Niccolo Machiavelli example essay topic

Much of the concentration of the book is on the relationship between the prince and his peers active politic elite. Because ambition and desire for power drive such men, and they are by nature selfish and greedy beings, one must in turn to be aggressive and even ruthless in his methods if the wishes to gain and maintain power. Machiavelli feels that one must take direct action when ever able, and constantly exercise his power in order to maintain his political position. He goes on the state that shared power with others will never be effective because those others too are trying to attain power; since nobles are unforgiving, and driving by greed, it would be terribly dangerous, if not suicidal for a prince to rely of their good will and honesty.

At the same time, Machiavelli writes that one must not be hated by those he controls, as the people hold the true power, The best fortress a ruler can have is not the be hated by the people for is you posses fortresses and the people hate you, having fortresses will not save you. Upon reading The Prince, one of the first things the reader notices is the books strong structure and organization. Machiavelli supports virtually every statement with real historical examples and explanations, from times ranging from the Romans (which he obviously admired as most men of his time did) to his modern day. He organizes the book into twenty-six short chapters, each pertaining to a different aspect of how one should govern his state.

He also divided principalities in two types: hereditary principalities, where the family of a prince has ruled for many generations, and new principalities, which are either entirely new, or annexed. In presenting the main concepts of his book in such a defined format, Machiavelli makes his book easily accessible, and clearly gets his points across. Throughout The Prince, Machiavelli maintains a bias that it is impossible for a person to become strong and effective ruler without being immoral. Machiavelli states that it may be possible to become a strong leader, only when taking direct action against competitors.

He finds it to be very unlikely to achieve success for a weak and kind ruler. Machiavelli makes note of leaders who have been generous to their subjects, but he does not mention any that did so and were successful in their reign. This bias does not go so far as to discredit the book as an argument entirely, but actually makes it more as the list of own thoughts. Although Machiavelli was influenced while writing The Prince, much of what he wrote was true. He stated at length that in order for a prince to maintain his political standing, he must have the respect of his people. At the same time, he should not be hated and despised by them.

This has held true throughout the ages, for nearly every time a culture is held under the control of a belligerent dictator, it revolts, and a new government is formed. His ideas concerning ruthlessness and distrust, as unpleasant as they may be, proved to be all but necessary in living in the political world of modern Europe. To be a weak leader all to often meant to be no leader at all. Regardless of weather or not one does not support Machiavellis political philosophy; it is indeed a quality book. It does an excellent job of conveying one mans feelings, and well represents the views of his time. Therefore, it is even quite interested to read.

While Machiavelli may have intended The Prince to persuade the reader to believe that morals are a counter productive in a good leadership, Machiavellis cynical views may in fact lead the reader to develop a new respect for them. Niccolo Machiavelli was an intelligent politician who defined the science of politics. His book, The Prince, was the first of its kind. It explores not only the obtaining of power, but also maintaining power, which defines a strong leader from the rest. Machiavelli clearly writes about present human conditions not some ideal utopia. He uses logically arguments, is realistic in his approach, and reveals his deep understanding of the autonomy of politics.

Many of his ideas still hold true today, and have proven themselves true in the 20th century. I think that the book is excellent in its logic, especially if to take into account that it was written five centuries ago. Sources: Leo Strauss, Thoughts on Machiavelli (Chicago, 1995) George Bull, Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince (Penguin, 1999) Whitfield, J.H., Machiavelli (Oxford, 1947).