is boring only show that they do not understand what they are reading; they should read it once they are older than forty years. Originally this was his resume; presented to the new Prince of Florence, it succeeded in getting him reappointed to his old job. A few years later another revolt overthrew the Prince, and the Republic was re-established. But Machiavelli was out of a job again; the Republic refused him because of his collaboration with the Prince (who was put into power after the Holy League invaded the Republic).

Machiavelli's death left his family penniless; his son published what had been a private letter to earn money. 'The Prince' has been in continual publication for the last five centuries. The reason is the brilliance of his writing; he wrote what many knew to be the truth. His book is descriptive, not prescriptive; it describes what rulers have done, and explains the results of their actions. Most people instinctively choose 'the lesser evil'; Machiavelli was the first to clearly define this choice. Machiavelli's books were well-read though out the 18th century.

His claim that 'Rome fell because it depended on auxiliaries' is true, but that is more effect than cause. His works were well- known to those who wrote the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. While addressed to a ruler, it should be read by many people to understand their rulers. 'Watch what I do, not what I say' could have been said by one of Machiavelli's contemporaries. The most notable thing about this book is Machiavelli's devotion to a republican form of government, contrary to his reputation as a tool of despotism. Or could that be a form of censorship?

He did not claim 'the end justifies the means' as a general rule, or a license for the powerful, altho some will read it that way. Just as the feudal system survives today thru patronage and 'politics' (really 'personal relationships'), so too the examples cited by Machiavelli will always be relevant to 'Western Civilization'. Machiavelli says that a citizen army is superior to mercenaries (professionals) or auxiliaries (foreign troops). Does the history of the last 250 years prove his claim?

I wonder what he would say about our government's policy of using a professional army and disarming the citizens? (This is based on the 'Penguin Classics' version translated by George Ball. ).