In The Prince, Machiavelli writes on how a prince is to take power and how to maintain his position (Ryan, 2012, p.364). The concept of virtù is introduced, as an essential component that a prince must possess. It could be translated as the ability, quality or determination that secures political success (Ryan, 2012, p.375). Machiavelli finds an example of a virtuous prince in Cesare Borgia, described as a skillful leader who was only defeated by the negative effects of fortuna (Ryan, 2012, p.371). On the other hand, Agathocles is presented as a tyrant, whose form of ruling was dishonorable. He was freely elected by the citizens of Syracuse, and then made himself a tyrant, holding this position (Ryan, 2012, p.377). However, a close analysis
…show more content…
Machiavelli sees that the prince could not make a better contribution than to provide an "economy of violence", a method that would allow him to administer the precise amount of violence which will be appropriate to any situation (Wolin, 2004, p.198). From Machiavelli's point of view, Borgia was successful in his economy of violence, providing a cunning use of violence, whilst Agathocles seems to use it but with some limits. It could be interpreted that, Borgia was always a step ahead of the future threats he would face, and Agathocles tended to focus on the present conflicts. Using Machiavelli's example of the fox and the lion, it is clear that Borgia represents both animals and Agathocles was only a lion. As Machiavelli emphasized, "those who rely merely upon a lion's strength do not understand matters" (Machiavelli, Skinner and Price, 2009, p.61). This presents Agathocles as a ruthless tyrant, who did not possess the qualities of virtù, and this implied that gloria was not achieved. On the other hand, Borgia managed to maximize his qualities, making of himself complex and astute …show more content…
Therefore, the actions of the prince "should display grandeur, courage, seriousness, and strength" (Machiavelli, Skinner and Price, 2009, p.64). This was not the case of Agathocles, whose actions were not perceived as honorable. Even though Borgia was considered cruel, he kept his subjects united and loyal, for this reason, he did not worry about "incurring a reputation for cruelty"(Machiavelli, Skinner and Price, 2009, p.58). In this case, Machiavelli identifies the importance of using virtù in creating the prince's
Machiavelli sees that the prince could not make a better contribution than to provide an "economy of violence", a method that would allow him to administer the precise amount of violence which will be appropriate to any situation (Wolin, 2004, p.198). From Machiavelli's point of view, Borgia was successful in his economy of violence, providing a cunning use of violence, whilst Agathocles seems to use it but with some limits. It could be interpreted that, Borgia was always a step ahead of the future threats he would face, and Agathocles tended to focus on the present conflicts. Using Machiavelli's example of the fox and the lion, it is clear that Borgia represents both animals and Agathocles was only a lion. As Machiavelli emphasized, "those who rely merely upon a lion's strength do not understand matters" (Machiavelli, Skinner and Price, 2009, p.61). This presents Agathocles as a ruthless tyrant, who did not possess the qualities of virtù, and this implied that gloria was not achieved. On the other hand, Borgia managed to maximize his qualities, making of himself complex and astute …show more content…
Therefore, the actions of the prince "should display grandeur, courage, seriousness, and strength" (Machiavelli, Skinner and Price, 2009, p.64). This was not the case of Agathocles, whose actions were not perceived as honorable. Even though Borgia was considered cruel, he kept his subjects united and loyal, for this reason, he did not worry about "incurring a reputation for cruelty"(Machiavelli, Skinner and Price, 2009, p.58). In this case, Machiavelli identifies the importance of using virtù in creating the prince's