EHS EST World History/World Literature

Monday, January 23, 2006

Read the excerpt from "The Prince" by Niccolo Machiavelli found in your text (pg. R50, in the back).
Respond to the following prompt yourself. You must also read and respond to the comment of at least one of your peers.

1. Machiavelli asserts that it is better for a prince to be feared then loved. What is his justification for this assertion? Use examples from the text.
Do you agree or disagree with this belief? Explain.

posted by Tanya Judd Pucella at 2:00 PM

52 Comments:

  • Machiavelli's justification for the assertion "it is better to be feared than to be loved" is that a ruler who is feared will always have control over his men, becuase he has gained their respect by not letting them think they can overpower him. I agree in part with this belief becuase it's true that people will obey someone who frightens them, but I think it is possible to gain respect while being a leader who respects his men as well. -Emma Robbinson

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:22 PM  

  • Machiavelli’s belief that it is better for a prince to be feared than to be loved comes from his assessment of previous rulers, as is the case with Hannibal and Scipio. Hannibal, as Machiavelli explains, was able to lead an enormous comprised of soldiers from several countries all because of his “inhuman cruelty” alongside his other leader-like traits. Scipio, on the other hand, failed to sustain power over his troops due to his “excessive kindness” that grants soldiers enough freedom to feel the right to rebel against their leaders.
    Personally, I disagree with Machiavelli’s views. I feel that it is an individual’s devotion to a cause, and thus its leader, that leads the person to take a specific course of action. Therefore, if someone feels strongly about a cause they should willingly follow its leader, not be manipulated into seeing things a certain way with the use of cruelty. If a leader is loved this means his followers are happy and as long as this remains so, he will remain in power. While Machiavelli makes it clear a prince must know when to be cruel in order for his actions to be effective, history itself is a true testament that a leader can be loved by his disciples and still be in charge. Martin Luther King Jr. led African Americans to change many views and rules without the use of cruelty, years earlier Mahatma Gandhi had exercised similar principals to establish his country’s freedom. Both of these individuals were able to lead large amounts of people, achieve the desired effects and did it all while being loved by their followers.- Natalia C.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:09 PM  

  • Emma - In a way I agree with your views on Machiavelli's politics. It is possible for a leader to gain respect while respecting his men as well. However, I don't think that just because a leader is feared he is thus obeyed. In fact, I feel that a leader that is feared will ultimately be resented. - Natalia C

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:38 PM  

  • Machiavelli believes that a leader should have a reputation for being cruel. The solders should fear him, otherwise the army will not stay united or disposed to duty.

    No, I do not agree with his assertion. I believe a leader should be strong and respected, but not feared. The people will have confidence in a leader that makes good and fair decisions.
    -Caroline Maddox

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:48 PM  

  • The justification that Machiavelli for a prince to be feared than loved is "...fear and the absence of hatred may well together..." In other words, a king ought not to be loved, but feared or else he can easily be manipulated by the people he rules over. I somewhat agree with Machiavelli because it is human nature. It is human nature to take advantage of everything they can if it will benefit. A prince should be seen as harsh, but fair. If a prince is very impressionable and will go with the majority because it is the majority, he should not be ruler. There are limitations however. A prince should not be like Hannibal with his "inhuman cruelty" and be looked at as "terrible in the sight of his soldiers". In contrast, a prince should not be like Scipio "whose armies rebelled against him, which arose from notyhing but his excessive kindness." A prince should just find a place in vetween those two extremes.
    -Arthur J

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:50 PM  

  • I agree with Natalia that it is for the better for a leader to be loved rather than feared, for the reason that a loved leader can obtain success and gain confidence from his people by making fair decisions. Though it may seem that being feared will gain you more respect by your people, as it may achieve, it also does not create a trustworthy bond between the leader and his people.
    -Caroline Maddox

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:17 PM  

  • I agree with Natalia. Being cruel and mean might be effective for a time because the person feels intimidated. I believe that Machiavelli had reason to say what he said. Either he is at fault for not looking at other methods to be a great leader or we are at fault for not looking at what was happening for that to be on of the only ways to rule. Now, we can look back and say that a leader could be respected and obeyed if he showed the citizens respect and compassion.
    -Arthur J

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:41 PM  

  • Michiavelli's justification is that a loved leader is more likely to be taken advantage of than a leadre who is feared. His subjects have no fear of the punishment for their actions because their leader loves and cares about them and their well being. Scipio was a kind and loving general whose troops rebelled against him. Hannibal, on the other hand, was strict and harsh. His troops remained loyal and never cause problems. They feared the concequences of their actions.

