The Prince ought to have no other aim or thought, nor select anything else for his study, than war and its rules and discipline; for this is the sole art that belongs to him who rules, and it is of such force that it not only upholds those who are born princes, but it often enables men to rise from a private station to that rank. I do not agree with this statement. I think that princes should not be confined just to war.
Hence, it is necessary for a prince wishing to hold his own to know how to do wrong, and to make use of it or not according to necessity. Therefore, putting on one side imaginary things concerning a prince, and discussing those which are real, I say that all men when they are spoken of, and chiefly princes for being more highly placed, are remarkable for some of those qualities which bring them either blame or praise; and thus it is that one is reputed liberal, another miserly. I agree that a prince should not always be blamed for doing wrong.
Upon this a question arises: whether it is better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with. I disagree. Although you don't want random commoners to be coming up to you and expecting you to be nice to them, you want to be approachable as a ruler.
I do not agree with this article. I think that in general princes should not just be worried about themselves. They shouldn't be focused only on war, but instead on the people. It is beneficial for the king to be feared, but this also causes anger in the people. Eventually this anger will spill out and the prince will have to deal with the uprisings that occur. I think that instead it is better for the prince to be loved. For example: if the kingdom is attacked, there might be more fear toward the prince attacking and they will support the prince of their territory for their lives in order to not be ruled by the other prince. Also, I think that all princes should try their best to exhibit good qualities, but nobody is perfect and there are some bad ones that will show through. The people should be able to deal with this though, because they are, after all, human too, and they have flaws themselves. Over all, I think that it is more beneficial for the prince to exhibit the best qualities that he has and gain the support of the people.
I don't agree with Machiavelli's views on how Princes should rule. He believes that a Prince's main focus should be war and all aspects concerning it. War is what holds a kingdom together he says, but I think that peace should be the main focus. I don't think that a kingdom needs to be war based, it will only cause problems and destruction. Machiavelli also says that a Prince needs to be able to do wrong if ever necessary. I think that they should just do the right thing because it will help more in the long run. This man also believes that it is better to be a feared ruler than a loved one. I think that it would be better to be loved because people won't be as likely to overthrow you, they would back your decisions and support you.
The article says, "The Prince ought to have no other aim or thought, nor select anything else for his study, than war and its rules and discipline; for this is the sole art that belongs to him who rules, and it is of such force that it not only upholds those who are born princes, but it often enables men to rise from a private station to that rank. And, on the contrary, it is seen that when princes have thought more of ease than of arms they have lost their states." I do not agree with Machiavelli's view. I think that princes should focus on other things other than on themselves. They need to worry about there territory, wars, trade, and many other things.
I agree with Machiavelli's views of how a Prince should rule. At the time he wrote this novel, war was a much larger and more prominent threat within society. If a prince was not focused on war, he would be blindsided and not be able to protect his home and lands. "Nevertheless a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred; because he can endure very well being feared whilst he is not hated, which will always be as long as he abstains from the property of his citizens and subjects and from their women." This is one of the best points that I think Machiavelli makes. A prince should be feared, because if you are feared, it is less likely that your people will go against you. This does not mean necessarily that the prince is cruel, he just rules with an iron fist. And he should strive to be loved and feared as that is the best. Also, Machiavelli states that a prince should not be hated. Machiavelli knew that hatred leads to revolt, and he planned for that. If I was a prince in the Renaissance I would follow Machiavelli's advice down to the letter
I do not agree with this article and the way it portrays an "ideal" prince. Princes should be concerned about their people and life in their kingdom rather than obsessing over war. It helps to know good war tactics and to be focused, but this article proclaims that war should be the only thing on a prince's mind, and with a mindset like this, the prince will never think about life without war. This article also says that it is more important for a prince to be feared than to be loved. I think it is beneficial for a prince to instill fear in certain people in order to establish authority, but he should also show a gentle side towards his supporters so that they will feel appreciated and respected.
"The Prince ought to have no other aim or thought, nor select anything else for his study, than war and its rules and discipline; for this is the sole art that belongs to him who rules, and it is of such force that it not only upholds those who are born princes, but it often enables men to rise from a private station to that rank... Upon this a question arises: whether it is better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with." I do not agree with Machiavelli's view on how a prince should rule his people. I don't agree that he should rule them by fear i think he should rule them by like peace. I don't think war tactics should be his main focus in his rule; it would probably more effective if he just ruled sternly but with peace so that war doesn't break out in his own country.
I don't necessarily agree with the Prince's ruling methods. He says that a good Prince would focus on war all the time. Even though war can be a little bit beneficial, it costs the people and the kingdom very much. To be at war constantly is very hard--maybe not for the Prince, but for the people. However, he does say that a man must avoid all bad vices and qualities to be a good ruler, and that is true. Lastly, he says that the people should fear their ruler rather than love him, and I don't think that is a good way to rule. The government should fear the people, not the other way around. The people should have power over their own lives, and shouldn't have to fear that someone else can take control of their life.
