NationStates Jolt Archive

Who was/is a very machiavelli nation leader - just... in your opinion ... and please dont say bush... otherwise this disgusion looks just like every other post....

Hitler actually exihibited 9 of the 10 traits. He messed up on the most important one (don't surround yourself with yes-men!). Churchill and Roosevelt each had 4 and I think Stalin had 3.

It's a shame too because Machiavelli was a great political thinker and is often given a really bad rep.

It's a shame too because Machiavelli was a great political thinker and is often given a really bad rep.
He was a little too practical, however. Pragmatically, Il Principe is ingenious. When you realise that we aren't eusocial insects, however, it starts to lose some of its glory.

The Prince is indeed great. What too many people fail to realize is that Machiavelli doesn't just say that a leader should be brutal. He says that if brutality is necessary to restore order and instill security then so be it but such should not continue past due necessity nor should the leaders take away the property or honor of men because it is all they have. A lot of this (since back then women were property) had to do with the seizure of homes and the burning of them as well as the raping of women. The Russians could learn a lot in reference to Chechnya but then again hell, that whole thing is just a chaos world.

I am gonna say Steward Denethor(of Gondor) from Lord of the Rings. Hey, ya never said they had to be real. :p <--damn that smiley looks retarded, but it seemed to fit...

yup that was retarded alright

yup that was retarded alright
Well if you actually look at his character he does fit. Expand your mind before you call my post retarded.

The most obvious and pertinent answer was disallowed, so : Nothing.

He was a little too practical, however. Pragmatically, Il Principe is ingenious. When you realise that we aren't eusocial insects, however, it starts to lose some of its glory.

Get the to the Discourses Upon The First Ten (Books) of Titus Livy (http://www.constitution.org/mac/disclivy_.htm)!

And it is all too often forgotten that it was that exact practicallity that made Machiavelli one of the most exciting polotical theorists of all time, and gives him a claim to be the first scientific observer of politics.

The Prince is indeed great. What too many people fail to realize is that Machiavelli doesn't just say that a leader should be brutal. He says that if brutality is necessary to restore order and instill security then so be it but such should not continue past due necessity nor should the leaders take away the property or honor of men because it is all they have. A lot of this (since back then women were property) had to do with the seizure of homes and the burning of them as well as the raping of women. The Russians could learn a lot in reference to Chechnya but then again hell, that whole thing is just a chaos world.


:D "By such methods one may win dominion but not glory."

The most obvious and pertinent answer was disallowed, so : Nothing.

Bush is not Machiavellian. He's not an idiot, but he's nowhere near being in the same league as the examples Machiavelli presents as great men.

:D "By such methods one may win dominion but not glory."

Alas, and the Prince must make the ultimate sacrifice, his soul for the good of his people.

Me! Oh, wait...Real nation leaders...not NS nation's leaders.

Honestly, I wonder if Putin isn't shifting over to more Machiavellian methods of power-use. He's not particularly skilled at it mind you, but he seems to be heading in that direction. Look at how he handled Yukos and how he currently handles the breakaway provinces and sattilite states around Russia. They seem like clumsy attempts to put The Prince's teachings to use.

Oddly enough, if you look at the Chinese Communist leadership (as much as outsiders CAN get accurate information about them), you'll see that the same focus on pragmatic use of power, with a strong emphasis on maintaining social order through carefully chosen applications coercion and force. As a collective body, they might also be considered canidates.

Those are the best two examples I can think of. The problem is that so few true "Principalities" exist now. So many nations are run through beuracracy with figureheads now, many more are run through slightly more democratic methods. As Daistallia mentioned, it would be even more fascinating to see how many nations fit the lesser known but perhaps more important "Discourses" by good old 'Niccolo.

Some of the greatest politicians in European history who had certain Machiavellian qualities:

Richelieu
Bismarck
Metternich

It could be said Nixon was Machiavellian.

Andrew Jackson could also be considered Machiavellian in a few minor ways, I think.

For some very interesting reading on European diplomacy and the application of raison d'etat and realpolitik, I would suggest Henry Kissinger's Diplomacy.

