This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.
Hi. I'm not sure Machiavelli does encourage ruling by fear, but it's a while since I've read The Prince. Could someone provide a quote? I seem to recall he generally advocated keeping people on your side or, if you had to piss them off, crushing them totally because just upsetting them leads to them revolting (as this trope says).
Machiavelli: 'We can say that cruelty is used well when it is employed once for all, and one's safety depends on it, and then it is not persisted in but as far as possible turned to the good of one's subjects. Cruelty badly used is that which, although infrequent to start with, as time goes on, rather than disappearing, grows in intensity. Those who use the first method can ... somewhat enhance their position ... the others cannot possibly stay in power.'
I'm not a scholar, and haven't studied history in years, but this quote seems straightforward. Machiavelli did advocate ruling by fear (he wasn't opposed to rulers being loved, he just thought it was better to be feared if you can only have one or the other). But repeated acts of cruelty towards subjects would cause a leader's downfall. So some of the examples on the main page would actually fall under 'Machiavelli Was Right'.
Chandagnac: Machiavelli said (paraphrased) "the best shield a Prince can have is the love of his people". He had seen how rulers could manipulate The Power of Love for their own purposes. He thought it was safer to be feared than loved, and you can't have both.
So... I'm really not sure about this trope. I think I'd agree with whoever posted above- many of the examples of the main page would fall under 'Machiavelli Was Right'.
Medinoc: I concur. A good part of The Prince advocates propaganda. Especially if you compare with that guy who said "Oderint, dum metuant" ("let them hate, so long as they fear"): It was none other than The Caligula...
Lawyerdude: I take issue with the entry at the bottom, claiming that The Prince was a satire. I haven't read anything by Machiavelli himself that would suggest that work was a satire. Machiavelli pointed out, rightfully and with copious examples, that a ruler can be both feared and loved. So really the point of this trope example is that a misunderstood Machiavelli is wrong. Ergo, Machiavelli was right.
Noaqiyeum: I'm removing the trailing entry on the grounds that I seem to recall that Machiavelli marketed it to the Medicis as a book of advice, in order to get a job in the family. Satire? I doubt it...
Uberschveinen: What Machiavelli says is pretty clear. He says that being feared is neccesary because no matter how loved you are there will always be people who want to kill you, and only fear is effective at keeping them at bay. He also says that being loved has many advantages, and that it should also be sought. The most effective ruler is one who is both loved and feared. His real point here is that while being loved is good, being feared is vital, so a ruler must be willing to be unloved if that is neccesary to be feared.
As for the satire point, the evidence is his use of one of the most loathed figures of Italy and an opponent of the Medici family as an example, that the language is extreme compared to his other writings, and that if serious he would be writing it to a man who would likely be a crap ruler. However, I feel that these are more easily explained by the fact that Machiavelli was, when he wrote, this, desperate to see Italy restored to self-rule, which comes out in his language, and was writing to Medici not because he was the best choice but because he was the only choice, the only man with the power to take back Italy. The extreme language and use of Borgia as an example also serve to highlight his key point that conventional morality is a weakness is a ruler.