"The Prince ought to have no other aim or though, nor select anything else for his study, than war and its rules and discipline.." I do not agree with Prince Machiavelli's ruling methods because he says that he should not focus on anything besides war. War is important, for it can help an empire grow, but a prince should focus on other things to help the city grow. I think it is good that he said "it is necessary for him to be sufficiently prident that he may know how to avoid the reproach of thsoe vices which would lose him his state". In saying this, he believes that all rulers should try to act in a moral manner. He also says that it is better for a ruler to be feared than loved. This shows that he wants power and he doesn't care if he has to make enemies for it.
"The Prince ought to have no other aim or thought, nor select anything else for his study, than war and its rules and discipline" (Fordham). I do not agree with this sort of rule that was enforced by Machiavelli. Of course war is important in many different ways, but it is important for any ruler to have a connection with people who they rule. This is not possible if all they are doing is fighting in war. It is also a possibility that the Princes could have other goals and dreams, but they are ruined as they are forced to fight in war.
"Nevertheless a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred" (Fordham) As I had said before, you need to have a strong relationship between you and the people you rule. If the people who are being ruled don't actually like the prince, it could lead to conflicts.
I agree with Machiavelli’s view on how to rule because he was focused on military. I agree with this, because in order for protection of the people, you need a strong army. He also says that when other people have not focused on the army, their states have fallen. I also think that he was right when he said that it was better to be feared than loved. “It is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with. Because this is to be asserted in general of men, that they are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous, and as long as you successed they are yours entirely; they will offer you their blood, property, life, and children, as is said above, when the need is far distant; but when it approaches they turn against you.” (Third Article down)This way, everyone will be scarred of you and won’t try to take over or conquer you. You have the respect of the people and are able to rule easier because you aren't worried about what people think of you. You are also given more when people fear you, so that they can get on your good side, so you can profit. In the end, Machiavelli said that the point is to be feared, but not hated.
"The Prince ought to have no other aim or though, nor select anything else for his study, than war and its rules and discipline". I don't agree with Machiavelli's beliefs that Prince's should focus solely on war and themselves. While it is important to focus on war, I think that in order to rule effectively, it is also important to work in benefiting the surrounding citizens, along with trade. Machiavelli also talks about the idea that it is better to be feared than loved. I think this is true in some ways, because fear is key in order to have power and the ability to control lands. I think that a ruler should also be loved though, because without the citizen's support, revolts could occur.
In my opinion, I don not agree with Niccolo Machiavelli's thoughts. A prince should have more than just war and rules. A proper Prince must be understanding, compassionate, and supportive. The only positive gain of war would be territory, which would expand the empire. But nothing else is gained from war. Rules simply bring arrogance and arrogance is not fit for a flourishing empire. Niccolo Machiavelli states that when a Prince is distracted from things other than war or rules, he loses states. I strongly disagree with this statement because if a Prince uses intelligence to construct a strong government, he mayy not lose his states and can ponder about other topics such as politics, health, etc. To conclude, I do not agree with Niccolo Machiavelli's statement about how a Prince should only be focused on war and rules.
I agree with his thoughts. He focused on army so his people would be protected. Also, he wanted to get his tasks finished in an orderly fashion. He also said that he avoided and endured hatred which shows he was strong. He said that he would rather be feared than love. This shows that he was strong, could not be manipulated and could not be pushed around. He made a point that he wanted to be feared, not hated.
I don't agree with Machiavelli's ways of ruling because he is a kind of a unkind ruler. He says doing wrong the right way is okay. He also thinks the face of a prince should be feared but admired instead of hated, which I do agree with. A prince should be feared to gain his power, but he should be admired so he can have followers and no rebellion on his lands.
I don’t agree with Machiavelli's views on how to rule because when it stated that, "The Prince ought to have no other aim or thought, nor select anything else for his study, than war and its rules and discipline; for this is the sole art that belongs to him who rules, and it is of such force that it not only upholds those who are born princes, but it often enables men to rise from a private station to that rank." I feel like the princes should be focusing on more than just the war aspects of ruling, while it plays a big part in the government the people s welfare should be respected with the utmost care. They should be studying more than just warfare, they should also be studying other things such as how to establish different laws, how to keep uprisings from happening, and most importantly to think through things that will keep the peoples happy
I do not agree with Machiavelli's way to rule because it says "it is seen that when princes have thought more of ease than of arms they have lost their states." They need to be relaxed and focus on ease because without ease they will for sure lose their states, not just because of thinking more of ease. I think they shouldn't just focus on their land and going to war, but also focus on other things like art and happiness.
