Analyzing Cicero's 'The Prince'

In The Prince, Cicero argues that it is best for a prince to be both loved and fear. However, this balance is very hard to maintain, therefore Cicero argues it is better for a prince to be feared than loved. Cicero explains that subjects are more likely to respect a leader if they fear him. He uses the examples of Hannibal and Scipio to display this. Hannibal was very cruel but very skilled, this resulted in his terrified soldiers respecting him. Scipio, on the other hand, was very skilled, but he was merciful, this resulted in his army rebelling against him as he did not have them under control. I do not agree with Cicero’s argument, that it is better to be feared than loved. I believe that it is better for a prince’s subjects to love him. As his subjects would be more willing to dedicate themselves to him and his decisions and will desire for him to remain in power longer. Cicero argues that if the prince can assure that his subjects do not grow to hate him, being feared is better than being loved. However, being feared and being hated closely overlap. Cicero claims that a prince will only become hated if he takes his …show more content…
The prince’s subjects would be more willing to dedicate themselves to the prince if they love him. When someone fears a leader, they go along with the leader’s decisions not because they want to, but because they are afraid to do anything different. This will cause the subject to not give as much effort or dedication into this decision because they may not agree with it. However, if the subjects love their prince or leader they will be more willing to help with and achieve the prince’s decision. This love of the prince will also allow him to remain in power easier. If subjects fear or hate their leader they will desire to have him removed from power. As this fear and hatred grow, the subjects will be more likely to act on these emotions in order to remove the prince from