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 at the time it was considered controversial due to its lack of morals. The Prince describes the two main types of governments: monarchies (dictatorships) and republics. In The Prince, Machiavelli focuses on monarchies. In his book, Machiavelli describes in a very mechanical (ordered) way how one can gain power and hold on to one's power, he sets out what one must do to maintain one's power. Machiavelli describes certain qualities that will lead to the downfall of a prince. He also describes other qualities that will make him successful. What's interesting is that the qualities we find most moral in people are the ones that will lead to the downfall of a 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 Should Not Be Banned”? Get the 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 united while we know it today. Very little is known about his early life, with his childhood considered average. He was not noticed until 1450, when he was selected for the 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 underlying reasons for writing The Prince. The main reason Machiavelli wrote The Prince was to unify Italy. He wanted to encourage the Magnificent to unify Italy. During the Renaissance, many writers were specialists in history, just like Machiavelli. This leads to his fanatical belief that a unified nation would be all powerful like the Romans were. He hoped that by writing to the Prince, he would influence the Magnificent to unite Italy and expel the barbarian invaders from Italy. Machiavelli's views are sometimes seen as 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 they will work until the end of time. Machiavelli wrote with a level of singularity and frankness unmatched at the time. The Prince lacks any sign of morality because that is how he thought (about life and politics), he was very calculating and this comes through in his writings. Machiavelli was an author who wanted his words not only to be read but put into action. . This is why the Prince reads like a textbook and is easy to understand, its principles can be immediately put into practice. His writing contrasted sharply with that of his peers. For example, humanists believed that an ideal prince was ethical. Machiavelli believed that it was impossible to describe political leaders as they really were. Machiavelli is forthright with his ideas and clearly states that morality gets in the way of successful leadership. He gives examples of why a ruthless leader is a “better” leader in terms of effectiveness. He gives this analogy that a leader must sometimes act like the decisive lion or sometimes like the elusive fox. He states that a prince cannot be inhibited by morality if he hopes to do his job properly (in the Machiavellian sense). But Machiavelli also warns that the prince, although ruthless, mustavoid being hated at all costs. There is a fine line to walk according to Machiavelli when it comes to making decisions. He quotes in chapter 19 “people forget the death of their father more quickly than the loss of their inheritance”. Machiavelli sets out ways to avoid being overthrown, such as not taking a man's possessions. He spends time focusing on this topic, because any thug can achieve power by ruthlessly slaughtering everyone, but he will not be able to maintain his power in the long run. But Machiavelli's ideal prince is ruthless and will slaughter people if necessary, but he is more than a thug, they are cunning and manipulative and in it for the long haul. Machiavelli knew that his writings on the Prince would influence and enlighten future princes. He wrote to the Prince to make it stand the test of time. But Machiavelli didn't take credit for inventing these ideas, he simply wrote down what past leaders had done that worked and didn't work and combined them into a manual. I enjoyed reading the Prince; it is an original work with a unique character. What Machiavelli did was analyze the past and present leaders of his time 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 of all morality. In his definition of a successful prince, we can see products of Caesar, Alexander the Great, Kahn, God, and Satan. Personally, I like Machiavelli's philosophy of free will, but it is flawed. He has a soft deterministic view or a “have your cake and eat it” view on free will. It states that half is controlled fortune (by God/Kismet) and the other half is free action. If we look at this philosophy a little closer, we can find the flaw. In theory, if one knows everything about something, then it is predictable, God would also know the end result (hard determinism). However, if we have free will, that means we are unpredictable because God would not know the end result and neither would we or science (spontanism). Machiavelli's philosophy is quite interesting, it is very similar to his writings in that it 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 leader who fits the “Machiavellian” complex, I imagine Kim Jong II. Kim Jong rules with an iron fist, never appearing weak, he is cold and calculating. He uses his arsenal of weapons to persuade others of what he wants. It also follows one of Machiavelli's principles almost exactly. Machiavelli states that a leader must appear miserly and only show generosity to his troops. Jong does it perfectly: he lets his people starve, while still feeding his army. He also knows when to use force or diplomacy. Some people consider Jong crazy, but for some reason his people don't reject him. He does whatever it takes to maintain his power, he controls his people by ruling with fear rather than trust, he limits their access to information, so they have no reference point to call him a bad or good leader. I use Machiavellian type tactics to a lesser extent, covertly, you might say. Very few people know the real Chuck. If it is in my best interest, I will present myself in a way that appeals to that particular person. I like to manipulate people to my advantage, but in a secret way, so that they almost ignore it, by 2003