"The Prince ought to have no other aim or thought, nor select anything else for his study, than war and its rules and discipline; for this is the sole art that belongs to him who rules, and it is of such force that it not only upholds those who are born princes, but it often enables men to rise from a private station to that rank."
I disagree with this because I believe that there only job should be to focus on the people as much as war, you should care for your people, if you are a good leader. Without the people there will not be war. The king should not show fear, because it brings fear and anger to the people. You need a strong and determined king to be in charge.
I disagree mostly with this article. It states that the Prince ought to have no other thought than that of war. I believe if he only thinks of war and discipline, he is focused too much on violence, and will therefore cause extra violence. It states that being unarmed causes you to be despised, but I disagree with this. If you are unarmed, it shows that you do not encourage violence, and I would not despise a Prince like that. It also states that a prince wishing to hold his own has to know how to do wrong. This is not necessarily true. You can be a strong person and have power without doing bad things to others to gain that power. As for the last paragraph, I think it is possible to be feared and loved at the same time. Maybe feared is not the most suiting word, but respected may be better. You can be loved but still be firm with discipline and be respected enough so that you are trusted and no one revolts against you. It is important to be a loved ruler, though, If a ruler is hated, his people may try to overthrow him.
"The Prince ought to have no other aim or thought, nor select anything else for his study, than war and its rules and discipline; for this is the sole art that belongs to him who rules, and it is of such force that it not only upholds those who are born princes, but it often enables men to rise from a private station to that rank" I disagree with what was said in this article because it says the Prince must only think of war and discipline and you can't rule land like that. Also, it states Princes should be more feared than loved and that can lead to rebellions
I do not agree with Machiavelli's ideas of ruling. I don't think that a prince should only focus on war. War can be useful and is sometimes necessary, but there are other things that rulers need to focus on. The idea of being feared instead of loved could cause anger among the people. I think it is possible to be both loved and feared.
I do not agree with Machiavelli's style of ruling. The Prince should focus on more than just war and his rank. It is important for him to find the balance between being loved or being feared. Both come with benefits but also with consequences when they have only one characteristic.
I do not agree with everything Machiavelli describes for a prince, but I do see his points. I think that an excessive focus on war and force, while developing key ruling traits like how to lead and make informed decisions, may distract from many other just as important aspects of a successful kingdom, like for example the economy and trade relations or the quality of life of your people. You must be strong enough to protect those who trust in you as your citizens and help your nation succeed, but it shouldn't overshadow other parts of your kingdom that are also just as much your responsibility. I also think that while being feared may give you more absolute power and obedient response, it does not mean you are respected or trusted as a ruler should be, plus it's not necessarily a sign of weakness to rely on others at times.
in the first segment Machiavelli talks about the importance of battle. I agree that both strategy and physical fighting ability would have been essential for a prince at this time, but I don't think that they are the only things a prince would have needed. As there are many aspects of ruling, he would require many skills and an understanding of a variety of tasks. Machiavelli states that a prince should know how to do wrong, and use his judgment to decide whether or not he should, depending on which would improve his reputation and status more. I disagree with this because I think a ruler should always try to do what is right for the people. He explains that a ruler should be feared, but not hated. I agree with this when it comes to foreign relations, but in regard to a "prince's" own people I believe that being loved is more effective. The people would be more likely to do all that they can to help a ruler they love than one they feel forced into helping.
I do not agree with Machiavelli's choice of ruling for a prince. I feel that a prince should not only focus on war but they should focus on the views of the people and their needs. "The Prince ought to have no other aim or thought, nor select anything else for his study, than war and its rules and discipline; for this is the sole art that belongs to him who rules, and it is of such force that it not only upholds those who are born princes, but it often enables men to rise from a private station to that rank." This quote from the article shows that all he needs to focus on is war and nothing else. Although I do not agree with his choice to only focus on war and force, he had a point. The war and force focuses on the discipline that a country needs but that should not be the only thing a ruler should focus on.
I do not think that the princes should be looking for wars but it is something to be concerned about. He may not be thinking about his citizens but a war could also cause issues, it is a genuine concern. Although i do think the prince should put his people before himself and victories.
"The Prince ought to have no other aim or thought, nor select anything else for his study, than war and its rules and discipline; for this is the sole art that belongs to him who rules, and it is of such force that it not only upholds those who are born princes, but it often enables men to rise from a private station to that rank." I do not agree with this, because I believe that Machiavelli should not just focus on war and rank. I think that it is very essential for him to be at least a little loved and honored by his people, not just feared.
