Khan Vs Borgia
I think that it is better to be feared than loved in order to retain and increase power. Niccolo Machiavelli, author of The Prince, provided ample evidence to support this theory. A feared prince focuses on what needs to be established in his nation and distances himself from personal affairs that interferes with his position, whereas a beloved prince would constantly seek validation from the people, thereby weakening his power and rule. “People thought Cesare Borgia was cruel, but that cruelty of his reorganized the Romagna, unified it, and established it in peace and loyalty. (45)” A strong leader, like Borgia, understood that in order to get results and cooperation from the people that there must be terror installed in them, so that the nation can prosper in riches, land, and resources, and achieve equilibrium. Genghis Khan, for example, was considered a brutal leader that would not stop at no cost; he was merciless and used fear as a strategy to expand the Mongolian empire and make allies. His power inclined by the years and he contributed greatly to modern day advancements by reconnecting the silk road, which allowed Europeans to interact with China to create things like gunpowder and printing press. With the creation of gunpowder, militaries became more efficient and forceful, and the printing press lead to a rapid spread of information and ideas. Khan was proficient in building a strong empire because he was feared and he was mindful of his goal for greatness.
…show more content…
Love can easily be manipulated and demise to hatred, whereas fear leads to respect and vigorous authority. There have been numerous historical leaders which have been feared and were able to successfully strengthen their power and their
Love can easily be manipulated and demise to hatred, whereas fear leads to respect and vigorous authority. There have been numerous historical leaders which have been feared and were able to successfully strengthen their power and their