A handbook for rulers of the italian city-states

There are three kinds of armies a prince can maintain: an army made up of citizens, an army of mercenaries paid soldiers , or a mixed army. Mercenaries, Machiavelli argues, are worthless and dangerous, impossible to rely on. This is because they have no love or loyalty to the prince, but are simply paid to fight for him and are therefore ready to turn against the prince if anyone pays them more.

A better idea would be for a prince to be captain of his own soldiers, and in the case of a republic for citizens to lead the armies themselves.

Chapters 13 and In fact, auxiliaries are even worse than mercenaries. Mercenaries, as we recall from the previous chapter, are hard to motivate — a paycheck is not enough to make a man willing to fight and die for a prince they care nothing about.

In the case of auxiliaries, they are actually loyal to someone else — and so, even if they win the battle, they may hand the victory over to their actual leader instead of the prince who has borrowed them.

As Machiavelli cleverly puts it, the danger with mercenaries is their cowardice, while the danger with auxiliaries is their courage. It is always better to fight with your own men — Cesare Borgia, for instance, used a small troop of his own men rather than a larger auxiliary army. The best way to gain and maintain power is through this knowledge, he claims, and without it a prince is sure to lose whatever he has.

Again, Machiavelli brings up Francesco Sforza see Chapter. Francesco became Duke of Milan because he was well armed, but his sons saw no need to study warfare, and soon lost their power. Machiavelli argues that no unarmed prince can ever be safe, because no armed man ever obeys an unarmed one. Thus, an un-military prince will always fail to have the support of his soldiers, his soldiers will then fail to protect him, and soon he will be prince no longer.

For this reason, a prince must practice the arts of war even more seriously in peace-time. Machiavelli describes the kind of training he has in mind: a prince should hunt, he should become as physically fit as possible, he should learn every detail of the landscape so that he can draw up battle plans better , and he should study military histories, particularly of great commanders Alexander the Great read about Achilles, Caesar read about Alexander, Scipio Africanus read about Cyrus.

Chapters 15 and Machiavelli begins this very notorious chapter by acknowledging that what he is about to write might surprise, and even offend people. However, he continues, it is better to give advice based on what the world is actually like, and the way that politics actually works, than to give idealized advice based only on what sounds nice.

He then lists a number of the qualities that can bring a prince praise liberality, mercy, trustworthiness, wisdom, etc. Obviously, he writes, it is better for a prince to be praised than blamed, and a prince would be loved completely by all his citizens if he actually possessed all of those praiseworthy qualities. The key, then, is that the prince should hide from the people those vices that he may have, and to make sure that he seems to have as many virtues as possible.

Machiavelli examines more carefully one of his oppositions of virtue and vice: liberality free giving and niggardliness unwillingness to give, or miserliness. Every prince would love to be considered liberal — but if a prince were really to give up his possessions freely, he would quickly ruin himself.

Better, Machiavelli writes, for a prince to be considered a miser for a while, so that he will be able to govern better and give his subjects more in the long term.

That way, he can have the reputation for generosity without breaking the bank! The people will understand. Chapters 17 and Every prince, Machiavelli points out, would rather be considered merciful than cruel. However, cruelty can have its advantages: Cesare Borgia, after all, committed numerous cruelties — but the end result was a united and strong principality.

A prince who cruelly punishes is not cruel if these punishments help to create political stability; a prince who is merciful is not really merciful if he allows disorders and crime to flourish, injuring everyone. What about the difference between being feared and being loved? Obviously, every prince would prefer to be loved than to be feared. Taking the realistic view, Machiavelli says that it is best to be both feared and loved, but the two do not often coincide.

If one had to choose, he argues, it is better and safer to be feared than to be loved. If a prince is feared, he is much less likely to have his subjects revolt; Machiavelli is not afraid to say that men are generally selfish, and will not hesitate to break the obligations of love when it is to their advantage.