    I believe that this belief has some merit. People are more likely to betray a leader that they don't fear than one they do. As long as a person has something to gain, they will do anything, so long as it does not cause them to be harmed. While this is true, I disagree with the inhuman treatment of people. I could never be in favor of a system in which the ruler was cruel and unjust, no matter how much sense it makes.

    -Danielle Simmons

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:24 PM  

  • I agree with Arther. Neither extreme will do a leader any good. Machiavelli chose one extreme, and it has its flaws. People will not like following a harsh leader but will because they feel that they must. The other extreme is no good either, it will lead to the leader being taken advantage of. A ruler must find a happy medium.

    -Danielle Simmons

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:31 PM  

  • Machiavelli believes that it is better for prince to be feared rather than loved because people who fear you have more respect for you. Due to this increased level of respect, a feared prince's men will always obey him. Machiavelli explains in the text that it is necessary to be thought of as a cruel leader in order to keep your army under control. When a leader is feared there is little chance of being overthrown.

    I do not agree with Machiavelli's belief because a ruler should gain respect by means other than being cruel. It is not necessary to have everyone fear you in order to be a successful leader. The more a ruler does for a country, the more respect he will gain, and soldiers will be willing to fight for the ruler instead of just being scared into fighting for him.

    - Elena P.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:45 PM  

  • Machiavelli states that "it is better for a Prince to be feared than loved" because this keeps his subjects in line. He says that by not hesitating to take lives and behave cruelly, a prince's soldiers will fear him and not attempt any form of rebellion or uprising. He uses Hannibal as a good example, whose "inhuman cruelty" prevented any man from challenging him. He also uses Scipio as a bad example, whose "excessive kindness" led to his army's rebellion.
    I do not agree with this beleif. A leader who asserts his authority to place fear in his people's minds will not be disobeyed due to the fear of the "inhuman" consequences. However, it is possible to be a leader who is respectful to his subjects while still holding power. This leader is more successful because the people in turn respect him and will support his decisions.
    -Parker K.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:46 PM  

  • I agree with Parker that it is not necessary for a leader to be cruel in order to gain respect. A leader who is popular among his people will have more supporters in any decision that he makes. An army is more likely to fight harder for something they support, and they would be less likely to use their power against a ruler they are fond of.
    - Elena P.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:52 PM  

  • I agree with Emma on the fact that a leader can gain respect by acting cruelly and being feared and through respecting their own men. I also agree with Chelsea when she said that a leader has to be respected and powerful to defeat his enemies, but also cannot be cruel to his people because that would be abuse of power. Therefore, I think that a leader should gain his repect and power through respecting his people. A leader does not have to be overly kind to gain people's respect, but can also do it by making good decisions that benefit his country and his people, while remaining positive. This way, a leader can gain more respect and power without abusing his own.
    -Parker K.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:53 PM  

  • Machiavelli believes that a prince should care more to be feared than to be loved by his followers. He justifies this by stating "for fear and the abscence of hatred may well go together", inferring that when a prince is feared, he will not be hated. I don't believe that this is always true. If a prince is too greatly feared then his followers will be too afraid of what he might do to them to actually love him. Being feared is a good thing, to an extent. But some rulers might take this too literally.
    -Rachel W.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:16 PM  

  • Machiavelli believed that, as a ruler, it is better to be feared than loved. This justification comes from his knowledge of past rulers and their ways of handling their troops. Hannibal, for example, had a massive group of soldiers who never disobeyed or went against him due to the fact that he always makes sure he is being thought cruel from his soldiers, hence rarely revealing his kind side. On the other hand, Scipio could not control his army. They rebelled against him because of his "excessive kindness" which his soldiers took advantage of.

    hmm i think i'd have to disagree with Machiavelli for the most part. It is important for a leader to be looked up to and respected, but that doesn't mean his soldiers have to fear him for it. An honorable leader has the power to handle his army respectfully and also be able to be trusted by his soldiers. Machiavelli's assertion to be feared over loved will eventually sabotage his team because they will always fear him, but never trust him nor respect him as a reliable ruler.
    -Thao Ho

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:22 PM  

  • I agree with what Elena says about men being scared into fighting for their ruler. If the men have no will to fight, and don't belive in that cause that they are fighting for, what is going to drive them to risk their lives? If this motivating factor is fear, then the end effect of the fight will not be as planned by the prince.

