A Feared Ruler? :: essays research papers

Machiavelli was a man who was not unhinged about what was morally correct, but rather, what was politically deserved. He was in event an honest and religious man, but he has become known for hanky panky and double-dealing. He thought that princes would have to start tricking his enemies, or even his wad for the good of his state. In my opinion, his theory, It is better to be feared than loved is saying that when the bulk fear their ruler, the ruler will nigh likely charter what he wants. When a ruler has control and intimidation over his slew, they will most likely do what he says and follow his rules, out of fear. Some plurality might argue and say that if a ruler is loved than people will deference him and follow his rules. This is true, except, it is harder to sign on people to love and respect their ruler so much as to do everything they are told, than it is to get them to fear their ruler.Out of the three monarchs Louis of France, Henry of England, and Ferdinand of S pain, I think Louis in spades exhibited Machiavellis theory the best. Louis depended on trickery, intimidation and bribery to get what he wanted. These three characteristics are exactly what Machiavelli believes in. Louis wanted to weaken the powers on the owing(p) lords in France so that he had all the power. Any noble that resisted Louiss rule was bribed or threatened until the noble agreed with Louis. Once on that point was a cardinal who disobeyed Louis. He was locked in a small henhouse for 11 years. He couldnt even stand up or sit down. The people under Louis rule were very scared of him that they were unstrained to put up anything to impress and agree with him. Louis was aiming for people to fear him though. I think he felt that it would in fact be easier to get people to fear him rather than respect him.