Comparing Machiavelli's Agathocles And Borgia

The old adage, “You can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs,” this best qualifies Machiavelli’s perspective and explains what the current members of a society would classify as “good”. All men are asked and forced to face the questions of what success means and the worth that it has. The question then becomes how far is someone willing to go to be “successful”? A prince is someone that must understand the need to be less than morally supported by the actions that he takes. The notion that the/a prince is being criminal is an illogical, counter-intuitive statement says Machiavelli, “the princes who have done great things… have to know how to get around men’s brains with their astuteness” (Machiavelli, Page 69) The major duties that …show more content…
Agathocles and Borgia are very similar in the type of cruelties that they engaged in, however Cesara Borgia receives some of the highest praises from Machiavelli because he hails as being “prudent and virtuous.” (Machiavelli, Page 27) Similar to the paradoxical virtue of Agathocles, the view that Machiavelli has about Borgia is one that highlights his propensity to commit and act in cruel ways. The way that Machiavelli praises Borgia should be approached with a little bit of skepticism, because in the context of being a fox Agathocles is a saint compared to Borgia. Agathocles was indicted as cruel and inhumane and thus restricted from being considered excellent however, the people view Borgia as a great leader who was the cause of his own fault. The difference between the two examples provided is the way that they approached their tact. Borgia did many offenses but all the transgressions he did in a cunning manner that shrouds his atrocities from the eyes of the many. Borgia made a choice to select Remirro as his prime mister. Remirro as the prime minster allowed for Borgia to break all the rules. This is because Borgia’s treatment of Remirro is similar to that of a scapegoat. Borgia used Remirro to carry out some of his “hateful” crimes then capitalized on the fact that people thought Remirro was a cruel person. Borgia then, completely, severs ties in both a “stupefying” and …show more content…
The way the people view the prince should not be at the top of a princes to do list, but it should defiantly be kept in mind. The public opinion of a prince is an integral component to whether a prince will be seen as successful or not. For a prince, there is an inherent need for a facilitating perspective to be taken by the people on the actions of the prince. Because of the princes need for the people, a prince should want and seek to have a good reputation. To maintain such a well-known reputation in the eyes of the people has great value in other areas like security and fortune. In order for a prince to be considered truly “excellent,” the prince needs to be viewed by the people in a peculiar light. (Machiavelli, Page 35) Machiavelli’s argument is that a prince should and ought to be feared but, also not hated. This created a pretty big conundrum for the prince. For a prince, being loved and feared is paradox that could be viewed as counter-intuitive. In deeper sight we can conclude that this is possible and, in fact, most optimal for a prince to be feared but not blatantly hated. Machiavelli’s case for this stated that “men love at their convenience and fear at the convenience of the prince.” (Machiavelli, Page 68) He goes even further when he clearly states “to be rapacious and a usurper of the property and women of his subjects” will spell the end for a prince” (Machiavelli,