The Prince by Niccollo Machiavelli was written, apparently, to guide those in power at the time the book was written. It serves as a tool to keep any territory in order by addressing many types of establishments and predicaments a “prince,” or a ruler, could get into. It uses the successes and failures of famous and infamous rulers as evidence to correct the actions of some and to commend others. Some of the ideas, such as killing off anyone who conspires against you, clearly are brutal and inhumane. However, around the time Machiavelli wrote it, Europe warred against itself tumultuously. Any “princes” reading this book would have good reason to be violent, simply to defend themselves. The guidelines presented in The Prince may not be applicable …show more content…
If any mercy is shown by the prince to his enemies, or he fails to completely rid himself of them, either by killing them or ruining them, then for sure they shall retaliate and possibly destroy the prince in the process. Additionally, if the people favored the rival more than said ruler, then the citizens could rebel. The Prince specifically states that the favor of citizens is extremely important, possibly even more so than that of the nobility. Therefore, it seems rational to completely annihilate any competitors, while still doing it in a way to keep the commoners from rebelling. To retain a nation, the author writes, one must also appear pious and kind to the commoners, though powerful and intimidating. He says that it is “better for a prince to be feared than loved.” The rulers must extinguish rebellions for their own safety, and because apparently intimidation frightens people from retaliating, the people must fear them. Fright dampens bravery, and therefore the defiant, like in so many countries even today that keep their people enveloped in …show more content…
If they lack provision for a disaster, then, Machiavelli says, disaster will come to them. Their role in society solely revolves around control of everyone else, and if one factor disfavors them, it could signify an end to their rule, if not their life. A sudden slip could ruin them, or a misdirection of their attention. For example, a ruler might think that inviting foreign rulers or making alliances with powerful countries might help them. In fact, it may be a vice. Hezekiah invited the Babylonian king to his palace, and later the Babylonians took his city along with all its precious items, possibly because Hezekiah unwisely flaunted the richness of his kingdom.
This probably was all the more true for Europe at the time. So many small territories and large ones competing against each other could mean that if one state made too many powerful friends, one of the allies could turn against them. The author seems to suggest using friendly alliances with weaker countries to an advantage, namely to do the action mentioned above, or to engulf the weaker territory instead of protecting