The Prince

1. Oliveratto da Ferma would most likely have success out of the three men today. However, his success would be at the criminal aspects of the world today. He gained his power during his life by the means of crime, and most likely would run the local mafia. Oliveratto da Ferma would have success leading the mafia because he was a skilled leader in battle when it came to taking, and laying siege to cities. The only weakness that can be seen in Oliveratto is the fact that he is too trusting. After he claimed a city for Boregio, he attended a meeting. At the meeting, he trusted Boregio would hear his points. Boregio had him strangled to death after the meeting, and was succeeded by his son after his death. Oliveratto da Ferma would place too much trust in his subordinates in the mafia, but It is not far fetched to believe that he would realize if one of his underlings would be trying to have him overthrown.

Cesare Boregio would not be very successful in todays world running a business because he consolidated his power through means of favor, gifts, and his inheritence. Boregio was known for using fear to instill loyalty in his subjects. After one of his leaders, da Ferma, had conquered a city, Boregio had him executed.

Remirro de Orca could have found some success in today's world, but his success would have been short lived. He was appointed his office by his uncle, Pope Alexander the Fourth. Remirro Da Orca restored peace very quickly in his rule, but was notoriously cruel to his subjects.

2. The Prince has many allies in his claim to power. Allies of the prince include: nobles, generosity, other nations who back him, victory, the people, public opinion, amount of territory controlled, money, etc. Every ally is extremely important, but one of these supersedes the others by far. The greatest ally of any prince is victory on the field of battle. Victory on the battlefield allows the Prince to expand his territory, add subjects to his rule, increase a positive opinion of him if he is merciful, and add money to his treasure. Victory on the battlefield has granted public favor of the leaders and made powers out of leaders such as Caesar and Alexander the Great. Alexander conquered the entire Persian empire, ruled by Darius, in about 15 years. He won strictly because of key, decisive victories at Isis, and Gaugamela. Gaugamela was the final crushing blow to the Persians, their king had fled the field, left the army to be slaughtered, his treasure to the Macedonians, and his personal guard to die. Darius was assassinated before he could ever regain his honor. Alexander conquered, and had victory at every place he encountered that was not already his own. Julius Caesar gained his respect by defeating the Gauls in battle, and conquering all of their territory for Rome. After Caesar returned to Rome as a politician, others turned against him. Caesar, without victory was arrogant, victory gave him that. His own friends assassinated him. Leaders need victory to succeed, but they need to maintain their victories to keep order.

3. Machiavelli states over and over that generosity is not always a good thing. Generosity has its ups and downs when you are a prince in power. Generosity is good when you are trying to vie for the crown, and gather a prince's supporters for his claim to the throne. Generosity can be a bad thing if the said Prince is in power, and trying to establish his power. Generosity is good for the nobles to gain favor when you are getting support for a claim to the throne, but generosity to the nobles is bad when you have that power because it takes one smart, vocal person to point is out, gather followers who say that the prince does all of the favors for his friends, or the nobility. The educated of the group would say that this prince was a puppet, and these angry people would rebel, and start a revolution to overthrow this prince if the favors for the nobility were so great that they could not go unnoticed. Generosity is very good to the Prince's enemies, or those who do not like him because it can gain their favor, and help this prince's image in the mind of the people. They would know that this prince respects his enemies. Generosity is frowned upon if this prince is being generous to those who also have claim to the throne that this prince is looking to claim for himself. However, as soon as this prince has the throne, they can show compassion to those who he competed against for the crown. Generosity is good overall to powerful figures when a prince is looking for power, but it is good to be generous to common people as soon as the prince has this power. Never get too optimistic though, princes must be cunning, and if they sense a hint of treachery, be ready to strike. Be generous, and ruthless at the same time. See everything as political. Never confuse morals with politics. Be generous and sly at the same time. Take a pragmatic approach to things.

4. The Beatitudes state that those who are patients will be rewarded, but Machiavelli has a more pessimistic viewpoint of things related to being meek etc. The beatitudes give hope to the people who are not born into extremely rich families, who have dreams of making the big time. Machiavelli focus' too much on social orders, saying that the poor should remain poor, and that the rich must remain rich. The beatitudes encourage us, while the Prince, written by Machiavelli discourages those who read it and are not the richest person. Machiavelli can be seen to have the desire to return to the feudal system, where there are few rich nobles who run everything, and the common people work the land as serfs, with no real hope of moving up. Machiavelli says to disregard morals, and devote all of a prince's actions to personal gain, or gain for his or her country. The Beatitudes are meant to be used as guidelines to enforce morals. Machiavelli was not very sympathetic for those who are trying to advance in social class, or those who do not have powerful connections. Machiavelli is false to say that it is not likely for a stroke of luck to happen to a person with a shaky background. A prime, modern example of a such stroke of luck is Michael Oher, offensive tackle for the Baltimore Ravens. The Beatitudes are hope for those who have none, and are more prominent for the common person to follow, while Machiavelli is not providing such hope to those. He give hope to the rich.