It says that "The Prince ought to have no other aim or thought, nor select anything else for his study, than war and its rules and discipline; for this is the sole art that belongs to him who rules, and it is of such force that it not only upholds those who are born princes, but it often enables men to rise from a private station to that rank. And, on the contrary, it is seen that when princes have thought more of ease than of arms they have lost their states." I disagree because I think that princes should not just be focused on war but on power also and the only way to be both fully successful is through knowledge and skill not just one.
I do not agree with his ways of ruling. He should not have focused solely on on war and discipline. He should try to be a good ruler to his people, and try to feel loved in some way. Without the support of the citizens, a revolt could begin. The government should fear the people, not the people fear the government.
I don't agree with Machiavelli's views on ruling. I don't necessarily think that a prince has to solely focus on war and its rules and disciplines. Also, I don't think a prince would be despised because it was not his main focus in ruling. I think the main focus in ruling should be what is best for the people and the country, but not just protection. It should cover everything like rules, rights, freedom, and the issues of food, shelter, and clothing. Next, I don't think a prince should have to "inspire fear" to avoid hatred. I feel fear comes with hate, like if you are scared of someone you are going to hate them for making you feel that way.
I agree with Machiavelli’s ideas on the rules a prince must oblige by. A prince must defend his title by proving himself noble and worthy. Machiavelli stated, “When a prince thinks more of ease than of arms, than their states have been lost.” This quote teaches us that a prince will always have more success if he puts forth effort towards a beneficial goal. Machiavelli valued hard work and a prince who was proud of his position and willing to secure it.
I do not agree with Machiavelli's opinion on how to rule. A prince should not be focused on wars. Yes, it is good to have an army to protect the people, but war is not something to focus on constantly. War only brings destruction and political and economic problems. He should be focused on the things the people think are important and what would benefit his people the most. Peace can bring periods like the Renaissance and strength and good change in political and economic issues. His statement about wanting to be a prince people feared, not loved doesn't seem right to me. If people only fear him, that means they won't like him. They may obey him but won't like him. This could bring revolts from the people if they don't like how he rules.
I do not completely agree with Machiavelli's views. I do not agree with his views on war at all. I believe that peace gets more things done then war. I also believe that a ruler can be successful without practicing the art of war. Yes they might want an army for protection but I don't think weather you participate in war or not defines you as a leader and how far you will get. I do however agree with his statement " I say that all men when they are spoken of, and chiefly princes for being more highly placed, are remarkable for some of those qualities which bring them either blame or praise". The more powerful and respected you are, the easier it is for people to blame things on you if something went wrong. I also disagree with his opinion of being feared gives you more power then being loved. I feel as if in the end you will be supported more by people who love you then by people who fear you. Once you loose power the fear will turn into hate.
I do not agree that the only thing in life is war. I believe that there are more important things than maintaining power and wealth, though that is a big issue. I agree that a leader should not be blamed or praised for an entire nations good or bad times, as it is many people who help/hurt a country. I believe it is better to only be loved than feared. I disagree that people should be both loved and feared. I believe that people should be respected, not feared.
I do not agree with his views on a few things. He believed a person could not be successful without the art of war. Instead he should believe in peace. Machiavelli also wanted to be feared instead of loved, which didn’t make very much sense. If people love you they will support you whereas if you were feared they would only be scared and not support you.
I think that this is very true. Without some sort of fear instilled in people, one cannot hold power. This same principle remains true in modern time. For example the global superpowers of today are those countries with supreme control over nuclear weapons. However, military power is not the only factor that contributes to successful leadership. It also has to do with trade and alliances among other countries.
I do not agree that the only important principle of life is war, power, and violence. I agree that a country doesn't become the most powerful government by just sitting around, but their are definitely more ways to a successful government than weapons and fear, although they may be important. As Lauren said, people should be respected and treated equally with the truth, not a lie of fear just to control them.
I agree with this idea of power. Although power should not only rely on war and violence, people need to be aggressive to maintain a good society. If everyone were laid back and non-violent, they would not be able to defend themselves in times of attack. A good society must be able to fight and have wars in order to continue their power.
It says that "The Prince ought to have no other aim or thought, nor select anything else for his study, than war and its rules and discipline; for this is the sole art that belongs to him who rules, and it is of such force that it not only upholds those who are born princes, but it often enables men to rise from a private station to that rank" I disagree with this because I do not think that war, and violence are the most important things in life.
I feel like a prince should be getting to know his people before he worries himself over war. His father, or the King, should be doing that, while the Prince studies. It almost says that a prince should only be focused on war, and to be that doesn't seem right. But, I'm not saying that they shouldn't know strategies or how to fight. Though I like how it says that a prince should know that he can do wrong, and then know how to fix it. I have mixed feelings about that. Like sometimes it is good to be feared, or respected in a sense. But it's also good to be loved and have loyal subjects because they love you so much.