    Also Elena brings up the point that Maciavelli believes that you have to be a cruel ruler to be a good ruler, and I also do not think this is true. A cruel ruler would be hated and feared, and would not have the trust of his people.
    -Rachel W.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:27 PM  

  • I agree with this beilfe because it is better to have people who follow you that have a level of commitment and have a certain degree of "sucking up" because they fear you, rather than having people love you to a point where they end up using you. "But when the Prince is with his army and have a large number of soldiers under his control..." is support to my idea because it is better to have people who will listen and follow all your orders, by "sucking up" beacuse they are afraid of the consequences if they dont listen. Rather than them loving you to a point where they find your weakness and overthrow you from your power. - Aly E.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:34 PM  

  • I agree with Natalia, because a person can be mean for a period of time, but eventually people will get tired of it and rebell. I thnk that there were reasons as to why Machiavelli said what he wrote. I think that he was lead to come up with these ideas because he was tired of being manipulated by the church and the king, and wanted everyone to see what he thought as more important for a better ruler. -Aly E

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:41 PM  

  • I agree with Parker when he said that a leader should be respectful and in turn will be respected by his people in the form of them supporting his decisions. This is true because while cruel tyrany is always a choice for a person in power, in the long run someone who is well-liked will be better honored, followed, and remembered. -Emma Robbinson

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:16 PM  

  • I definitely agree with Rachel. Like her, i also believe that if a leader is too greatly feared, his army would not trust him nor rely on him the way followers should. They would always have to look behind their back, afraid of what their leader might do next, never looking along side with their leaders and cooperating like a real team. Too much fear leaves no room for love, trust, and communication which are key aspects.
    -Thao Ho

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:23 PM  

  • Machiavelli suggests that it is better for one to be feared than to be loved, yet just as long as this fear does not lead to excessive hatred. The people may feel hatred, yet as long as they are frightened they will not have the courage to rebel. If the hatred becomes more powerful than their sense of fear, or if enough people feeling hatred to unite and form a bold rebellion, than the leader or prince will be brought down. He also states that a prince should not interfere negatively with the lives of his people without good reason; this would cause them to feel hatred, and question his power and leadership. He explains that taking a man's belongings only encourages him to steal the belongings of others. He describes that for a leader to be powerful and to have control over his people – including his soldiers – he must not only frighten them, but he must also be cruel (in an effective manner, like austerity); along with this characteristic the leader should also give his followers a sense of power and security by being virtuous and successful in his decisions. He gives the example of a famous Roman general named Scipio who was too kind to his soldiers. The result was they took this as his weakness, and rebelled against him. - Damien D

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:16 PM  

  • Machiavelli justifies his idea that it is better to be feared than loved by explaining that people who fear a ruler will always respect, and follow him. If people are only following a leader because they like him, as soon as the leader does something that they do not like, the citizen will turn against his leader. I agree with this ideal to some extent. I believe that it is important for a leader to be liked byhis citizens, but I believe that he should not do things purely to gain support for himself.--George Montgomery

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:19 PM  

  • I agree with Thao, that fear is not the only means of gaining people's respect. If the only reason why your soldiers follow you is because they fear you, your army will suffer. If an army follows you because you have earneed their respect through deeds and some fear, they will achieve much greater things. SOmetimes kindness can be more of a motivating factor than fear. --George Montgomery

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:24 PM  

  • Machiavelli asserts that it is better for prince to be feared than loved for several reasons. Machiavelli states "A prince should make himself feared in such a way that if he does not
    gain love, he at any rate avoids hatred; for fear and the absence of hatred may well go together" In simpler terms, Machiavelli is saying that if a prince is feared, he is more likely to have a better grip on and control of his people because they've come to repect him and his ability to make them believe that he can't be overpowered. It has been seen throughout history that the idea of using fear as an implement of control is very effective. Machiavelli uses Hannibal's successful leading of an army conprised of soldiers from many nations as a prime example of the use of fear to keep control. I believe fear is an excellent way to control people, but it is not always used in the right ways. Scipio, for example, made the mistake of using "excessive kindness," and for doing so, was rebelled against by his armies in Spain. -Matthew Goddard