Fear, however, keeps people in check. It certainly also possible for a prince to be feared and not hated, Machiavelli also points out, particularly when the prince uses his power to protect his citizens and does not interfere too often in their lives.

Since love is too insecure a foundation for government, this fear without hatred is the best a prince can hope to have from his citizens.

Like the previous two chapters, this one begins with a platitude: it is good for princes to keep their word. Again, though, Machiavelli writes this commonplace down only to question it. Yes, obviously a prince should not lie or act hypocritically and should also live with integrity. However, it is also the case that many princes who have not kept their word have accomplished great things, and have even conquered other princes who have kept their word faithfully.

Machiavelli points out that there are two kinds of fighting: according to the law and according to force. The former is the way of men, the second the way of beasts — but the best princes know how to use both the man and the beast in order to achieve political goals. The prince, he writes, should be able to imitate the cunning fox and the mighty lion — able to defend himself against attack, but also sneak around traps.

If a prince is to be fox-like, he must not be afraid to break his promises when keeping them would be harmful to him. It is not only a good idea to cheat and lie like the fox, but it is also crucial that the prince be able to disguise the fact that he is doing so. Men are easily deceived, Machiavelli writes, and gives the example of our friend Pope Alexander VI: he was so willing to break his promises when he needed to, that he was the most outspoken promiser there ever was.

Moreover, he asserts that seeming to have virtues is actually better than really having them, since a prince is therefore not tied by the bonds of morality.

Chapters 19 and A prince should above all avoid being hated, Machiavelli repeats. He can guard himself against the hatred of his citizens by never seeming frivolous, changeable, or shallow, and instead seeming to follow certain unwavering principles of upright morality exactly what Machiavelli warned the prince not to do in the previous chapter!

By behaving in this way, a prince will avoid the greatest political danger: revolt from within. Machiavelli argues that conspiracy and internal unrest is much more dangerous to a prince than attacks from external enemies. If a prince does not take care to avoid the hatred of his citizens, then, he will live in a state of constant fear.

In contrast, if a prince manages not to be hated, he can count on the goodwill of the citizens and ensure political stability. Machiavelli offers the example of France, where the parliament acts as a buffer between the king and the people, as well as a buffer between the king and the nobles.

By placing a certain amount of power in the parliament, and by making the parliament take over many of the most unpopular duties of rule, the king of France ensures that he never earns the hatred of the nobles or the people himself. He then moves on to discuss the examples of various Roman emperors -- all of whom, he claims, prove his point: that rulers are most in danger when they are hated by the people. This means, as we have seen, avoiding the reputation for doing evil deeds even though the prince will need, in actuality, to do such deeds.

Here, he adds another tricky point: that sometimes doing good deeds can also result in being hated by the people for example, being nice to a cruel army leader who is popularly loathed. Is it a good idea for a prince who comes into power in a state to take arms away from the citizens there? Surprisingly, Machiavelli says no. By taking arms away from the people, he reasons, a prince will make himself look cruel and harsh, encouraging discontent among his subject. By doing the opposite — giving arms to the people — the prince will actually make himself safer, since the people will be grateful and more loyal.

However, as usual, there are some exceptions to this rule. When a prince adds a new territory to his old state, he must disarm all the citizens in that annexed territory, except those who helped him to gain power — and he must also make sure that his own soldiers are more powerfully armed than any of his new subjects. Machiavelli offers some additional advice about governing a newly-annexed territory.

A prince in such a position, as we remember, can never be entirely safe. There are, however, some ways in which he can make himself more secure. He might also try to earn the friendship of those who were his greatest opponents when he came into power friends who used to be enemies, he argues, are often more trustworthy than others, because they wish to compensate for their earlier hostility.

The flip side of this, of course, is that the prince must always suspect those men who rebelled against their previous ruler to help him gain power, since they are usually the kind of men who will always be dissatisfied with their prince.

What about fortresses? Should a prince build them around his state? However, he also points out that some rulers have actually become more powerful after destroying their fortresses. Once again, the best strategy is to do what works best in a particular circumstance.