The Prince ought to have no other aim or thought, nor select anything else for his study, than war and its rules and discipline; for this is the sole art that belongs to him who rules, and it is of such force that it not only upholds those who are born princes, but it often enables men to rise from a private station to that rank. I do not agree with this statement. I think that princes should not be confined just to war.
ReplyDeleteHence, it is necessary for a prince wishing to hold his own to know how to do wrong, and to make use of it or not according to necessity. Therefore, putting on one side imaginary things concerning a prince, and discussing those which are real, I say that all men when they are spoken of, and chiefly princes for being more highly placed, are remarkable for some of those qualities which bring them either blame or praise; and thus it is that one is reputed liberal, another miserly. I agree that a prince should not always be blamed for doing wrong.
Upon this a question arises: whether it is better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with. I disagree. Although you don't want random commoners to be coming up to you and expecting you to be nice to them, you want to be approachable as a ruler.
I do not agree with this article. I think that in general princes should not just be worried about themselves. They shouldn't be focused only on war, but instead on the people. It is beneficial for the king to be feared, but this also causes anger in the people. Eventually this anger will spill out and the prince will have to deal with the uprisings that occur. I think that instead it is better for the prince to be loved. For example: if the kingdom is attacked, there might be more fear toward the prince attacking and they will support the prince of their territory for their lives in order to not be ruled by the other prince. Also, I think that all princes should try their best to exhibit good qualities, but nobody is perfect and there are some bad ones that will show through. The people should be able to deal with this though, because they are, after all, human too, and they have flaws themselves. Over all, I think that it is more beneficial for the prince to exhibit the best qualities that he has and gain the support of the people.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with Machiavelli's views on how Princes should rule. He believes that a Prince's main focus should be war and all aspects concerning it. War is what holds a kingdom together he says, but I think that peace should be the main focus. I don't think that a kingdom needs to be war based, it will only cause problems and destruction. Machiavelli also says that a Prince needs to be able to do wrong if ever necessary. I think that they should just do the right thing because it will help more in the long run. This man also believes that it is better to be a feared ruler than a loved one. I think that it would be better to be loved because people won't be as likely to overthrow you, they would back your decisions and support you.
ReplyDeleteThe article says, "The Prince ought to have no other aim or thought, nor select anything else for his study, than war and its rules and discipline; for this is the sole art that belongs to him who rules, and it is of such force that it not only upholds those who are born princes, but it often enables men to rise from a private station to that rank. And, on the contrary, it is seen that when princes have thought more of ease than of arms they have lost their states." I do not agree with Machiavelli's view. I think that princes should focus on other things other than on themselves. They need to worry about there territory, wars, trade, and many other things.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Machiavelli's views of how a Prince should rule. At the time he wrote this novel, war was a much larger and more prominent threat within society. If a prince was not focused on war, he would be blindsided and not be able to protect his home and lands. "Nevertheless a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred; because he can endure very well being feared whilst he is not hated, which will always be as long as he abstains from the property of his citizens and subjects and from their women." This is one of the best points that I think Machiavelli makes. A prince should be feared, because if you are feared, it is less likely that your people will go against you. This does not mean necessarily that the prince is cruel, he just rules with an iron fist. And he should strive to be loved and feared as that is the best. Also, Machiavelli states that a prince should not be hated. Machiavelli knew that hatred leads to revolt, and he planned for that. If I was a prince in the Renaissance I would follow Machiavelli's advice down to the letter
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with this article and the way it portrays an "ideal" prince. Princes should be concerned about their people and life in their kingdom rather than obsessing over war. It helps to know good war tactics and to be focused, but this article proclaims that war should be the only thing on a prince's mind, and with a mindset like this, the prince will never think about life without war. This article also says that it is more important for a prince to be feared than to be loved. I think it is beneficial for a prince to instill fear in certain people in order to establish authority, but he should also show a gentle side towards his supporters so that they will feel appreciated and respected.
ReplyDelete"The Prince ought to have no other aim or thought, nor select anything else for his study, than war and its rules and discipline; for this is the sole art that belongs to him who rules, and it is of such force that it not only upholds those who are born princes, but it often enables men to rise from a private station to that rank...
ReplyDeleteUpon this a question arises: whether it is better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with."
I do not agree with Machiavelli's view on how a prince should rule his people. I don't agree that he should rule them by fear i think he should rule them by like peace. I don't think war tactics should be his main focus in his rule; it would probably more effective if he just ruled sternly but with peace so that war doesn't break out in his own country.
I don't necessarily agree with the Prince's ruling methods. He says that a good Prince would focus on war all the time. Even though war can be a little bit beneficial, it costs the people and the kingdom very much. To be at war constantly is very hard--maybe not for the Prince, but for the people. However, he does say that a man must avoid all bad vices and qualities to be a good ruler, and that is true. Lastly, he says that the people should fear their ruler rather than love him, and I don't think that is a good way to rule. The government should fear the people, not the other way around. The people should have power over their own lives, and shouldn't have to fear that someone else can take control of their life.