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:38 PM  

  • I agree with Arthur in his belief that a prince should find the balance between being inhumanly cruel, and being excessively kind to his people and soldiers. As Machiavelli describes, being cruel to the point where the people are no longer afraid but rebelious is just as bad as a prince being so kind his people naturally take advantage of his weakness and overpower him. - Damien D

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:45 PM  

  • I have to say that Natalia makes a great point: there were leaders that could be loved by their followers of their cause AND not have to use fear as a tool to scare the Dickens out of everybody so that they will do as they're told to help the person scaring them to reach their own ends. I have to say though, that fear sometimes MUST be used in order to make the people move towards the ends that will result in doing the greatest good of THEM, and not the person "leading" them - whether they realize it or not. - Matthew Goddard

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:57 PM  

  • I believe Machiavelli's assumation is correct, and he provides proof in the text as Princes who are feared are respected and princes who are loved are only kept while still useful. Modern examples of this are Fidel Castro and Saddam Hussain, they were feared, not loved and therefore were able to keep power for very long periods of time and be efficient during their reign because they were unquestioned.-Corey Luttrell

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:14 AM  

  • Machiavelli's explains his thoughts using the example of Hannibal and Scipio. He explains how Hannibal ruled an enormous army composed of different men of many nations by being cruel. In contrast he explains how Scipio's army rebelled against him by being kind to his soldiers. His justification was that being feared is much more important than being loved because being feared by the people will give him respect, being loved in contrast by your people does not mean to be respected as a ruler. I agree with Machiavelli’s ideas of leadership because being respected is an essential factor when you are a leader. Being loved by your people is less important, being love as a leader comes after being respected.
    Eguzki Osteikoetxea

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:09 PM  

  • I agree in part with Natalia's comment because it is true that previous leaders had control and they were loved by the people at the same time. But Natalia examples were focus in leaders that had innovative ideas concerning the government, without being part of the government. Gandhi and Martin Luther King were citizens that had ideas of human rights and liberty. Machiavelli's assertion was focused to leaders of an army or a certain territory.
    Eguzki Osteikoetxea

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:39 PM  

  • Machiavelli justifies his reasoning behind his belief that a prince should be feared, rather than loved, by explaining that if he is feared he will be granted respect. If he is feared, there is less of a chance of people rebelling against him. He compares this to Scipio, whose armies rebelled against him as a result from his extreme kindness. He then goes on to compare him to Hannibal, whose enormous army had no competition due to his inhuman cruelty. His soldiers feared him, therefore doing what he told them to do.
    I disagree with this belief. Though it is good to be respected, achieving this by mistreating your soldiers, the people fighting for you, isn’t exactly the greatest encouragement you can give them. The will to stand up for what you believe in should be enough to drive a solider to victory.
    --Alicia Rinaldi

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:17 PM  

  • I agree with Natalia, if someone is to fight for something they believe in, their will should be what drives them, instead of being manipulated by cruel treatment. She makes a good point in stating that there are plenty of examples throughout history where cruel actions were unnecessary in order to have devoted followers. I also agree with Parker, who stated that by acting kindly to his subjects and not abusing his powers, a king can be successful. His subjects respect him and appreciate his fairness. Machiavelli was most certainly wrong in believing that fear is the only way to be obeyed. --Alicia Rinaldi

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:35 PM  

  • Machiavelli's justification for the assertion "it is better to be feared than to be loved" is because a prince who is feared will always contain power and hold power. A prince who is feared is also going to attain power for longer periods of time since everyone believe that he cannot be overtaken. This strategy is mainly used by Fidel Castro since he leaves his people in fear. With this fear no one defies his orders and no one will stand up against him. I personally believe that a leader can be loved as long as he has a strong fist that protects his borders. As long as the leader retains some power and isn't a "softy" he will have a safe, loved, and protected nation. Josias Calixte

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:25 PM  

  • I agree with Emma because i also believe that a person of power can love his people as long as he retains a strong sense of power. As long as the leader can protect his people effectively and provide a good living for his people then he has the right to love his people and be loved by his people. Josias Calixte

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:28 PM  

  • Machiavelli believed that a prince should be feared, rather than loved. He justifies by comparing the ruling styles of Hannibal and Scipio. Hannibal was "terrible in the sight of his soldiers", but that quality made him an excellent leader since there were never any problems against him and his men. In contrast, Scipio had "excessive kindness", causing his men to run over him and rebel against him.

