I know I made a thread about this before, but there are some new people here (einfach) and I would like to listen to their input.
What are your views on Machiavelli's "The Prince?" Are the points true?
It is true that people are afraid of change? The prince would lose all political status, as people who benefited from the old order will oppose it with great passion. The best way to keep support is to make promises that people do like, and at the very last moment, when you have full support, make change. People will be blind by the prince's charm.
The prince has to be charming, merciful, and religious. People love these qualities, therefore, you must appear to have them, even if you really don't. A bad reputation shouldn't matter; do everything you can to stay IN power.
The prince should be generous to his followers, but not risk economical problems for love, either. He shouldn't be a pushover; he should have power and a backbone. He should be feared, not hated, more than loved. Stalin and Bonaparte possessed these qualities. Both were successful.
The prince should keep his word, only when it benefits him. It is also advised to form alliances with powers usually weaker than you, for large powers do attempt to invade other territories, if I'm not mistaken; but you should also form alliances with powers that are stronger, if you are in a threatening position. A prince should be able to determine which alliances he should make, and when. This is true. The US does try to "liberate" other countries, forcing their allies to join in the fighting.
A prince should never change his mind, as that shows lack of decisiveness, a quality that you must have.
Congress declared war, not Bush. It was all Congress.
No one declared war on anyone.
The president is the commander in chief of the military. He can command the military into action when and where he so desires without congressional approval.
Machiavelli was not writing for satire. He wrote to get back in the good graces of the Medici clan (read the forward letter, 100% asskissing)
Perhaps it as a two-faced satire. Make it look like praise to the idiots he was satirizing. Either interpretation, however, says that it was not an accurate reflection of his views.
Why is it that the Roman Empire lasted centuries longer than Napoleon's Empire?
Look at the peoples around their empires. With the ROmans, it was a large number of Barbarians, and it took all of them ganging up to take out the Romans. With Napoleon, it was 4 or 5 industrialized nations that outnumbered him 3 to 1.
[quote]Look at the peoples around their empires. With the ROmans, it was a large number of Barbarians, and it took all of them ganging up to take out the Romans. With Napoleon, it was 4 or 5 industrialized nations that outnumbered him 3 to 1.[quote]
True, but even the populace didn't like Napoleon, they feared him. The Romans loved their rulers. Why is it that in the case of the Romans, love proves more effective than fear when Machiavelli explicitly states that fear is more efficient than love.
Well, he says fear used when necessary and love used when necessary are the best combination, but if you cannot juggle the two, use fear.
True, but even the populace didn't like Napoleon, they feared him. The Romans loved their rulers. Why is it that in the case of the Romans, love proves more effective than fear when Machiavelli explicitly states that fear is more efficient than love.
THe Romans never feared their Rulers. So when things went to hell, they went from love, to hate (and barbarian invasion).
Machiavelli was not writing for satire. He wrote to get back in the good graces of the Medici clan (read the forward letter, 100% asskissing)
I somewhat agree but it's very self contradictory and how much ***-kissing do you want to do to someone who destroys your reputation and tortures you? We also know it never did anything to get him into favors with the Medici
We know from his personal correspondence that it was written during 1513, the year after the Medici took control of Florence, and a few months after Machiavelli's arrest, torture, and banishment by the in-coming Medici regime.
Perhaps it as a two-faced satire. Make it look like praise to the idiots he was satirizing. Either interpretation, however, says that it was not an accurate reflection of his views.
Most likely, but we will probably never really know since we can't dissect his thoughts on the matter.
Look at the peoples around their empires. With the ROmans, it was a large number of Barbarians, and it took all of them ganging up to take out the Romans. With Napoleon, it was 4 or 5 industrialized nations that outnumbered him 3 to 1.
That's not the only or even the main thing that lead to the inevitable fall.