ReplyDelete"The Prince ought to have no other aim or though, nor select anything else for his study, than war and its rules and discipline.." I do not agree with Prince Machiavelli's ruling methods because he says that he should not focus on anything besides war. War is important, for it can help an empire grow, but a prince should focus on other things to help the city grow. I think it is good that he said "it is necessary for him to be sufficiently prident that he may know how to avoid the reproach of thsoe vices which would lose him his state". In saying this, he believes that all rulers should try to act in a moral manner. He also says that it is better for a ruler to be feared than loved. This shows that he wants power and he doesn't care if he has to make enemies for it.
ReplyDelete"The Prince ought to have no other aim or thought, nor select anything else for his study, than war and its rules and discipline" (Fordham). I do not agree with this sort of rule that was enforced by Machiavelli. Of course war is important in many different ways, but it is important for any ruler to have a connection with people who they rule. This is not possible if all they are doing is fighting in war. It is also a possibility that the Princes could have other goals and dreams, but they are ruined as they are forced to fight in war.
ReplyDelete"Nevertheless a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred" (Fordham) As I had said before, you need to have a strong relationship between you and the people you rule. If the people who are being ruled don't actually like the prince, it could lead to conflicts.
I agree with Machiavelli’s view on how to rule because he was focused on military. I agree with this, because in order for protection of the people, you need a strong army. He also says that when other people have not focused on the army, their states have fallen. I also think that he was right when he said that it was better to be feared than loved. “It is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with. Because this is to be asserted in general of men, that they are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous, and as long as you successed they are yours entirely; they will offer you their blood, property, life, and children, as is said above, when the need is far distant; but when it approaches they turn against you.” (Third Article down)This way, everyone will be scarred of you and won’t try to take over or conquer you. You have the respect of the people and are able to rule easier because you aren't worried about what people think of you. You are also given more when people fear you, so that they can get on your good side, so you can profit. In the end, Machiavelli said that the point is to be feared, but not hated.
ReplyDelete"The Prince ought to have no other aim or though, nor select anything else for his study, than war and its rules and discipline". I don't agree with Machiavelli's beliefs that Prince's should focus solely on war and themselves. While it is important to focus on war, I think that in order to rule effectively, it is also important to work in benefiting the surrounding citizens, along with trade. Machiavelli also talks about the idea that it is better to be feared than loved. I think this is true in some ways, because fear is key in order to have power and the ability to control lands. I think that a ruler should also be loved though, because without the citizen's support, revolts could occur.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, I don not agree with Niccolo Machiavelli's thoughts. A prince should have more than just war and rules. A proper Prince must be understanding, compassionate, and supportive. The only positive gain of war would be territory, which would expand the empire. But nothing else is gained from war. Rules simply bring arrogance and arrogance is not fit for a flourishing empire. Niccolo Machiavelli states that when a Prince is distracted from things other than war or rules, he loses states. I strongly disagree with this statement because if a Prince uses intelligence to construct a strong government, he mayy not lose his states and can ponder about other topics such as politics, health, etc. To conclude, I do not agree with Niccolo Machiavelli's statement about how a Prince should only be focused on war and rules.
I agree with his thoughts. He focused on army so his people would be protected. Also, he wanted to get his tasks finished in an orderly fashion. He also said that he avoided and endured hatred which shows he was strong. He said that he would rather be feared than love. This shows that he was strong, could not be manipulated and could not be pushed around. He made a point that he wanted to be feared, not hated.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with Machiavelli's ways of ruling because he is a kind of a unkind ruler. He says doing wrong the right way is okay. He also thinks the face of a prince should be feared but admired instead of hated, which I do agree with. A prince should be feared to gain his power, but he should be admired so he can have followers and no rebellion on his lands.
ReplyDeleteI don’t agree with Machiavelli's views on how to rule because when it stated that, "The Prince ought to have no other aim or thought, nor select anything else for his study, than war and its rules and discipline; for this is the sole art that belongs to him who rules, and it is of such force that it not only upholds those who are born princes, but it often enables men to rise from a private station to that rank." I feel like the princes should be focusing on more than just the war aspects of ruling, while it plays a big part in the government the people s welfare should be respected with the utmost care. They should be studying more than just warfare, they should also be studying other things such as how to establish different laws, how to keep uprisings from happening, and most importantly to think through things that will keep the peoples happy
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with Machiavelli's way to rule because it says "it is seen that when princes have thought more of ease than of arms they have lost their states." They need to be relaxed and focus on ease because without ease they will for sure lose their states, not just because of thinking more of ease. I think they shouldn't just focus on their land and going to war, but also focus on other things like art and happiness.