    I disagree and agree with Machiavelli's belief. Leaders should be strong and powerful enough to be in control when the time comes. The leader should also show care and respect for his people; it'll help to ensure loyalty because they aren't being mistreated.

    -Rosyl I. =)

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:24 PM  

  • I agree with Elena's statement. There are positive ways for a leader to be effective, and being cruel is unecessary. Defending your country and ensuring the people's safety should be good enough for the leader's men to see his greatness. But still, a little fear wouldn't hurt. A leader, when the time comes, should be strict and have the power to control his men.

    [Rosyl I.]

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:43 PM  

  • Machiavelli justified that "it is better to be feared then loved" because a ruler who is feared will always have control over his people opposed to those who are only loved. I agree that a leader who is feared will have more people obeying and following, but that leader would have no respect or support from them. I believe that it is better for a leader to be loved because then they will have the confidence, support, and respect by his followers. With those, the leader would not have to use cruelty and things that cause fear to get those below him to follow him.
    -Chelsea Smith

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:44 PM  

  • I agree with Emma because it is possible to gain respect by being respectful for others. When a person sees that his leaders looks up to his followers and has their interests in mind they will want to follow and support them more likely then when they are forced into doing so out of fear.
    -Chelsea Smith

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:50 PM  

  • Machiavelli relies on examples from history to justify his point that it is better to be feared than loved. He notes that Hannibal was feared by all of his men for his cruelity and therefore remained in control though he had an army composed of men from different nations that were fighting in foreign countries. He contrasts Hannibals tactics to Scipio, who had excessive kindness and therefore his soldiers rebelled when fighting in foreign countries. Through this, Machiavelli comes to the conclusion that it is better to be feared than loved in order to stay in power.

    I agree with Machiavelli's views that it is better to be feared than loved. It is nearly impossible for a leader to make all of his subjects love him. But it is very easy to make people fear a leader. Therefore in order for a leader to survive during a trying time, he must put fear in his subjects in order to stop rebellion.
    Neil B

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:11 PM  

  • I disagree with Thao that a leader will sabotage his team if he chooses to be feared rather than loved. I believe that coaches can inspire their players to perform better if they yell in order to scare them. This tactic inspires the player to perform better, and eventually trust the coach because of the quality advice he gives. This can apply to all leadership, because fear puts pressure to perform on all of those being led, which will improve the whole team. I believe, unlike Thao, that it is possible for a leader to be feared and a those being led can still perform well. Historically, Hannibal was feared and his armies made it all the way to Rome. If he can be feared and come to the brink of winning a war, then all leaders can.
    Neil B

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:18 PM  

  • Machiavellian says it is better to be feared then loved because he thought that fear brings respect, and if you are loved people would view you as a friend more than a leader and not follow their orders.

    I think that this statement would have been good in a military society because you need too be fully in charge all the times over your soldiers. In our society I don't think that it applies, because it is arranged that there are so many people in charge that not one person needs to be feared but the government as a whole needs to be feared. This state could be reached be having penalties for what you did and the means to follow through with them.
    -Alex G.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:54 PM  

  • I disagree with Neil B.'s opinion that this is a good statement, I think that it may have been true in the past, but I don’t think it applies to our government. So it isn't always a right statement.
    -Alex G.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:59 PM  

  • Machiavelli claimed that it is better for a prince to be feared rather then to be loved, justifying this by saying "for fear and the absence of hatred may go well together" meaning if a prince is feared then he will have power and the people will do as he says and since he is feared he won't be hated.
    I don't exactly agree with his belief, I think that a prince should be feared to a certain extent and not to the point where the people are too scared to do anything for him. A prince should also be loved since being loved creates respect which is a characteristic a prince should want. -Katie L.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:47 PM  

  • i would also have to say that i agree with Thao on this because even though Machiavelli's army fears him they shouldn't fear him to the point of where they don't know whether to trust him or not, and if your army doesn't trust or respect you then they obviously won't want to fight for you in a war eventually leading to devastation for everyone. -Katie L.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:00 PM  

