• contrasts the traditional linking of political law to higher moral laws

• historical evidence was treated pragmatically instead of hypothetical notions
  

• less of a philosophical treatise and more of a practical political guide

• the ideation of political action always needing to be considered in light of practical consequences.

• opposed to Medieval and Renaissance thinkers often turning to religion for explaining diseases, invasions, war and crisis

  
  

• they consider these to be beyond human's power to prevent

• Machiavelli however argues that people can defend themselves from calamities

  
  

• has confidence in human self-determination

• a prince can acquire a principality through his own army, or through others' army

∴ The ruler then can reconquer the state if the outsider invading the state encounters obstacles

∴ after taking power, the ruler faces the prospect of losing the principality

The ruler then can punish rebels and disintegrate opposition to prevent further revolt

This will prevent people from causing disorder as their old ways of life are not changed.

• by doing so, it helps address issues more efficiently

• less expensive to establish colonies than establish military occupation
  

• the prince should only harm people with the certainty of no threat for revenge.
  

• military bases displease the subjects and might invoke hostile enemies capable of causing harim to the regime.

• prevents local officials from unscrupulous territory robbery
  

• subjects, being in close contact with the prince, will show their allegiance and will fear to oppose as punishment is near and swift.
  

• better than involving nobles as he is the only ruler in the country
• everyone remains subservient to the prince
• harder to take over a country as ministers have little incentive to be corrupted

• nobles have subjects of their own and the prince is not the sole ruler
• a corrupted noble will corrupt the support of his subjects

• complete devastation is the most certain way of taking hold of a state: a prince who does not destroy placers himself in the position to be destroyed.

• the subjects will be used to being ruled by a new ruler since the previous ruler have been destroyed and need someone to rule over them

• uses both historical examples and methodical argument to back claims

• brings about directness and practicality by simple definitive terms and clarity.

Aristotle: considers free citizens (men, since women and slaves are disregarded) as the main reason for state's existence

Machiavelli: However, Machiavelli sees the subjects as simpleminded -- they hate or love their rule only on the basis of their expectations, and the prince can maintain control with little concern for their welfare.

This way, even if the prince does not live up to the standards, his attempt will still give him a reputation of a great or powerful ruler

A prince who uses his prowess will succeed by forcing the issue, even through force -- he will become strong, secure, and respected.

A prince who uses fortune (persuasion) to introduce a new order will be unable to succeed against fierce opposition.

• he potrays citizens as simpleminded, unintelligent people naturally disposed to be under a ruler

This though does not men Machiavelli ignores the support of people to uphold a regime. Machiavelli is simply not concerned with the motivations of the people.

the primary and only virtue Machiavelli shows is the self-determination of the prince: he needs to rely on his own prowess, have the loyalty of his army, surround himself with those who will not undermine him.

• describes how different types of prince should establish power

• he characterizes the use of cruelty as ''evil'', therefore bringing it about as a necessary evil. this therefore contradicts the idea of The Prince being amoral, as he recognises the immorality in it.

• however, it can be argued that there are more ways to win support than just through cruelty or benevolance.

• so the aim of obtaining support of people is the means to ensuring the city is defended and so is the ruler.

• does not relate the Church being in politics as a way of a state being in a higher moral plane, though he does identify them as principalities. he just sees them as any other state.

Historically, dependence on mercenary troops were disastrous for Italy: the mercenaries were more ineterested in gaining prestige than accomplishing military objectives, leading to many staged battles.

• the prince is in a no-win situation: if the auxiliaries fail, he has no defense. if the auxiliaries win, the victory is owed to some other ruler

• the auxiliaries are also loyal to another ruler, becoming a more dangerous threat than mercenaries

• advocated for internal troops due to his assertion for self-reliance.

to learn how to govern, machiavelli states that “the prince ought to read history, and reflect upon the deeds of outstanding men, […] examine the causes of their victories and defeats, and thereby learn to emulate the former and avoid the latter."

Having characteristics deemed as "bad" is sometimes necessary to safeguard the state -- the prince's prime goal.

• Machiavelli rejects the idealized notions of leaders portrayed by other philosophers.

The prince's liberality will then lead to people despising him as he will have to raise excessive taxes to maintain the state

Parsimony, or ungenerosity, might be frowned upon, but with frugality, the prince will have enough wealth to defend against an aggression without having to tax the subjects

Therefore, Machiavelli deems it is better to be feared than to be loved as men are “ungrateful, fickle, dissembling, anxious to flee danger, and covetous of gain". A bond of love is therefore easy to break, but fear of punishment stays effective.

However, with the army, there is nothing called too much cruelty -- as the prince has to keep them loyal, even inhuman cruelty is justified.

• he believes philosophy must be judged by practicality, and to Machiavelli, virtue is simply one that garners praise from others.

[some more things you should take note but are too tired to do so]

• therefore, a prince must become the master of deception: acting like a lion to recognize traps and acting like a fox to frighten off wolves.

• however, a prince cannot outwardly show his cunningness. he should present himself as compassionate and trustworthy so that their subjects believes him to be virtuous. even if he needs to employ evil to achieve his goal, he will still be regarded as virtuous

• by doing so, he can defend himself against internal insurrection -- conspirators will not kill a ruler if people will be outraged by the ruler's death.

• for unpopular laws that might stir hatred, the prince can delegate it to others to administer it.

"The implication is that manliness is a prerequisite for ruling. Machiavelli notes that Alexander was thought to be ruled by his mother, and therefore deemed effeminate, a perception that led to his downfall."

• do not disarm subjects: arming helps foster loyalty among people and defend the prince

• prince should not put all his trust in a fortress and neglect the attitudes of the people as well

• A prince should only allow his closes wise advisors to speak with him and only when he wants advice.

• attributes femininity to loss of respect, and gives importance to harder virtues that are considered more manly.

• a prince must avoid hatred and suppress opposition before it gains sufficient momentum

• Appearing virtuous is desirable but not necessary. Some good qualities like courage and decisiveness are better than generosity because of practical reasons

"Machiavelli’s view of politics is more meritocratic than aristocratic, as he suggests that hereditary princes have even more to prove than those who obtain power through intelligence and skill."

• seeks a balance between free will and determinism

hereditary: passes down power through the ruling family