P.S. It's obvious to us in the West that Putin is using Machiavellian, Authoritarian politics to seize power as he slowly erodes the rather liberal constitution of Russia... in Russia, however, Putin's methods are quite insidious, as he controls most of the media and is capable of strongarming his opponents; so the knowledge that he's bringing Russia back towards despotism is not exactly common amongst the Soviets.

Me! Oh, wait...Real nation leaders...not NS nation's leaders.

Yep, thought you'd be sniffing around this one pretty soon... ;) :D

Honestly, I wonder if Putin isn't shifting over to more Machiavellian methods of power-use. He's not particularly skilled at it mind you, but he seems to be heading in that direction. Look at how he handled Yukos and how he currently handles the breakaway provinces and sattilite states around Russia. They seem like clumsy attempts to put The Prince's teachings to use.

Oddly enough, if you look at the Chinese Communist leadership (as much as outsiders CAN get accurate information about them), you'll see that the same focus on pragmatic use of power, with a strong emphasis on maintaining social order through carefully chosen applications coercion and force. As a collective body, they might also be considered canidates.

Those are the best two examples I can think of. The problem is that so few true "Principalities" exist now. So many nations are run through beuracracy with figureheads now, many more are run through slightly more democratic methods. As Daistallia mentioned, it would be even more fascinating to see how many nations fit the lesser known but perhaps more important "Discourses" by good old 'Niccolo.

I agree on your choices. Mao was really good at it, until he let it go to his head. Maybe Stalin?

I'd go for Otto von Bismark or Frederick William I of Prussia.

Some of the greatest politicians in European history who had certain Machiavellian qualities:

Richelieu
Bismarck
Metternich

It could be said Nixon was Machiavellian.

Andrew Jackson could also be considered Machiavellian in a few minor ways, I think.

Good choices, especially that Prussian fellow. ;) And how could I have forgotten about the good cardinal. :) And "Tricky Dick" was called that for a reason.

For some very interesting reading on European diplomacy and the application of raison d'etat and realpolitik, I would suggest Henry Kissinger's Diplomacy.

Seconded. A good read for sure.

Granted I'm not a real-life leader, hell I'm still in college, I think that I am a rather good example of a Machiavellian person. ;).

Nice name Niccolo Medici.

Get the to the Discourses Upon The First Ten (Books) of Titus Livy (http://www.constitution.org/mac/disclivy_.htm)!

And it is all too often forgotten that it was that exact practicallity that made Machiavelli one of the most exciting polotical theorists of all time, and gives him a claim to be the first scientific observer of politics.
I agree that the neglected 'Discourses' is merely an exercise in observation of the facts. The conclusions he drew from them are pertinent. It is the better of the two reads on Machiavelli.

Those who disparage the Bush administration's efforts to apply these principles miss the whole point. He may appear the fool, but those on whose shoulders he stands are deadly serious practitioners.

Granted I'm not a real-life leader, hell I'm still in college, I think that I am a rather good example of a Machiavellian person. ;).

Nice name Niccolo Medici.

Think Yew. I'm guessing very few who remember my posts would expect me to miss out on this thread.

I owe a lot to Machiavelli; my early outlook on politics was the the product of my own naive understanding of his work.

Think Yew. I'm guessing very few who remember my posts would expect me to miss out on this thread.

I owe a lot to Machiavelli; my early outlook on politics was the the product of my own naive understanding of his work.

I think I credit him more than any other for my political philosophy. I take some from Hobbs and naturally Normative Method from Plato and Aristotle but Machiavelli is my all-time favorite. He writes lavishly and well in terms of what needs to be done for a ruler and he recognizes a lot of things that many other political thinkers, to this day, have never realized. Then I have to give Rousseau due credit because his social contract is perhaps one of the most well written ones.

I think I credit him more than any other for my political philosophy. I take some from Hobbs and naturally Normative Method from Plato and Aristotle but Machiavelli is my all-time favorite. He writes lavishly and well in terms of what needs to be done for a ruler and he recognizes a lot of things that many other political thinkers, to this day, have never realized. Then I have to give Rousseau due credit because his social contract is perhaps one of the most well written ones.

This brings up one of my problems with Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and their followers - "state of nature".