ReplyDelete"The Prince ought to have no other aim or thought, nor select anything else for his study, than war and its rules and discipline; for this is the sole art that belongs to him who rules, and it is of such force that it not only upholds those who are born princes, but it often enables men to rise from a private station to that rank."
ReplyDeleteI disagree with this because I believe that there only job should be to focus on the people as much as war, you should care for your people, if you are a good leader. Without the people there will not be war. The king should not show fear, because it brings fear and anger to the people. You need a strong and determined king to be in charge.
I disagree mostly with this article. It states that the Prince ought to have no other thought than that of war. I believe if he only thinks of war and discipline, he is focused too much on violence, and will therefore cause extra violence. It states that being unarmed causes you to be despised, but I disagree with this. If you are unarmed, it shows that you do not encourage violence, and I would not despise a Prince like that. It also states that a prince wishing to hold his own has to know how to do wrong. This is not necessarily true. You can be a strong person and have power without doing bad things to others to gain that power.
ReplyDeleteAs for the last paragraph, I think it is possible to be feared and loved at the same time. Maybe feared is not the most suiting word, but respected may be better. You can be loved but still be firm with discipline and be respected enough so that you are trusted and no one revolts against you. It is important to be a loved ruler, though, If a ruler is hated, his people may try to overthrow him.
"The Prince ought to have no other aim or thought, nor select anything else for his study, than war and its rules and discipline; for this is the sole art that belongs to him who rules, and it is of such force that it not only upholds those who are born princes, but it often enables men to rise from a private station to that rank" I disagree with what was said in this article because it says the Prince must only think of war and discipline and you can't rule land like that. Also, it states Princes should be more feared than loved and that can lead to rebellions
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with Machiavelli's ideas of ruling. I don't think that a prince should only focus on war. War can be useful and is sometimes necessary, but there are other things that rulers need to focus on. The idea of being feared instead of loved could cause anger among the people. I think it is possible to be both loved and feared.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with Machiavelli's style of ruling. The Prince should focus on more than just war and his rank. It is important for him to find the balance between being loved or being feared. Both come with benefits but also with consequences when they have only one characteristic.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with everything Machiavelli describes for a prince, but I do see his points. I think that an excessive focus on war and force, while developing key ruling traits like how to lead and make informed decisions, may distract from many other just as important aspects of a successful kingdom, like for example the economy and trade relations or the quality of life of your people. You must be strong enough to protect those who trust in you as your citizens and help your nation succeed, but it shouldn't overshadow other parts of your kingdom that are also just as much your responsibility. I also think that while being feared may give you more absolute power and obedient response, it does not mean you are respected or trusted as a ruler should be, plus it's not necessarily a sign of weakness to rely on others at times.
ReplyDeletein the first segment Machiavelli talks about the importance of battle. I agree that both strategy and physical fighting ability would have been essential for a prince at this time, but I don't think that they are the only things a prince would have needed. As there are many aspects of ruling, he would require many skills and an understanding of a variety of tasks.
ReplyDeleteMachiavelli states that a prince should know how to do wrong, and use his judgment to decide whether or not he should, depending on which would improve his reputation and status more. I disagree with this because I think a ruler should always try to do what is right for the people.
He explains that a ruler should be feared, but not hated. I agree with this when it comes to foreign relations, but in regard to a "prince's" own people I believe that being loved is more effective. The people would be more likely to do all that they can to help a ruler they love than one they feel forced into helping.
I do not agree with Machiavelli's choice of ruling for a prince. I feel that a prince should not only focus on war but they should focus on the views of the people and their needs. "The Prince ought to have no other aim or thought, nor select anything else for his study, than war and its rules and discipline; for this is the sole art that belongs to him who rules, and it is of such force that it not only upholds those who are born princes, but it often enables men to rise from a private station to that rank." This quote from the article shows that all he needs to focus on is war and nothing else. Although I do not agree with his choice to only focus on war and force, he had a point. The war and force focuses on the discipline that a country needs but that should not be the only thing a ruler should focus on.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that the princes should be looking for wars but it is something to be concerned about. He may not be thinking about his citizens but a war could also cause issues, it is a genuine concern. Although i do think the prince should put his people before himself and victories.
ReplyDelete"The Prince ought to have no other aim or thought, nor select anything else for his study, than war and its rules and discipline; for this is the sole art that belongs to him who rules, and it is of such force that it not only upholds those who are born princes, but it often enables men to rise from a private station to that rank."
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with this, because I believe that Machiavelli should not just focus on war and rank. I think that it is very essential for him to be at least a little loved and honored by his people, not just feared.
