Critical Analysis of Machiavelli’s Argument in The Prince

The Prince of Machiavelli has been a controversial book since its publication, but has had

notable influences throughout history. Machiavelli himself was heavily influenced by the

complex processes of European politics. The prince was written as a political handbook for

rulers and has been used and abused in this way for centuries.

The Prince, composed by Niccolo Machiavelli, is one of the principal trial of legislative issues

and science from a simply logical and objective perspective. Machiavelli conjectures that a state

is possibly made when its kin endeavor to cooperate and to support themselves. The state is

additionally one of the best human undertakings, and the state overshadows all the other things.

The state should keep up state power, which is its primary concern. The state depends on military

force. Henceforth, a solid armed force is fundamental for help the country. Machiavelli accepts

that men regard power yet will utilize goodness. He says that whenever the chance presents itself

it should be totally annihilated. Else it will be annihilated without a doubt. The ruler should lead

a military and be savvy. A successful government official can settle on brisk and shrewd choices

about the issues that keep coming up before him. It should have temperance as well. The

sovereign can't be unreliable in light of the fact that instability is an indication of shortcoming.

Bliss controls half of human conduct and people control the other half. Uprightness is the best

protection against property, and goodness ought to be utilized to restrict property. The rulers

should possibly exploit the circumstance to check whether it is better for the country. The rulers

can't address whether their activities are good or improper, however should act unbiasedly for the

country (Nwaigbo 2016).

Machiavelli tried to give Lorenzo de Medici a reasonably simple and easily understandable

instruction. The prince was written to demonstrate Machiavelli's experience in leadership roles

and to provide guidance on how to gain well-organized power. He firmly believed that strong

rulers should maintain their authority for the good of the residents and the betterment of their

rulers. Machiavelli wrote his political treatise The Prince in the hope of gaining recognition and a

position in the Medici government. He observed regional and political unrest in politics and felt

that he had a unique perspective from which to express his opinion on government affairs.

The main question discussed by Machiavelli: "Is it better for the prince to be loved or scared?"

(Machiavelli 2014). Machiavelli says that it is better to receive love and fear at the same time

because you cannot do both at the same time. He insisted that it was better to fear than love. As a

leader, he says, because it is his responsibility to run and oversee the country well. He felt that

the only way to achieve this was through the full conformity of his people. Machiavelli did not

believe in cruelty and believed that it should only be used for military purposes. One of his most

famous quotes, “The presence of a strong army indicates the existence of a strong law”, helped

explain his position (Machiavelli 2014; The Prince, ch. 12). He admitted that the Prince could

not be hated, otherwise it would lead to his failure. He advised it because he believed that

people's loyalty was a better defense than building a fortress.

The Prince is a realistic guide for newly elected leaders. Machiavelli believed that a leader able

to adapt policies and methods would succeed and those who did not would fail. He advised the

new leaders to seek public opinion and achieve certain goals. The most important of his goals

was the annexation of the Italian city-states. Although it is argued that what Machiavellian

means “the end justifies the means” (Machiavelli 2014; The Prince, ch. 18), it is actually

incorrect and too simply translated. He did not command the new rulers to be cruel for their own
good, but vice versa. He did not respect rulers like King Ferdinand of Spain. Because he was

needlessly cruel to his people. He believed that these actions might empower new leaders, but

should not necessarily honor them. He argued that people in oath were mistreated over time and

failed to foster loyalty and faith.

In The Prince, the result of the activity is significant. Anything should be possible to propel the

objective of getting and shielding the ruler's force, including murder, affecting battles between

residents, purchasing brief devotion, and conspiracy. Indeed, it is suggested. From a

Machiavellian perspective, the conservation of the state ensures such measures in light of the fact

that the state needs them to ensure the security, harmony and request of its kin (Nwaigbo 2016).

He compares the ruler's aspirations and individuals' requirement for request and considers the to

be as integral. Perhaps thus, and this condition is only an egotistical road for the individuals who

need ability to shield themselves against treachery. How much the methods for advancing

Machiavelli in The Prince are legitimized by the objective and whether these methods truly bring

an objective remaining parts open.

Machiavelli continually discusses the Roman Empire and its rulers. Specifically, he features the

significance of having a solid military power and mainstream uphold from the military and

individuals. The Roman head has demonstrated on numerous occasions that rulers, seen as

feeble, are the most defenseless against assault. Alexander Severus was constrained by his mom

and thought about a lady by his military. He was an extraordinary pioneer, yet it was the

presence of those shortcomings that drove his military to execute him. Another illustration of an

awful guideline is Antonio Caracalla. He was an extraordinary hero and an extremely incredible

military pioneer (Nwaigbo 2016). Unfortunately, he ultimately turned into an extraordinarily

unfeeling and extreme ruler, for which he was slaughtered by the centurion. Machiavelli
additionally remembers the Italian state for a large portion of his works. He desires to get back

the land that was taken from them. He feels that the Italian rulers have lost their country since

they have not equipped individuals. "The equipped populace is a steady populace," says

Machiavelli. Indeed, even the Italian rulers didn't go about as quick as a regal sovereign ought to.

Julius II acted rapidly and Machiavelli made it a triumph. Indeed, the reason for Machiavelli's

compositions on The Prince was to help Italy get away from unfamiliar control.

The prince who received the respect or praise of the board of directors did not give the results

that Machiavelli desired. His book was quickly confiscated. Medici did not accept his academic

discussions and received no favors. Machiavelli's book was not published immediately. Five

years after his death, it took around three hundred years to unite Italy. That didn't make his

argument any less valid. Over the years, soulless political leaders like Hitler have cited this book

as an explanation of injustice or wrongdoing. Some people in social or business circles argue that

Machiavelli embodies the principle that winning is important regardless of how you win.

Machiavellian is a man known for being evil, cunning, unethical, deliberate, resourceful, and

dishonest. Machiavellian may not have been like that at all, but his work has made others known

in Machiavellianism if they seek power at a price.

References

Machiavelli, N., 2014. The prince and other writings. Simon and Schuster.

Nwaigbo, A., 2016. “Moral dualism” in Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince: a critical

analysis. Sophia: An African Journal of Philosophy, 16(2), pp.51-59.