The closest thing I can see from what I know of anthropology and archaeology is that Hobbes' "state of warre" may have existed in some form. But Locke and Rousseau's "states of nature" were as much "imagined republics" as Plato and Aristotle's. Part of me says reject everything derived from those two (which amounts to all modern political thought, to some degree) and continue the proper observation started with Machiavelli.

This brings up one of my problems with Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and their followers - "state of nature".

The closest thing I can see from what I know of anthropology and archaeology is that Hobbes' "state of warre" may have existed in some form. But Locke and Rousseau's "states of nature" were as much "imagined republics" as Plato and Aristotle's. Part of me says reject everything derived from those two (which amounts to all modern political thought, to some degree) and continue the proper observation started with Machiavelli.

Interesting theory...I'll have to re-read Locke and Rousseau's works to check on that. I'll admit my rather basic knowledge of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau limits my ability to estimate their impact on modern political thought, but I think that if you are right in your assessment that the world political scene would be dramatically influenced by abandoning those works. I wonder what would become of such a change?

My only real problem with returning to the perhaps more realistic Machiavellian thought is that SO MANY mistake his motives and theories. The very word now has been perverted. A true return to Machiavellian principles would mean a great deal or education or re-learning of the theories he espoused.

...I guess though, that all political philosophies are prone, indeed fated to perversion. Just look at Confucionism, its many, many offshoots, and their various effects.

This brings up one of my problems with Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and their followers - "state of nature".

The closest thing I can see from what I know of anthropology and archaeology is that Hobbes' "state of warre" may have existed in some form. But Locke and Rousseau's "states of nature" were as much "imagined republics" as Plato and Aristotle's. Part of me says reject everything derived from those two (which amounts to all modern political thought, to some degree) and continue the proper observation started with Machiavelli.

Actually the state of nature refers to man without any form of government. This is the true definition of anarchy. This is where "might makes right."

Niccoló Macchiavelli (1469-1527)

Actually the state of nature refers to man without any form of government. This is the true definition of anarchy.

Well, it all depends on what level of social structure and heirarchy you count as government. From what I have studied of anthropology, archaeology, and biology, all of those pre-date H. sapiens, thus my conclusion that the State of Nature never existed.

This is where "might makes right."

That's Hobbes' State of Warre. Rousseau in particular posited a State of Nature that was peaceful. Locke was in-between.

Well, it all depends on what level of social structure and heirarchy you count as government. From what I have studied of anthropology, archaeology, and biology, all of those pre-date H. sapiens, thus my conclusion that the State of Nature never existed.



That's Hobbes' State of Warre. Rousseau in particular posited a State of Nature that was peaceful. Locke was in-between.

If the state of nature never existed what would you call early human life of cave men?

Interesting theory...I'll have to re-read Locke and Rousseau's works to check on that. I'll admit my rather basic knowledge of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau limits my ability to estimate their impact on modern political thought, but I think that if you are right in your assessment that the world political scene would be dramatically influenced by abandoning those works. I wonder what would become of such a change?

:eek: All modern political thought flows Machiavelli-->Hobbes-->Locke and Rousseau, with a few exceptions.

Locke is the basis for classical Liberalism and conservatism and Rousseau the basis of all socialism and communism.

My only real problem with returning to the perhaps more realistic Machiavellian thought is that SO MANY mistake his motives and theories. The very word now has been perverted. A true return to Machiavellian principles would mean a great deal or education or re-learning of the theories he espoused.

Absolutely! Even Il Principe is read as "the ends justify the means" when it clearly says otherwise (see the quote above re domination and glory).

...I guess though, that all political philosophies are prone, indeed fated to perversion. Just look at Confucionism, its many, many offshoots, and their various effects.

Or exapnsion.
Have a look at Hsun Tsu (aka Xun-zi). His student Han Fei-tzu was one of the founders of the Legalists school. There are some very inere4sting similarities with Machiavelli's ideas.

http://www.san.beck.org/EC14-Confucian.html#5
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~wldciv/world_civ_reader/world_civ_reader_1/hanfeitzu.html

If the state of nature never existed what would you call early human life of cave men?

That's the point. There was a social structure in place that could be called government well before what we would recognize as man. No, Anarchic culture has ever been discovered. Every culture known has some structure. Thus, the state of nature is called a "useful fiction", and not a real observable phenomenon. And as such it fails as the basis for explaining politics from a scientific basis.

