The ideal of a complex nation-state, possessing a central power and not functioning in a feudal manner or under the control of the Church, arose in a rather turbulent period of political transition. The political realities of this era provided the gateway for thinkers to advocate a change in the way states act, the way leaders govern, and the overall importance of the centralized nation-state. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Between 1100 and 1600, the Western world experienced a plethora of challenges to the existing order of functioning political structures. These countless events, all of which triggered furious philosophical, social, moral and political reflections, ultimately gave way to the primordial thought of Niccolo Machiavelli. Machiavelli's The Prince clearly describes the problems associated with religious and feudal rule that were all commonplace in Western societies, and offers a concrete guide for rulers to turn to for help in governing. The Prince, which is essentially a realistic doctrine, explains how a ruler should acquire principalities, act in war, deal with his subjects and, most importantly, how an ideal ruler can maximize his power and effectively govern a sustainable and prosperous state . Machiavelli's fluctuating political life and professional experiences contributed greatly to his thinking and the intellectual basis of the ideals presented in The Prince. He had been consiglieri of Florence, but he witnessed the subversion of Florence's government by the Medici for their own dynastic purposes. Before unification, Italy was a large territory, made up of feudal city-states, perpetually engaged in conflict and often subject to attack from outside powers. In 1494, the Milanese had invited the much more powerful French to intervene in Italian rivalries as allies of Milan. This ultimately led to the Medici surrendering Florence to their enemies without a fight, which then led to a popular uprising against Medici rule. The Republic of Florence was briefly restored, and it is these questions of power that underlie Machiavelli's The Prince. The organization of the nation-state was a concept foreign to Italy. The size of Italian political organization was on a much smaller scale, that of the city-state, whether the form of government was a republic, aristocracy, or oligarchy. Machiavelli is primarily interested in how a state can maintain its independence and how the ruler must act to remain in power. Italy became the pawn of larger nation-states, the site of nearly a century of war between the French and Spanish Habsburgs, which lasted until the Treaty of Cateau Cambresis in 1559. Machiavelli's Prince discusses of the different types of principalities, classifying them all as hereditary, new, mixed or ecclesiastical. After establishing his definitions for each, he devotes a lot of time to the ideal prince and the qualities he should possess. In doing so, Machiavelli systematically uses historical examples to support his arguments. He draws on Greek and Roman political events, as well as the political instability of his time, both in Italy and abroad, to strengthen his arguments and provide tangible points of reference on which the reader can rely. 'press. The following passage regarding the manner in which a ruler maintains a colony clearly shows Machiavelli's habit of advancing his ideas using an example thencontemporary: If the old territories and the new have similar customs, the new subjects will live peacefully. Thus, Burgundy, Brittany, Gascony and Normandy submitted quietly to France for a long time. Although they do not all speak the exact same language, their customs are nevertheless similar and they can easily get along with each other (Machiavelli 8). Machiavelli's main focus in The Prince is his construction of the ideal leader. He delves into the specific characteristics that will allow a leader to flourish. Machiavelli begins to write specifically about the ideal ruler in chapter 15. His prince must possess the qualities that will ensure the success of the state. Chapter 16 is devoted to the qualities and overall generosity that the prince must possess. Pope Julius II, King Louis XII and King Ferdinand of Spain were all then evaluated on the basis of their generosity. Additionally, an example from ancient Rome is used to validate Machiavelli's statements on the subject. Chapter 16 ends briefly: It is wiser, then, to accept a reputation as a miser, which people despise but do not hate, than to aspire to such a generous reputation, and consequently to be obliged to face criticism for rapacity, which people both despise and hate (Machiavelli 50-51). Each chapter follows this pattern of logical reasoning and, as noted previously, each statement is presented and then examined in historical context. Among the chapters describing the desirable qualities of a prince, the most striking deal with aspects of cruelty. Machiavelli's theory is that cruelty as an abstract quality is fundamentally undesirable, but in practice it can have its own virtues. He asserts that while cruelty in itself is not admirable, cruelty employed by a wise ruler to preserve the state is justified. This reasoning reinforces Machiavelli's general notion that the welfare of the state always trumps any other concerns of the ruler. deal with. Similar statements are made in The Prince regarding the deception and duplicity that a ruler must resort to if he plans to maintain a functioning state. Throughout The Prince, any action that facilitates the preservation of the state is viewed favorably, while any conduct that endangers it, no matter how sound in principle, must be avoided at all costs. The ideal ruler projected by Machiavelli can easily be contrasted with the ideal sovereign, or philosopher-king, presented in Plato's Republic. Both Plato and Machiavelli have a fixed vision of the ideal leader. In Plato's kallipolis as in Machiavelli's ideal principality, the supreme goal is a certain form of common good. Plato's common good is about maximizing the good of all citizens, while Machiavelli's is simply about retaining the institution of the state, which in turn acts to protect the rights of citizens. Although these ideas are similar, Machiavelli and Plato offer radically different notions of the ideal leader within a given political structure. Machiavelli manifests these differences by stating: "I fear that it may appear presumptuous on my part to write on this subject also, especially since what I have to say, on this particular question, will differ greatly from the recommendations of others. But I hope to write a book that will be useful, at least to those who read it intelligently, and so I thought it wise to move directly into a discussion of how things happen in real life and not to waste time with a discussion about an imaginary world. Because many authors have constructed imaginary republics and principalities which never existed in the world...