The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
In 1513 Niccolò Machiavelli wrote Il Principe, a guide for Princes wishing to maintain and expand their lands. The ideas contained within challenged the stereotype of a good ruler and sought to argue that the best rulers were not necessarily the most moral; traditional ‘qualities’, Anthony Grafton writes, ‘considered as ‘virtuous’, in the Christian or feudal sense, were not virtuous at all in a prince’. Although the arguments contained in ‘The Prince’ may have been controversial, they are not pure fantasy. Many ‘Princes’ had put into practice the ideas Machiavelli was later to set out and enjoyed great success.
The doctrine of ‘The Prince’ can be clearly divided into three areas: Government, Military and Behavioural policy. In the book's first eleven chapters Machiavelli seeks to establish the different types of principality that a Prince can possess, or come into possessing, and then give advice to the Prince on how to gain and maintain each. Machiavelli’s main criteria for judging the strength of states was how politically stable they were. However, he was a firm believer that ‘good laws follow good arms’, making the military aspects of any ruler a key concern. The final aspect of Machiavellian doctrine is the behaviour of the Prince, particularly whether he is loved, feared or hated. Machiavelli outlines the ways in which a Prince may possess virtù, and advises how to use it to the best advantage. It is in these chapters that the most contentious advice appears, from the breaking of promises to the use of villany. Naturally, a perfect Prince will be able to disguise his immoral actions and appear to be honourable at all times; Machiavelli’s suggestion is not that crimes should never be committed, rather that they should be committed well.
The main criterion for assessing how closely a Prince follows Machiavelli’s advice is to see whether they were hated or not. If a Prince acts as instructed then he will achieve gloria and be remembered as an outstanding prince. However, if a Prince is hated then he will live in constant fear of assassination and only achieve grandezza, or greatness, due the methods he used to secure himself and his inability to hide them. In both cases the Prince would have had virtù but only the Prince that achieves gloria can be said to have fully exploited his virtù. Even so Machiavelli conceded that the virtù of a Prince controlled only half his destiny, and fortuna the other. Although virtù, being literally masculine,could be used to dominate the feminine fortuna
Do you think they've gone yet? Your Honour's plan might be working... That was something I wrote for History, "To What extent was Louis XI an exemplar Machiavellian monarch... but I took out the Louis references from the opening because one historical figure is more than enough...
This forum will work!
The doctrine of ‘The Prince’ can be clearly divided into three areas: Government, Military and Behavioural policy. In the book's first eleven chapters Machiavelli seeks to establish the different types of principality that a Prince can possess, or come into possessing, and then give advice to the Prince on how to gain and maintain each. Machiavelli’s main criteria for judging the strength of states was how politically stable they were. However, he was a firm believer that ‘good laws follow good arms’, making the military aspects of any ruler a key concern. The final aspect of Machiavellian doctrine is the behaviour of the Prince, particularly whether he is loved, feared or hated. Machiavelli outlines the ways in which a Prince may possess virtù, and advises how to use it to the best advantage. It is in these chapters that the most contentious advice appears, from the breaking of promises to the use of villany. Naturally, a perfect Prince will be able to disguise his immoral actions and appear to be honourable at all times; Machiavelli’s suggestion is not that crimes should never be committed, rather that they should be committed well.
The main criterion for assessing how closely a Prince follows Machiavelli’s advice is to see whether they were hated or not. If a Prince acts as instructed then he will achieve gloria and be remembered as an outstanding prince. However, if a Prince is hated then he will live in constant fear of assassination and only achieve grandezza, or greatness, due the methods he used to secure himself and his inability to hide them. In both cases the Prince would have had virtù but only the Prince that achieves gloria can be said to have fully exploited his virtù. Even so Machiavelli conceded that the virtù of a Prince controlled only half his destiny, and fortuna the other. Although virtù, being literally masculine,could be used to dominate the feminine fortuna
Do you think they've gone yet? Your Honour's plan might be working... That was something I wrote for History, "To What extent was Louis XI an exemplar Machiavellian monarch... but I took out the Louis references from the opening because one historical figure is more than enough...
This forum will work!
Plisken wrote:
> long boaring post
Maybe it went straight through the cavity between your ears? Or perhaps it never even passed the wall of ignorance surrounding you. What exactly is the point of replying to a well written post only to slate it, with now active participation in these forums for chat and discussion?
Anyway, nice topic Mr. Happy, but I'm still confused as to what the point of the post was? It reads like a literary version of Mulholland Drive, with now meaningful plot or logic!
Sonic
> long boaring post
Maybe it went straight through the cavity between your ears? Or perhaps it never even passed the wall of ignorance surrounding you. What exactly is the point of replying to a well written post only to slate it, with now active participation in these forums for chat and discussion?
