Contemporary Parallels of The Prince, by Machiavelli essays

Contemporary Parallels of The Prince, by Machiavelli essays From the very first page, Niccolo Machiavellis book, The Prince, contains data that can be compared to the ideals of today. The Prince describes the qualities one needs to be a strong, efficient, and successful ruler. It discusses ways a leader can maintain his kingdom and how to gain control of new land. I believe that the leadership qualities mentioned throughout this book are needed by all leaders no matter which time period they are in and in this paper I intend to show how the principles of yesterday are relevant today. The first quality that I found in Machiavelli, which I could compare to today, is that Machiavelli was a well-rounded individual who had a talent outside of politics. His ability to write helped bring both respect and awe. President Clinton has the same kind of talent. Clintons ability to play the saxophone probably did not win him any votes, but it did help to make him likeable to the American people. This is an important quality because it will help him retain power in the future. Another parallel found in this book is that no leader should have any serious vices. In Machiavellis time, it was important for a person to be virtuous, but no too virtuous. His time was a time of kingdoms and empires so it was important for a person to appeal to the people, to look proper and wholesome. However, if a person appears to virtuous his people will not have faith that he will do whatever it takes to protect the people who live in his kingdom from those trying to take it over. This same quali ty is needed today for a person to be a good leader. In our democratic society it is so very important for a political leader to appeal to the people. If a person does not appear to be virtuous he will not receive votes because people will not feel comfortable with the choices he may make for the country. If a political leader appears to be too virtuous to the people he will not receive votes. In this case he will n...

The Roman Social War 91-88 B.C.

The Roman Social War 91-88 B.C. Definition: The Social War was a civil war between the Romans and their Italian allies. Like the American Civil War, it was very costly. When the Romans wouldnt grant the Italians equality, most of the allies attempted to secede, although Latium and northern Campania remained loyal to Rome. The rebels made their headquarters at Corfinium, which they renamed Italia. Poppaedius Silo headed the allied Marsic troops and Papius Mutilus headed the Samnites, altogether about 100,000 men. The Romans divided their roughly 150,000 men under the 2 consuls of 90 B.C. and their legates. The Romans in the north were headed by P. Rutilius Lupus, with Marius and Cn Pompeius Strabo (Pompey the Greats father under whom Cicero served) under him. L. Julius Caesar had Sulla and T. Didius under him, in the south. Rutilius was killed, but Marius was able to defeat the Marsi. Rome fared worse in the south, although Papius Mutilus was defeated by Caesar at Acerrae. The Romans made concessions after the first year of the war. The lex Julia gave Roman citizenship to some possibly all Italians who stopped fighting or just those who had remained loyal. Next year, in 89 B.C., the Roman consuls were Strabo and L. Porcius Cato. They both went north. Sulla headed the Campanian forces. Marius had no commission despite his successes in 90. Strabo defeated 60,000 Italians near Asculum. The capital, Italia, was abandoned. Sulla made progress in Samnium and captured the Italian HQ at Bovianum Vetus. The rebel leader Poppaedius Silo regained it, but it was defeated again in 88, as were other pockets of resistance. Supplemental laws gave the franchise to the remaining Italians and people of the Italian regions of Gaul by 87. There was still a grievance, though, since new citizens were not equitably distributed among the 35 tribes of Rome. Main Source:H.H. Scullard: From the Gracchi to Nero. Also Known As: Marsic War, Italian War Examples: Military preparation for the Social War took place over the winter of 91/90. It was called the Social War because it was a war between Rome and its socii allies.