NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
Unlike Cardinal Richelieu, the prime minister of France during the early years of the Reformation, Niccolo Machiavelli never mentioned God nor did he quote the Bible to substantiate any of his arguments. He was secular, which makes him seem modern. Today, his principals on governing a state are deemed immoral; however, he would say that his methods are practical. Whilst this book was being written during the Renaissance, Italy was weak and the city-state structure was breaking down because of French and Spanish invasions. Desperately in search of a philosophy of politics to remedy this instability, Machiavelli wrote The Prince.
This book is a step-by-step guidebook on how to rule by means of a ruthless dictatorship; whereas, The Political Testament of Cardinal Richelieu by Richelieu himself advocates absolutism. As a result of the Fronde, Richelieu and many other French people alike wished for the government to be centralized under the leadership of the king which is otherwise known as an absolute monarchy. The French king, Louis XIV stated, Left cest moi, which translates to I am the State. This statement embodies Richelieu's as well as Machiavelli's theory of government. Both books argue the importance of a strong state. In order for Machiavelli and Richelieu to have their ideas put into practice, they dedicated each of their books to the ruler of their respective states.
Richelieu dedicated his book to the king of France, Louis XIII, so that his political beliefs would live on after his death through the king. Similarly, Machiavelli dedicated his book to Lorenzo de Medici, ruler of city-state, Florence so that he might receive a government job as an advisor to Lorenzo. Both writers were very humble and marginally sycophantic in their tone with regards to their dedications so as to accomplish the aforementioned goals. This is evident in the first paragraph of The Prince when Machiavelli referred to Lorenzo de Medici as Your Magnificence (Machiavelli, p. 1) and Richelieu obsequiously said when it was first Your Majesty's pleasure to give me a part to play in the management of your affairs I determined to devote my fullest efforts to the completion of your plans... (Richelieu, p. 3). Machiavelli had a very different reception from Richelieu. The former was avant-garde hence the world he lived in was not quite ready for his radical views; his opportunity to return to government was totally effaced in its publication.
Richelieu ideas were employed by monarchs in England, France, and many other countries because his words were tempered and thus easier for to stomach by the public. Machiavelli and Richelieu believe society is steeped in sin and full of people that cannot be trusted. Therefore, a ruler should maintain law and order by preparing himself for every contingency. Without the necessary insight, problems shall ensue. Political disorders can be quickly healed if they are seen well in advance (and only a prudent ruler has such foresight); when, for lack of diagnosis, they are allowed to grow in such a way that everyone can recognize them, remedies are too late (Machiavelli, p. 10). Machiavelli was forewarning Lorenzo de Medici of the detriments that would proceed if quick and decisive action was not taken to stabilize the political scene in Italy.
Richelieu was also in agreement. Nothing is more necessary in governing a state than foresight, since by its use one can easily prevent many evils which can be corrected only with great difficulty if allowed to transpire (Richelieu, p. 80). For Richelieu, the growing threat was the Huguenots in the south of France. If they were allowed to keep an army whilst nobles also began to gain more independence, than they could pose an internal threat in the future. The state would be best served if everyone was stripped of power and all was decided by the king (Richelieu, p. 9). According to Machiavelli and Richelieu, when people undermine the ruler they should be punished so that he does not appear to be weak.
Richelieu expressed it best, one must be inflexible in punishing those who fail to obey. This cruelty should be used until there is stability; afterwards it is not needed. A good ruler should keep up his appearance. In Chapter XVI, Machiavelli says a ruler should always have the semblance of compassion and generosity whilst underlings do his dirty work. What people believe is most important. The king wants to be loved, but, being feared is quintessential.
However, hatred is not good. Hatred leads to assassinations, conspiracies, and rebellions. If a monarch uses brutality to establish power, there is no need to use brutality in the future because a little cruelty goes a long way in preventing problems later on. Machiavelli and Richelieu would agree that cruelty should only be used when necessary. There is no need to be evil as long as people think the ruler is capable of wickedness. A monarch should surround himself with opulence and good advice to keep people in awe (Richelieu, p. 51).
In a nutshell, appearance should take precedence over reality. Good advice can save a ruler from losing his power. Making mistakes reflects badly upon the king therefore he should choose those in office very sensibly. Nothing is more capable of ruining a state than such a procedure an infallible source of all kinds of misfortune (Richelieu, p. 104).
Machiavelli reaffirmed a careful staff selection: When they are competent and loyal he can always be considered wise, because he has been able to recognize their competence and to keep them loyal. But when they are other wise, the prince is always open to adverse criticism; because his first mistake has been in the choice of his minister (Machiavelli, p. 75). Although Richelieu and Machiavelli had many similar beliefs, they also had very different viewpoints on some fundamentals, such as Richelieu's proclivity to reference Christianity. In Chapter XI, Machiavelli briefly mentions God in terms of His role in maintaining principalities. Richelieu, on the other hand, from the very beginning thanks Him for blessing him with the opportunity of aiding the king rule. He went on to highlight Gods major role in the reformation of the ecclesiastical state.
The reign of God is the principle basic to the good government of states, and is, in fact, so absolutely necessary that without this foundation no prince can rule well nor can any state be happy or successful (Richelieu, p. 67). Despite the obvious dichotomy between the two on the inclusion of religion as evidence for their theories of government, they also differentiated on other issues. With Machiavelli, much of the content revolved around the protection of the state by way of military involvement. Richelieu did not touch upon this issue.
The two men had very different lives and judging from Machiavelli's life in Italy, it is reasonable that he places such high importance on the militia and army. Italy was frail at the time hence very vulnerable to foreign invasions. Machiavelli had seen his countrymen fade from the Renaissance spotlight and at the time the book was being written chaos was raining down upon city-states. Naturally, Machiavelli was on the defensive whereas Cardinal Richelieu's France had maintained sway in Europe for some time and was not too worried about any attacks. Machiavelli founded the majority of the beliefs that Richelieu would call his own. Machiavelli was too straightforward; he needed to censor his language more.
His stance on how one should rule was shocking to many people, so it was blacklisted by the church. His ideas would have had much more affect had he been slightly more moderate in his tone like Richelieu. Richelieu was honest but subtle; he had to be. Richelieu had much more at stake being a cardinal and a noble of the robe. Nonetheless, both men strove to advance their state by fully empowering a ruler. Richelieu wanted the king to snatch power from the nobles, the men with lofty ideals in office, and the Huguenots.
That power should be encapsulated in one man, the king. A ruler should be wary of internal subversion and external aggression, for those could be the sources of his downfall if he is not always conscious of the existing machinations around him (Machiavelli, p. 59). In the eyes of the Machiavelli and Richelieu, the king is undeniably the means and the ends by which power shall be established therefore his subjects should be ever-reliant upon his every whim, for he is the state.
Free research essays on topics related to: lorenzo de medici, cardinal richelieu, machiavelli, city state, richelieu
Research essay sample on Olo Machiavelli Vs Cardinal Richelieu
