In the excerpt from “The Prince” by Niccolo Machiavelli, Machiavelli does not make rules, but creates guidelines for those who want to be rulers in the renaissance time period. In this time period Italy did not have a central government; it consisted of city-states that each had a ruler. These city-states fought all the time to show who had the most power. This often resulted in the destruction of city-states. Princes in this time were generalized in two ways. Either the ruler was liberal or the ruler was cruel.
A liberal ruler is loved by his subjects due to the fact that he does not harshly treat his subjects. The liberal ruler also does not steal from the subjects to help expenses. However, being liberal has its flaws. If wartime is approaching many men would not be subjected to fear and had the option of ultimately leaving the military in case of danger. This is where being cruel comes in handy. If the ruler is cruel he will instil …show more content…
Machiavelli stated if it is possible the prince should be both. However, the fact that we are humans makes this impossible. So, one should be feared than loved. If one is feared than he can realistically rule a kingdom. The kingdom will not be subjected to rebellions because if one rebels they will be hung right away. However, if one is loved it will be easy to fool and can cause civil wars. Those that are nice cannot rule a nation because being feared by the subjects puts the whole kingdom in order. An example of a ruler that was feared during the renaissance was Cesare Borgia (1431-1503). Son of Pope Alexander VI, used his father’s help to unify the central states known as the Romagna into one single state. Borgia is a prime example of cruelty overcoming being loved. Loved rulers such as Julius Caesar was doing well in Rome and fought for his nation, but if he did not die he would have destroyed his government (according to
A liberal ruler is loved by his subjects due to the fact that he does not harshly treat his subjects. The liberal ruler also does not steal from the subjects to help expenses. However, being liberal has its flaws. If wartime is approaching many men would not be subjected to fear and had the option of ultimately leaving the military in case of danger. This is where being cruel comes in handy. If the ruler is cruel he will instil …show more content…
Machiavelli stated if it is possible the prince should be both. However, the fact that we are humans makes this impossible. So, one should be feared than loved. If one is feared than he can realistically rule a kingdom. The kingdom will not be subjected to rebellions because if one rebels they will be hung right away. However, if one is loved it will be easy to fool and can cause civil wars. Those that are nice cannot rule a nation because being feared by the subjects puts the whole kingdom in order. An example of a ruler that was feared during the renaissance was Cesare Borgia (1431-1503). Son of Pope Alexander VI, used his father’s help to unify the central states known as the Romagna into one single state. Borgia is a prime example of cruelty overcoming being loved. Loved rulers such as Julius Caesar was doing well in Rome and fought for his nation, but if he did not die he would have destroyed his government (according to