As such all lies in interpretation.

I think Bismarck is the best example of a truly Machiavellian ruler. His only mistake was that in beating his enemies he did not utterly incapacitate them. Leaving a vanquished foe still breathing is a recipe for revenge.




Someone has already mentioned the Discourses on Livy... You should also notice that the greatest examples that Machiavelli puts forth in The Prince are all founders of republics. The message is, "If you want to be remembered, found a republic."

This brings up one of my problems with Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and their followers - "state of nature".

The closest thing I can see from what I know of anthropology and archaeology is that Hobbes' "state of warre" may have existed in some form.

If so, he never knew about it! He did not intend his "state of nature" to be an anthropological theory. He meant it quite literally as a description of the world around him -- and says so. He means for the Leviathan to be a guide to men's own souls (in a very Lutheran sense): he expects us to recognize ourselves in it. Regarding the state of nature, at one point he says (paraphrasing), "How do we know that this is true? ... Doesn't everyone lock their doors at night?" All he is pointing out is that, absent the fear of government authority, people must live constantly with the realistic fear that anyone can rob or kill them at any time.

But Locke and Rousseau's "states of nature" were as much "imagined republics" as Plato and Aristotle's.

Locke also never intended his to be a realistic anthropological account, although he is more vague on this than Hobbes. He also thought himself to be reading the hearts of men, and in some ways his conclusions are not so different than Hobbes'. He argues that most people would be able to get along decently enough without government (it is not in our nature to rob and kill), but the few bad ones ruin it for all of us. (Similarly, Hobbes argues that we are not naturally competitive, but most of us are forced to compete for scarce resources lest the few truly greedy men hog them all.)

Rousseau is the only one who says that he wants to tell us about the anthropology of human pre-history, and he is certainly at least partially honest in this claim. However, Rousseau is famous for his habitual double-speak, and I suspect that he really invented his state of nature for primarily rhetorical purposes. After all, unlike the two previous theorists he mounts an attack on civilization itself. He therefore needs an "uncivilized" position from which to view it, so he "strips away" the vanities of civilized life and imagines a person whose only concerns are eating, sleeping, and making love. He doesn't see much need for violence in such a world. In either case, he takes a much more serious interest in Native American lifestyles than his predecessors, and based his state of nature largely on his understanding of Native American life. (Admittedly, his perspective was colored by the biased -- and racist -- image of the "noble savage.")

Part of me says reject everything derived from those two

Try reading them more carefully and get back to me.

:eek: All modern political thought flows Machiavelli-->Hobbes-->Locke and Rousseau, with a few exceptions.

Locke is the basis for classical Liberalism and conservatism and Rousseau the basis of all socialism and communism.

Absolutely! Even Il Principe is read as "the ends justify the means" when it clearly says otherwise (see the quote above re domination and glory).

Or exapnsion.
Have a look at Hsun Tsu (aka Xun-zi). His student Han Fei-tzu was one of the founders of the Legalists school. There are some very inere4sting similarities with Machiavelli's ideas.

http://www.san.beck.org/EC14-Confucian.html#5
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~wldciv/world_civ_reader/world_civ_reader_1/hanfeitzu.html

Heh, no need for shock! I am aware of their basic ideas, and I have read all three of their works. I am not, however an expert, merely curious as to what they actually had to say on a small host of subjects. I have not had any high-level intellectual discussions or lectures on the various interpretations of their ideas. Thus I don't count myself as particularly knowledgable about them.

On the other hand, my nation's namesake has had particularly large amounts of attention paid to it. I'm fairly well versed in it. I am also a avid studier of the 100 schools of thought in pre-unification China; thus Legalism is very familiar to me.

I would point out that legalism as it was applied in history (or rather, as the Confucian scholars depicted/villified it) seems more like the very misunderstanding of The Prince's ideas that I was talking about. Again, Legalism itself was a model of effeciency, a school of thought that was surprisingly modern, yet entirely draconian.

Hey, have you ever seen "The Emperor and the Assassin"? I've seen it quite a few times now, and I was wondering if anyone had an opinion as to its accuracy in portraying the Chin Emperor and his time period.