Anyway, nice topic Mr. Happy, but I'm still confused as to what the point of the post was? It reads like a literary version of Mulholland Drive, with now meaningful plot or logic!
Sonic
Plisken wrote:
> long boaring post
less BOREING than your criticism of his historic post
> long boaring post
less BOREING than your criticism of his historic post
"War cannot be evaded just delayed to the advantages of others"
"He who controls the present controls the future. He who controls the future controls the past"
In 1513 Niccolò Machiavelli wrote Il Principe, a guide for Princes wishing to maintain and expand their lands. The ideas contained within challenged the stereotype of a good ruler and sought to argue that the best rulers were not necessarily the most moral; traditional ‘qualities’, Anthony Grafton writes, ‘considered as ‘virtuous’, in the Christian or feudal sense, were not virtuous at all in a prince’. Although the arguments contained in ‘The Prince’ may have been controversial, they are not pure fantasy. Many ‘Princes’ had put into practice the ideas Machiavelli was later to set out and enjoyed great success.
The doctrine of ‘The Prince’ can be clearly divided into three areas: Government, Military and Behavioural policy. In the book's first eleven chapters Machiavelli seeks to establish the different types of principality that a Prince can possess, or come into possessing, and then give advice to the Prince on how to gain and maintain each. Machiavelli’s main criteria for judging the strength of states was how politically stable they were. However, he was a firm believer that ‘good laws follow good arms’, making the military aspects of any ruler a key concern. The final aspect of Machiavellian doctrine is the behaviour of the Prince, particularly whether he is loved, feared or hated. Machiavelli outlines the ways in which a Prince may possess virtù, and advises how to use it to the best advantage. It is in these chapters that the most contentious advice appears, from the breaking of promises to the use of villany. Naturally, a perfect Prince will be able to disguise his immoral actions and appear to be honourable at all times; Machiavelli’s suggestion is not that crimes should never be committed, rather that they should be committed well.
The main criterion for assessing how closely a Prince follows Machiavelli’s advice is to see whether they were hated or not. If a Prince acts as instructed then he will achieve gloria and be remembered as an outstanding prince. However, if a Prince is hated then he will live in constant fear of assassination and only achieve grandezza, or greatness, due the methods he used to secure himself and his inability to hide them. In both cases the Prince would have had virtù but only the Prince that achieves gloria can be said to have fully exploited his virtù. Even so Machiavelli conceded that the virtù of a Prince controlled only half his destiny, and fortuna the other. Although virtù, being literally masculine,could be used to dominate the feminine fortuna
Do you think they've gone yet? Your Honour's plan might be working... That was something I wrote for History, "To What extent was Louis XI an exemplar Machiavellian monarch... but I took out the Louis references from the opening because one historical figure is more than enough...
This forum will work!
The doctrine of ‘The Prince’ can be clearly divided into three areas: Government, Military and Behavioural policy. In the book's first eleven chapters Machiavelli seeks to establish the different types of principality that a Prince can possess, or come into possessing, and then give advice to the Prince on how to gain and maintain each. Machiavelli’s main criteria for judging the strength of states was how politically stable they were. However, he was a firm believer that ‘good laws follow good arms’, making the military aspects of any ruler a key concern. The final aspect of Machiavellian doctrine is the behaviour of the Prince, particularly whether he is loved, feared or hated. Machiavelli outlines the ways in which a Prince may possess virtù, and advises how to use it to the best advantage. It is in these chapters that the most contentious advice appears, from the breaking of promises to the use of villany. Naturally, a perfect Prince will be able to disguise his immoral actions and appear to be honourable at all times; Machiavelli’s suggestion is not that crimes should never be committed, rather that they should be committed well.
The main criterion for assessing how closely a Prince follows Machiavelli’s advice is to see whether they were hated or not. If a Prince acts as instructed then he will achieve gloria and be remembered as an outstanding prince. However, if a Prince is hated then he will live in constant fear of assassination and only achieve grandezza, or greatness, due the methods he used to secure himself and his inability to hide them. In both cases the Prince would have had virtù but only the Prince that achieves gloria can be said to have fully exploited his virtù. Even so Machiavelli conceded that the virtù of a Prince controlled only half his destiny, and fortuna the other. Although virtù, being literally masculine,could be used to dominate the feminine fortuna
Do you think they've gone yet? Your Honour's plan might be working... That was something I wrote for History, "To What extent was Louis XI an exemplar Machiavellian monarch... but I took out the Louis references from the opening because one historical figure is more than enough...
This forum will work!