In the 16th century, a councilor to King Henry VII called Sir Thomas More wrote a book called Utopia, making the look and workings of a functioning society where everyone was elated or content. Utopia is a location where there is no conflict because everyone is content with what they have, a place where necessities like food or clothing are free because the work is distributed evenly and no one is looking for a profit, and Utopia is a country where the language, customs, and culture is exactly the same and nothing differs from the other. After a short time, Niccolo Machiavelli wrote The Prince to aid princes on how to rule properly, efficiently, and how to avoid conflict that can endanger their principality. The Prince provides an essential structure for a much excellent and effective type of a content, peaceful, and pleased community and describes it more in depth than More’s Utopia. In his book, Machiavelli describes in more detail on the necessity of harsh rulers because virtue can be taken advantage of and the legal obligation of a sovereign to take aggressive action against a foe swiftly and unmercifully.
Machiavelli very intricately described how a sovereign should act in The Prince. He details that if a ruler wants to keep his power he must learn how to act immorally and use this skill to complete his agenda. He said that a ruler must be willing to be criticized “cruel” because if the ruler is too lenient and values his reputation over the welfare of the people then it will lead to much more crimes being committed as a result of too much mercy. In his book, Machiavelli expressed, “The gap between how men live and how they ought to live is so wide that any prince who thinks in terms not of how people do behave but of how they ought to behave will destroy his power rather than maintaining it.” He means that a prince should be able to see things how they are and not how they should be. No one will behave as they should and expecting them to will lead to your ruin. Lack of actuality will render you unfit to rule over subjects.
To contrast, Sir Thomas More provided a detailed description of an idealistic and fictitious society. The leaders were chosen by a form of democracy that elected moral and uncorrupted officials and a Mayor for each settlement. The government is not absolute and unchallenged but guides the country to better themselves. Respect for human rights and equality play a key role in the government, and the wellbeing of its people is the priority, not wealth, territory or material goods. Machiavelli knows that not all rulers are incorrupt and advised the prince to look out for them unlike More who emphasized morality.
Machiavelli narrated that war was the most important thing for a prince to devotes themselves to it enables you stay in your throne and it also is a path to ruling. In The Prince, Machiavelli says,”A prince, then, oughtn’t to devote any of his serious time or energy to anything but war and how to wage it. This is the only thing that is appropriate for a ruler, and it has so much virtù that it not only enables those who are born princes to stay on their thrones but also, often, enables ordinary citizens to become princes. And on the other hand it’s clear that princes who have given more thought to life’s refinements than to arms have lost their states. . . .” This says that Machiavelli gives war special emphasis because without studying the art, you will find yourself losing your principality.
To contrast, in Sir Thomas More’s Utopia, they absolutely detest war and it is considered barbaric. They are proud if they overcome the enemy with their minds and then boast that they have behaved manfully and courageously. More states,”In the first place, most princes apply themselves to the arts of war, in which I have neither ability nor interest, instead of to the good arts of peace. They are generally more set on acquiring new kingdoms by hook or by crook than on governing well those that they already have.” More says that war is unnecessary and peace is more important and virtuous. In the Utopian point of view, only benevolence separates humans from beasts, so tricks that save lives are in fact more ‘manly’ than a thirst for the glory of battle.
