Machiavelli writes The Prince with the intention of teaching how to rule and his work is known and respected worldwide. He talks a lot about the manipulation of fear in a prince’s favor. He argues that fear can be used to maintain power and is not necessarily a bad thing. He also argues that you do not have to be loved as long as you are not hated. I think this is interesting because all of the other works we read and discuss in class only seem to talk about being liked. We spent a lot of time talking about charisma and how important it was that a great leader had charismatic qualities that include being likable. So I think it’s interesting that Machiavelli does not put that much emphasis on that like the other authors.
I also think it’s interesting how Machiavelli argues that in order for a new prince that is taking over a free state or a prince that comes to power through violence should destroy not wound. I completely agree with him on this issue even though it may seem cruel or harsh. People who once knew freedom will not take kindly to being ruled by a prince so it is important that you destroy their sense of freedom so that they do not rebel. The same goes for a prince who has seized power through violence. they must destroy all of the people who were in power before to prevent rebellions as well.
Machiavelli’s writing is so interesting to me as he does not really seem to sugarcoat things. Nor does he try to talk about things as they would be in a perfect world (kings being perfect and making amazing decisions for the good of the people). Instead, he focuses on what would make a leader effective as a whole.
Although it is cruel like you said, taking power from a once free group does call for or has called for destruction in history. This could be seen with colonization and the clearing of Native Americans in the U.S.
I think the point you made about members of a population having a difficult time adapting to a new form of ruling is very true and led me to think about the example we heard in class today–when there is cultural lag it makes sense to wait for the older generations to die out so that it is not necessary to instill new values into them. Although I don’t think it is ethical to go into a city and kill the civilians in order to dominate control, it is true that complete autocratic rule can only be successful once the entire population is in agreeance.
I agree with the point you made about being loved is not necessary if you are feared or respected and that it contradicts a lot of what we’ve learned so far. I thought it was interesting how Machiavelli mentioned that in order to rule acquired land efficiently you must show dominance, emphasizing how it is better to be feared than loved.