Compare And Contrast Thomas More Vs Machiavelli

What was wrong with Europe in the 1500’s? Why did most new governments fall within a couple of years? What if there was a way and a plan to fix the problems in these governments? Thomas More and Machiavelli both had the same thought when they created The Prince and Utopia, they wanted to share their opinions on how a government should be ruled. Even though More and Machiavelli wanted to achieve the same goal, have a stable government, they both had very different beliefs on how to do so.
Lets begin with human beliefs. Thomas More had very different beliefs than Machiavelli. He believed that humans are capable of being pure and being nearly perfect. This is why Utopia is centered around the fact that everyone equally contributes to improving …show more content…
More’s idea of a government is a democratic government where everyone is treated equally. In Utopia the power is in the hands of the people, they decide what they want to do. The government also does not own or control all of Utopia but rather the community as a whole, “Nobody owns anything but everyone is rich - for what greater wealth can there be than cheerfulness, peace of mind, and freedom from anxiety?” (More). In my opinion I don 't find the government of Utopia important since the citizens of Utopia are already willing to comply with the laws that they need to contribute equally, it seems as the government is there in case someone decides to not follow the laws and contribute to the society. Machiavelli’s idea of a government does not favor the people. Instead his government is centered around the prince. The prince made all of the decisions of the government. The role of the government in Machiavelli’s idea was to be a way to keep order of the state. It would be changed and manipulated by the prince for the situation. The prince also had to try to predict problems that could arise in the future, so he uses the government to make laws to prevent this, “It is necessary for him who lays out a state and arranges laws for it to presuppose that all men are evil and that they are always going to act according to the wickedness of their spirits whenever they have free scope” (Machiavelli). …show more content…
In Utopia, there is almost no need for war and if it were ever to occur the Utopians do not battle their foes. “ so that they hire soldiers from all places for carrying on their wars; but chiefly from the Zapolets... Great numbers of them will frequently go out, and offer themselves for a very low pay, to serve any that will employ them” (More. 146-147). Hiring these mercenaries is an excellent choice because it removes the risk of a utopian going out to war and being eliminated. This would keep the population stable thus keeping the society stable because everyone as a whole are important to keeping Utopia stable. Basically in Utopia, the role of an army and war is to stop enemies from taking over Utopia. On the other side of the fence, Machiavelli states that mercenaries are unreliable and should not be trusted. “ Mercenaries and auxiliaries are useless and dangerous; and if one holds his state based on these arms, he will stand neither firm nor safe...they have no other attraction or reason for keeping the field than a trifle of stipend, which is not sufficient to make them willing to die for you” (Machiavelli. 55-56). As you can see More and Machiavelli’s thoughts on paid troops are the complete opposite. I favor Machiavelli’s idea because safety should be number one and if you have people who cannot be