Steve Hess January 28, 2008 PS431 The Rise and Fall of Machiavelli Exactly who was Niccolo Machiavelli? Was he a ruthless tyrant who deeply believed in ruling with an iron fist? Or was he simply a 15th century political theorist that observed the nature and tendencies of past political leaders? I would have to aim more towards the latter although many believe Machiavelli's ruthless and deceitful political suggestions place him in the category of &quot;evil teacher&quot;. To say that Machiavelli is an &quot;evil teacher&quot; is unjust and not accurate. Although many of Machiavelli's teaching emphasize the use of violence and cruelty, his justifications seem to always point towards the benefit of the statehood as a whole. Machiavelli's justification to use brutality and deception in politics was driven by the observations of past political elites as well as human nature itself. In <a href="/keyword/the-prince/" >the prince</a> , Machiavelli lays out how someone can obtain and sustains political power. According to Machiavelli there are numerous steps and challenges one must take in order to even become fit for prince hood; and even once those challenges have been met holding onto that power can prove to be and even harder challenge. One way Machiavelli suggests holding that power is through the use of fear and cruelty. One example he uses to justify the use of such tactics can be found on page 60 of <a href="/keyword/the-prince/" >the prince</a> . &quot;Cesare Borgia was considered cruel, but his cruelty had brought order to the Romagna, united it, and reduced it to peace and fealty&quot; (p. 60). Machiavelli also talks about the difference between love and fear, and why being feared is better than being loved. &quot;...love is held by a chain of obligation which, men being selfish, is broken whenever it serves their purpose; but fear is maintained by a dread of punishment which never fails&quot; (p. 61). This quote, read at face value, may appear to be the musings of a dictator; although when placed in the context of Machiavelli's view of human nature and attitude towards maintaining the statehood at all costs, this quote looses its tyrant-feel. Machiavelli's views on human nature were at best skeptical. &quot;For it may be said of men in general that they are ungrateful, voluble, dissemblers, anxious to avoid danger, and covetous of gain; as long as you benefit them, they are entirely yours&quot; (p. 61). He, like many political theorists believe humans to be innately self-interested although he also felt that human affections could be won or lost. &quot;...the character of peoples varies, and it is easy to persuade them of a thing, but difficult to keep them in that persuasion. And so it is necessary to order things so that when they no longer believe, they can be made to believe by force&quot; (p. 22). Machiavelli points out these inequalities and tendencies towards selfishness to help justify the use of brutal and deceitful politics. Viewing human nature as Machiavelli would, one can see why he refrains from placing too much trust or lending too much generosity to the people. According to Machiavelli, although generosity seems to be an admirable quality, it will eventually lead to the downfall of the state; and it is the inability to maintain ones state that will lead to their downfall as ruler. Many of Machiavelli's notions about human nature may seem reasonable although it must be noted that they are simply opinions and ungrounded theories. It is this lack of evidence Machiavelli's critics point towards when analyzing <a href="/keyword/the-prince/" >the prince</a> . Could it be that Machiavelli relies too heavily on his assumptions of human nature? Could he be operating under a misguided view of human nature? With no concrete evidence to support of deny such theories one can't assume Machiavelli's teachings as evil. Under the context which he views human nature, ruthless actions are not only suggested but necessary in order to uphold the reputation of the state. Machiavelli's knowledge of prior rulers and nobles is also a main influence in his writings. He often refers to past Kings and Wars, noting their rights and wrongs. One instance in particular involves the virtue a King posses. According to Machiavelli a King doesn't have to posses virtuous traits but rather appear to posses them. &quot;It is not, therefore, necessary for a prince to have all the above-named qualities, but it is very necessary to seem to have them&quot; (p. 65). This fa ade Machiavelli speaks of is not a unique concept to his generation; but rather an observation made through the study of the prior rulers of Europe and Italy. For example, Machiavelli speaks of Alexander VI and his use of deceit on the people. Alexander VI did nothing else but deceive men, he thought of nothings else, and found the occasion of it; no man was ever more able to give assurance, or affirmed things with stronger oaths, and no man observed them less; however, he always succeeded in his deceptions, as he well knew this aspect of things (p. 65). Machiavelli's study of past political elites allowed him to gain real life examples of how a prince acts and controls their territory. By combining this knowledge with the tendencies of human nature Machiavelli was able to create a clear path for aspiring princes to follow. Some view his path as a road to destruction, where only war and suppression lye; whereas others feel it's the saddened truth to a not so perfect world. Throughout history government has bread corruption and we have scene that corruption rise and fall. Like the rise and fall of any empire, Machiavelli describes how one can rise to power and just as quickly loose that power.