But as a general rule, Machiavelli argues that princes who fear foreigners most should not have fortresses, while princes who fear their own people most need fortresses. What does he mean? Well, he argues that if a prince has the support of the people, he will have no need of fortresses against the enemy, since the people will help him fight.

Chapters 21, 22, and This chapter begins with a seemingly obvious point: a prince gets a reputation for greatness by doing great things. King Ferdinand of Spain, for instance, turned himself into a famous and powerful king by undertaking extraordinary projects: he attacked the Islamic Moors, and by building up his military and waging a holy war, he augmented his own power and reputation for greatness.

Other rulers have given demonstrations of greatness in their conduct of domestic politics. As a general rule, Machiavelli advises the prince to avoid neutrality in domestic and foreign affairs — neutrality often leads to weakness, and it is better to support one side or the other.

If he has competent and fair secretaries and ministers, he will usually be thought of as wise and good himself. How can a prince know who to choose as a minister? Machiavelli offers a rule of thumb: if a man is selfish and seeks his own profit above all things, he will probably not be a good minister. Good ministers must be willing to think of the prince first, always and in every case.

This works two ways, however; the prince, if he wishes to keep his good minister, must always be willing to give the minister honors, riches, and other kinds of gratification.

Like the prince and his people, the prince and his ministers should exist in an ideal interdependence, since each needs the other. A prince should take care to choose as ministers men who love him above themselves — but not men who are flatterers. The court, writes Machiavelli, is full of flatterers, and it is hard for a prince to avoid them. One way to guard against flatterers is for the prince to encourage all men to tell the truth without fear of giving offense — but if all men are permitted to speak the truth to the prince, they will no longer respect him.

The book has caused passionate debates and controversy since the day it was published and it appears that it will continue to do so.

When The Prince was published, Italy was not a unified country but a compilation of city states that were all fighting to gain power over one another. Machiavelli was greatly influenced and interested in the complicated nature of European politics. Originally, Machiavelli played a large role in the anti-Medici government. When they came back into power Machiavelli was arrested and charged with conspiracy.

He denied having anything to do with this and was eventually released. He did not write The Prince for literary acknowledgement but alternatively wrote it to prove his proficiency on government in the western world and to offer advice on how to gain power and keep it efficient. Machiavelli strongly believed in the requirement of a strong leader in order to maintain domination for the benefit of citizens and not for individual advancement.

As a result, he says that it would be best to be feared and not loved. It is better to be feared then loved because as a leader it is your responsibility is to control and run the state and Machiavelli feels that to do so you need complete obedience from your people.

Machiavelli does not believe in cruelty and he only warrants it for military use. This is because he believes that if you have a good military then you will have good laws.

Machiavelli was a traditional yet flexible thinker and writer who raised strong emotions in his literary works. He developed very insightful political concepts and theories outlined in The Prince. His theories on governing people have influenced historical and modern leaders. Born in Florence in , Machiavelli was intrigued with Florentine politics and government.

His state administrative work in Florence took him on diplomatic missions to France and Rome. Outside the influence of the Medici family, Florence was ripe for Machiavelli to develop his political and military theories. Machiavelli was arrested and tortured, and he remained in prison for a year before being exiled to his estate just outside of Florence. With the hope of gaining recognition and a position in the Medici regime, Machiavelli began work on his political treatise, The Prince.

He had witnessed much upheaval in the local and foreign political arena. This, he believed, gave him a unique perspective and allowed him to evaluate and comment on governmental affairs. The theories he developed in The Prince were derived from his observation of the successes and failures of the ruling class.

The Prince is a practical guide for newly appointed rulers. In particular, Machiavelli advises rulers to cultivate favourable public opinion, secure the support of the people, and achieve specific goals. His ultimate goal was remarkable--unification of the Italian city states.