It says that "The Prince ought to have no other aim or thought, nor select anything else for his study, than war and its rules and discipline; for this is the sole art that belongs to him who rules, and it is of such force that it not only upholds those who are born princes, but it often enables men to rise from a private station to that rank. And, on the contrary, it is seen that when princes have thought more of ease than of arms they have lost their states." I disagree because I think that princes should not just be focused on war but on power also and the only way to be both fully successful is through knowledge and skill not just one.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with his ways of ruling. He should not have focused solely on on war and discipline. He should try to be a good ruler to his people, and try to feel loved in some way. Without the support of the citizens, a revolt could begin. The government should fear the people, not the people fear the government.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with Machiavelli's views on ruling. I don't necessarily think that a prince has to solely focus on war and its rules and disciplines. Also, I don't think a prince would be despised because it was not his main focus in ruling. I think the main focus in ruling should be what is best for the people and the country, but not just protection. It should cover everything like rules, rights, freedom, and the issues of food, shelter, and clothing. Next, I don't think a prince should have to "inspire fear" to avoid hatred. I feel fear comes with hate, like if you are scared of someone you are going to hate them for making you feel that way.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Machiavelli’s ideas on the rules a prince must oblige by. A prince must defend his title by proving himself noble and worthy. Machiavelli stated, “When a prince thinks more of ease than of arms, than their states have been lost.” This quote teaches us that a prince will always have more success if he puts forth effort towards a beneficial goal. Machiavelli valued hard work and a prince who was proud of his position and willing to secure it.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with Machiavelli's opinion on how to rule. A prince should not be focused on wars. Yes, it is good to have an army to protect the people, but war is not something to focus on constantly. War only brings destruction and political and economic problems. He should be focused on the things the people think are important and what would benefit his people the most. Peace can bring periods like the Renaissance and strength and good change in political and economic issues.
ReplyDeleteHis statement about wanting to be a prince people feared, not loved doesn't seem right to me. If people only fear him, that means they won't like him. They may obey him but won't like him. This could bring revolts from the people if they don't like how he rules.
I do not completely agree with Machiavelli's views. I do not agree with his views on war at all. I believe that peace gets more things done then war. I also believe that a ruler can be successful without practicing the art of war. Yes they might want an army for protection but I don't think weather you participate in war or not defines you as a leader and how far you will get. I do however agree with his statement " I say that all men when they are spoken of, and chiefly princes for being more highly placed, are remarkable for some of those qualities which bring them either blame or praise". The more powerful and respected you are, the easier it is for people to blame things on you if something went wrong. I also disagree with his opinion of being feared gives you more power then being loved. I feel as if in the end you will be supported more by people who love you then by people who fear you. Once you loose power the fear will turn into hate.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree that the only thing in life is war. I believe that there are more important things than maintaining power and wealth, though that is a big issue. I agree that a leader should not be blamed or praised for an entire nations good or bad times, as it is many people who help/hurt a country. I believe it is better to only be loved than feared. I disagree that people should be both loved and feared. I believe that people should be respected, not feared.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with his views on a few things. He believed a person could not be successful without the art of war. Instead he should believe in peace. Machiavelli also wanted to be feared instead of loved, which didn’t make very much sense. If people love you they will support you whereas if you were feared they would only be scared and not support you.
ReplyDeleteI think that this is very true. Without some sort of fear instilled in people, one cannot hold power. This same principle remains true in modern time. For example the global superpowers of today are those countries with supreme control over nuclear weapons. However, military power is not the only factor that contributes to successful leadership. It also has to do with trade and alliances among other countries.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree that the only important principle of life is war, power, and violence. I agree that a country doesn't become the most powerful government by just sitting around, but their are definitely more ways to a successful government than weapons and fear, although they may be important. As Lauren said, people should be respected and treated equally with the truth, not a lie of fear just to control them.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this idea of power. Although power should not only rely on war and violence, people need to be aggressive to maintain a good society. If everyone were laid back and non-violent, they would not be able to defend themselves in times of attack. A good society must be able to fight and have wars in order to continue their power.
ReplyDeleteIt says that "The Prince ought to have no other aim or thought, nor select anything else for his study, than war and its rules and discipline; for this is the sole art that belongs to him who rules, and it is of such force that it not only upholds those who are born princes, but it often enables men to rise from a private station to that rank" I disagree with this because I do not think that war, and violence are the most important things in life.
ReplyDeleteI feel like a prince should be getting to know his people before he worries himself over war. His father, or the King, should be doing that, while the Prince studies. It almost says that a prince should only be focused on war, and to be that doesn't seem right. But, I'm not saying that they shouldn't know strategies or how to fight. Though I like how it says that a prince should know that he can do wrong, and then know how to fix it. I have mixed feelings about that. Like sometimes it is good to be feared, or respected in a sense. But it's also good to be loved and have loyal subjects because they love you so much.
ReplyDelete