5. Machiavelli says you must be sly at all times, the Beatitudes say be patient. Machiavelli provides a realistic approach to things, while the Beatitudes give people false hopes that cannot be achieved. A prince should not give his subjects a false hope after all, so he must be generous, but honest at the same time. If the people have false hopes, they start to act like they know how to run things better than those who already are in charge. If the people start to question the authority of a Prince, then that Prince's power will be threatened. If so, the prince has two option, neither of which are good: he would forfeit his power, or he would put down the revolt. Both of these options are bound to hurt this prince's public opinion. Public opinion is everything when it comes to gaining control of the throne. Also it is everything when a prince have the throne, because other leaders should respect him as a leader, otherwise they will challenge this prince's authority and go to war. The Beatitudes are not good as a code of law. They may challenge the authority of this prince if most of the people believe in them. The worst thing that a prince could face is a possible rebellion. If the beatitudes were to be followed, those in power would be extremely threatened, and could lose said power. Granted, there has to be some hope for the people who have none, but princes must be careful not to give them the false hopes that the Beatitudes give to these desperate people.

Machiavelli, N. (1513). The prince [OFFICE Aet. 25-43--1494-1512]. Retrieved from http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/machiavelli-prince.html

Machiavelli, N. (1513). The prince [Chapter VII]. Retrieved from http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/machiavelli-prince.html

Machiavelli, N. (1513). The prince [Chapter VIII]. Retrieved from http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/machiavelli-prince.html

Machiavelli, N. (1513). The prince [Chapter IX]. Retrieved from http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/machiavelli-prince.html

Machiavelli, N. (1513). The prince [Chapter XVII]. Retrieved from

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/machiavelli-prince.html

Machiavelli, N. (1513). The prince [Chapter XXI]. Retrieved from http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/machiavelli-prince.html

The bible. (n.d.). [Exodus 20]. Retrieved from http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2020&version=NIV

France Project

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAp7sdiTEKI&feature=player_embedded

Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjlkdMcnc9Y

Was Henry VIII justified in divorcing Catherine?

The king of England, Henry VIII was desperate for a legitimate male heir to his throne. His first wife Catherine of Argon was not helping this cause, with two children surviving birth, and the male child dying less than sixty days afterwards. Henry was certain that Catherine was not a suitable partner because she was unable to have children. He courted a younger woman, Anne Boleyn. In king Henry's mind, he thought that Anne was better for himself, but he was not justified by the pope. To meet his desire, he broke from the Church. Henry believed himself supreme in England, but in terms of spiritual matters, there is absolutely no power higher than the Church, and the pope.
The English Parliament saw to it that Henry was made head of the new formed Anglican Church, giving him complete power. He found a passage saying that royal rights surpass the Church in terms of major decisions, this only bolstered his ego. He declared he shares all of the royalties that the clergy had before the division. This act also declared that any legitimate successor of Henry would have the same authority. As soon as the divorce was complete, princess Mary was also declared a bastard, and Catherine was sent away.
The rightful ruler of England also had the power to change matters related to the Church as long as the Act of Supremacy was in effect. After Catherine died, Mary was welcomed back into the Tudor family. The Act was justified with the belief that it was best for the nation of England as a whole. Last, it allowed the king or queen of England to have foreign wars, or claim land in the name of God.
At the time Henry wanted the divorce, Italy was invaded by Catherine's cousin, which meant that her cousin would not let the pope annul the marriage. Charles V, ruler of the Holy Roman Empire, was completely against reformation and was urging people to resist. After some of these altercations, Charles V's Holy Roman Empire found itself fighting religious wars against French Protestants.
Henry was not justified in his divorce, but he believed he was. Catherine was actually supposed to be the wife of Henry's brother Arthur, until Arthur's death. This loomed high on Henry's head because of a verse in the Bible, which said that any man who takes his brother's wife will not have any children. Henry believed he should divorce Catherine because 5 of their 6 children were dead before age 1. However, Henry was not justified because he is still married to her, and is a devout Catholic.