The Prince is more of a manual for successful leadership than a book. It was the first book written that made no mention of God and was considered controversial at the time for its lack of morals. The Prince describes the two main types of government: monarchies (dictatorships) and republics. Machiavelli's focus in The Prince is on monarchies. In his book Machiavelli describes in a very mechanical (orderly) way how one can get to power and maintain it, he explains what one must do to maintain one's power. Machiavelli describes some qualities that will lead to the downfall of a prince. He also describes other qualities that will allow him to succeed. The interesting part of all this is that the qualities we find most moral in people are the ones that will lead to the downfall of the prince in Machiavelli's eyes. As he says, once in power a prince must do everything in his power to maintain that power. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Machiavelli was born in Italy in 1468. Italy at the time of his birth was in a state of political chaos, Italy was not as united as we know it today. Very little is known about his early life, his childhood is believed to be average. He was not noticed until the year 1450 when he was chosen for a post of secretary and second chancellor of the Florentine republic. He was a realist who believed in ruthless means. His political ideas were different from those of the time. His ideal leader was someone who could unify Italy under one flag, and this is one of the reasons behind writing The Prince. The main reason Machiavelli wrote The Prince was to unify Italy. He wanted to encourage Magnifico to unite Italy. During the Renaissance many writers were students of history, as Machiavelli was. This leads to his fanatical belief that a unified nation would be as omnipotent as the Romans were. He hoped that by writing the Prince he would influence Magnificent to unite Italy and drive out the barbarian invaders from Italy. Machiavelli's views are sometimes considered vile, opportunistic (like stabbing someone in the back to achieve or maintain power), and calculating. And yes, they are, but the truth is that they worked then and will work until the end of time. Machiavelli wrote with a level of uniqueness and candor that was unmatched at the time. The Prince is devoid of any sign of morality because this was his way of thinking (about life and politics), he was very calculating and this shines through in his writings. Machiavelli was an author who wanted his words not only to be read but to be put into practice. . This is why The Prince reads like a manual and is easy to understand, its principles can be put into practice immediately. His writing was in stark contrast to that of his peers. For example, the humanist believed that an ideal prince was ethical. Machiavelli believed this was impossible and wanted to portray political leaders as they truly were. Machiavelli is frank with his ideas and clearly states that morality hinders successful leadership. It provides examples of why a ruthless leader is a “better” leader in terms of efficiency. He provides that analogy that a leader must sometimes act as the decisive lion or sometimes as the elusive fox. He states that a prince cannot be inhibited by morality if he hopes to do his job well (in the Machiavellian sense). But Machiavelli also warns that the prince, despite being ruthless, must avoid being hated at all costs. According to Machiavelli there is a fine line to walk when making decisions. In chapter 19 he quotes the phrase “people forget morequickly the death of the father than the loss of their inheritance". Machiavelli states ways not to be overthrown, such as not taking a man's property. He spends time focusing on this because any thug can gain power through ruthless slaughterall, but not will be able to maintain his power in the long term. Machiavelli's ideal prince is ruthless and slaughters people when necessary, but he/she is more than a thug, they are cunning and manipulative and are in it for the long term that his writing of the Prince would influence and enlighten future princes to stand the test of time Machiavelli does not take credit for formulating the ideas, he merely wrote what the leaders of the past had. fact that worked and didn't work and combined them into one manual. I enjoyed reading the Prince; it is an original piece of work with uniqueness to it. What Machiavelli did was analyze the past rulers and the current ones of his time period and create a leadership manual based on that. He basically did something similar to genetic engineering and created what he thought was the supreme ruler free from morality. In his definition of a successful prince we can see inventions of Caesar, Alexander the Great, Kahn, God and Satan. I personally like Machiavelli's philosophy on free will, but it is imperfect. He has a soft deterministic view or a “have your cake and eat it” view on free will. It states that half is controlled luck (by god/kismet) and half is free action. If we look at this philosophy a little more closely we can find the flaw. In theory, if you know everything about something, then it is predictable, even God would know the end result (hard determinism). However, if we have free will, this means we are unpredictable because God does not know the end result and neither do we nor science (spontanism). Machiavelli's philosophy is quite interesting, it is very similar to his writings in the sense that he tries to do what a prince would do to appease both sides without appearing weak on the surface. When I look at the world today I can see some of Machiavelli's principles everywhere. When I think of a ruler who fits the "Machiavellian" complex I imagine Kim Jong II. Kim Jong rules with an iron fist without ever showing weakness, he is cold and calculating. He uses his arsenal of weapons to persuade others to do what he wants. It also follows one of Machiavelli's principles almost exactly. Machiavelli states that a ruler must appear stingy and show only generosity towards his troops. Jong does this perfectly: he lets his people starve, while always feeding his army. He also knows when to use force or diplomacy. Some people consider Jong to be crazy, but for some reason his people don't overly reject him. He does everything right to maintain his power, he keeps his people in check by ruling with fear rather than trust, he limits their access to information, so they have no point of reference to call him a bad or good leader. I sometimes use Machiavellian tactics to a lesser extent, covertly, you might say. Very few people know the real Chuck. If it is to my advantage, I will represent myself in a way that is pleasing to that particular person. I like to manipulate people to my advantage, but in a covert way so that they are almost unaware of it, usually by getting them to do something I should be doing and then taking credit for their work. Yes, it might be wrong but hey, it works in this world. And at this point in my life I don't care how many people or how many bridges I burn on my way to success, but I've truly never had anyone tell me 2003