Machiavelli does not counsel rulers to be arbitrary and cruel for the purpose of personal gain. He was highly critical of foreign rulers, such as King Ferdinand of Spain, who were needlessly brutal to their subjects. Such conduct may lead to power, but not glory. Machiavelli argues that loyalty, trust, and obedience cannot be fostered if rulers mistreat their subjects over a long period of time.

It is only justifiable to use extensive means if there are clear benefits in sight. To Machiavelli, The Prince was certainly a failure because it did not result in the praise and respect he expected from the ruling class.

The book was promptly confiscated. The Medicis did not acknowledge his intellectual discourse nor did they grant him political favours. Furthermore, his book was not published until five years after his death and Italy did not unite for another years. This does not, however, minimize the impact of his thesis.

Since publication, ruthless political leaders, such as Hitler and Stalin, have cited the text to justify the most heinous conduct. Although Machiavelli did not intend his treatise to raise complex ethical questions, it has remained the subject of debate since its publication in While his ideas were offered as practical advice to new rulers, they have since been used to rationalize ruthless political and business ventures. Does the end always or ever justify the means?

Are there acts that we must not commit, as a human being or as a nation, whatever positive result we hope to achieve? On his deathbed, he told friends that he would prefer to go to hell, discussing politics with the wise men of history, than to go to heaven with boring saintly souls. When printed copies became widely available after , the Catholic Church banned it as an evil work.

They believe he described how the world of politics really operates. The French philosopher Rousseau thought The Prince was a service to the people, putting them on guard against the secrets of tyrants.

Some believe that modern political science began with The Prince , which made the security and interest of a nation the highest priority of its leader. Machiavelli wrote The Prince not just to get his old job back, but also to spark the liberation of Italy from foreign occupation. Above all, Machiavelli was a patriot. Play the role of Machiavelli and write a letter to Cesare Borgia, telling him where he went wrong. Do you believe Machiavelli was basically evil or good? Form small discussion groups to evaluate the hypothetical presidential decisions listed below.

The groups should discuss and answer the following questions for each presidential decision:. The president promises never to lie to the American people. The president recommends unilaterally canceling a foreign trade agreement because it is costing American jobs.

The president wants Congress to restore the military draft. The president orders the CIA to use torture to get information from suspected terrorists. After the groups have finished their discussions, they should debate with each other the answers to the questions on the presidential decisions. Encarta: Renaissance. Wikipedia: Renaissance. InfoPlease: Renaissance. Citizendium: Renaissance. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Renaissance.

Open Directory Project: Renaissance. Yahoo Directory: Renaissance. Encarta: Medici. Catholic Encyclopedia: House of Medici. History of the Medici Family. Google Directory: Medici. Yahoo Directory: Medici Family. Wikipedia: The Prince. CliffsNotes: The Prince. NovelGuide: The Prince. SparkNotes: The Prince. Google Books: The Prince. Institute for Learning Technologies: The Prince. Medieval Sourcebook: The Prince. How do you say Italian marica in English? What is 'Italian pride' in Italian?

What is a person from Italian Switzerland called in Italian? What clothing does Italy bring to Australia? Study Guides. Trending Questions. What's the most outdated thing you still use today? Is it better to take a shower in the morning or at night? What scramble words can you make with these letters a i t o r? Is it illegal to destroy other people's mail? Still have questions? Find more answers. Previously Viewed. What is a handbook for rulers of the Italian city-states which advised them to use a mixture of cunning diplomacy and ruthlessness?

Unanswered Questions. Is it advantageous or disadvantageous to use one pipette throughout the dilution process and why? What is the exposition in the story The Maguindanao Pearls?

The sketch above shows a component which is stamped out of sheet steel The square in the center is discarded These components are stamped out of a continuous steel coil with a width of 70 cms The s? What is the conflict of the story The Maguindanao Pearls? What Latino American psychologists studies showed cultural bias on intelligence tests? What do you call a rattle snake on a cold and blustery day? Get the Answers App.