  • Machiavelli's theory that it is beter to be feared than loved as a ruler is somewhat reasonable. While it is possible to gain people's respect and loyalty through kind actions, the love for one's leader fades in difficult times as does the devotion of the people. It is in human nature to do what is best for yourself and for your family, even if that means turning against the leader you once loved. Conversely, people tend to resent leaders that arouse fear in their people during times of peace, wishing for more freedoms yet generally bowing to the powers above them. When times get rough, such as in war or depression, people often enjoy the benefits of a dictator and acknowledge the fact that such a leader has control over their military, their allies, and their enemies- an ideal leader to people in times of crisis. While I do not personally agree that it is better to be hated than loved, the concept that Machiavelli developed has historical support which he developed in The Prince, with references to both Hannibal and Scipio. I think that in the modern age fear has become something that is looked down upon in a leader, a trend that can be attributed to the prominence of democratic nations. The love of a leader, while sometimes fleeting, leads to happier and more productive citizens.
    -Meghan M.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:02 PM  

  • I agree with what Natalie said in her acknowledgement that in being feared one avoids hatred, while at the same time one avoids the respect that comes with the love of your people. She also made a good point that to be loved for the good that is done genuinely is far more respectful than to be given false respect, nloy under the pretense of fear.
    -Meghan M.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:12 PM  

  • Machiavelli has the belief that princes who are feared rather than loved derives from his view on previous rulers. He asseses the tactics of Hannibal and Scipio. While Hannibal struck fear into all those around him, Scipio was marked for his "excessive kindness". Machiavelli believes this is why Scipio's soldiers rebelled against him, while Hannibal was powerful and sucessful. Because of this evidence. Machiavelli asserts that it is better for a prince to be feared than loved because then he will be respected and none will dare to go against him.
    Priya G

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:31 PM  

  • continued personal response: I both disagree and agree with Machiavelli. Although, I believe that there should be a balance of fear and love for a prince. The fear will gain him respect and drive his enemies away, while love will gain him great loyalty and admiration.
    Priya G

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:33 PM  

  • I agree with Caroline's view that Machiavelli should not just be feared, and I also recognize her belief that people will have confidence in a ruler that makes good and fair decisions. However, there are always going to be enemies and people who oppose what a prince decides no matter how fair it may be. The only way to keep these people from threatening the prince's rule and security is a sense of fear.
    Priya G

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:37 PM  

  • Machiavelli's justification for his assertion is that a prince that is loved will have the loyalty of his people and his army while the going is good, but when the going gets rough the love fades and all that is left is blame, in which causes the leader to fall. He uses Scipio as an example of this kind of leader. He says that it is better to be feared because when you are feared the people and the army is loyal as well. However no matter whether the going is good or rough they will still have that fear for you and therefore not revolt. Hannibal was his example of this kind of leader.

    For the time period I agree with his belief. If the people believed that you were powerful and were afraid then they would also know that you could protect them from others in ways that they could not do themselves. However, now that would not work because when people are put down they rise stronger and revolt as the African-Americans did when they were slaves, made to live in constant fear of us until a few was done taking it and fought back.
    -Matt Galatowitsch

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:49 PM  

  • I agree with Parker in the respect that you will have more loyalty and respect from your followers if they love you rather than fear you. They will be following not only because you think that it is right but also because they think it is right, and that is a key. If they are forced to believe in a certain thing then they will not be as strong in their fight for it as if they had chosen to believe it. This goes with Parkers statement that they will respect them and support their decisions.
    -Matt Galatowitsch

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:56 PM  

  • Machiavelli's justification for his belief that it is better to be feared than loved is that a ruler who has the fear of his people can control his country better than a ruler who is kind to his people. He uses Hannibal as an example, stating that Hannibal was able to control a huge army in good times as well as bad. His explanation for this is that Hannibal's inhuman cruelty put fear into his soldiers. He then speaks of Scipio, a ruler who was kind to his people, but eventually his armies rebelled against him.
    I guess if a ruler had to be either feared or loved, being feared would be the better of the two. But this is not the case, as a person can be both feared and loved. I think that this combination would be much more effective than fear alone. Instead of following a ruler's order because they are scared of him, people would follow order because they both like the ruler and are scared of him/her.
    -Brian C.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:43 PM  

  • I agree with Natalie's statements about how it is better to gain respect through love and kindness rather than fear. It is possible to gain respect through love, even though it may be more difficult that recieving it through fear. However, just because it is easier to recieve respect through fear does not make it right, and it is more honorable and morally sound to gain respect through love.
    -Brian C.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:54 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home