Machiavelli's "The Prince" and "Discourses" II assignment help

Question Description

I need help with a Political Science question. All explanations and answers will be used to help me learn.

Do you believe that current American leaders are motivated by the happiness of the people?

Student has agreed that all tutoring, explanations, and answers provided by the tutor will be used to help in the learning process and in accordance with Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Final Answer

Thank you for the opportunity to help you with your question!

I don't trust that present American pioneers are spurred by the joy of the general population clarifies why Machiavelli composed the Discourse. He takes note of that he brings new modes and requests, a hazardous assignment given the jealousy of men, however one roused by the yearning to work for the basic advantage of everybody. He additionally takes note of that while his work may not be flawless, it should be listened, on the grounds that it will help others after him in satisfying his vision. He whines that the Italian Renaissance has empowered a craving to copy the people of old in workmanship, law, and solution, yet that nobody considers impersonating old kingdoms or republics. He follows this to a shameful perusing of history that recommends that impersonation of old political uprightness is inconceivable. He announces his expectation to beat this perspective of the old world by inspecting Livy and cutting edge governmental issues.

Book one starts by clarifying how a city is framed, which is finished by either locals to the zone or outsiders, referring to particular samples, for example, Athens and Venice. Machiavelli then clarifies this thought and expresses this incredibly changes the way a city is seen, specifically for Rome. Examining then the distinctive sorts or "species" of republics, he states individuals ordinarily say they can be territory, blue-blood, and prevalent. He then tries to figure out what sort of republic Rome was, which he states was blended with the characteristics of blue-bloods and realm.

Machiavelli then digs into more chronicled occasions. Once the Tarquins left Rome there appeared to be peace and organization together between the Romans and the plebs, yet this truth be told was untrue. This disunity really took into account the Roman Senate to wind up more grounded. Proceeding onward, he says that a republic has the chance to rise as a realm, similar to Rome, or simply keep up what it is. Additionally, permitting individuals to blame nationals for sins is vital in making a republic, however defamations are hurtful.

Machiavelli positions then which rulers are most laudable, the first being pioneers who lead because of religion, then the individuals who lead since they made a republic or kingdom. Religion in Rome was refered to as an essential driver for happiness in the city as it is genuinely a critical component. He additionally expresses that Livy gives numerous illustrations of when religion was used to rebuild the city. The Samnites were vanquished by the Romans a few times and with a specific end goal to change this they chose locate another way to deal with their religion.

Examining then flexibility, Machiavelli clarifies that opportunity turns into an issue once a kind of government movements. He clarifies that the Romans were not degenerate when they recaptured their opportunity and could along these lines keep it. Addressing what mode a free state can be kept up in a degenerate city, he expresses that Rome had orders, which kept the nationals checked.

He then goes into an examination of the leaders of Rome and how a solid or feeble Prince can keep up or pulverize a kingdom. He proceeds, to say that after a feeble ruler a kingdom couldn't stay solid with another powerless sovereign. Fortunately, the initial three lords each had a specific quality, which helped the city. Romulus was wild, Numa was religious, and Tullus was devoted to war.

The book then marginally moves center to talking about the reorganization of a state. Machiavelli clarifies that if one needs to change a state they should keep a few components of the past state. Additionally, he says that a Prince or republic ought not to deny subjects necessities.

He then passes on that that having a tyrannical power was helpful for the City of Rome on the grounds that, for case, Caesar could be straightforward with this oppression. Proceeding with this, frail republics are not really ready to settle on vital choices and that any change will originate from need.

The topics of pride and debasement seem commonly all through The Discourses and Machiavelli trusts that it is simple for a man to be tainted. It is likewise useful for a warrior to have the yearning to battle for individual pride and eminence.

Interestingly, towards the end of Book One, Machiavelli includes that awesome mischances that happen in a city more often than not accompany some sort of sign. This sign could be divine or seen through a disclosure. He gives the specific sample that in Florence just before the demise of Lorenzo de' Medici the Elder, a house of prayer was hit by lightning.

Likewise, Machiavelli clarifies that Livy expressed that individuals are solid together, however powerless when alone giving the illustration of the Roman plebs. Livy moreover feels that the large number is more shrewd than the one ruler. Along these lines, Book One inspects an assortment of issues that happen while making a state, and takes a gander at it with particular samples from Rome and different parts of Italy

Feel free to contact me if other clarification are needed.

Kind regards,


Please let me know if you need any clarification. I'm always happy to answer your questions.

fitahm (134)
New York University

The tutor managed to follow the requirements for my assignment and helped me understand the concepts on it.

The tutor was knowledgeable, will be using the service again.

Awesome quality of the tutor. They were helpful and accommodating given my needs.

Similar Questions
Related Tags