Eliana Josephine Hernandez September 14, 2019

Essay Question: Both Machiavelli and Erasmus have differing views on how a ruler should

rule. Evaluate whose view you think is correct and why.

All throughout time, there have been many rulers who did not share the same opinion

about the way in which they demonstrated their power. This can be seen during the time of

the Italian Renaissance with Machiavelli and Erasmus, two rulers whose morals shared no

similarities. The Italian Renaissance began in approximately 1420 in attempt to revive their

economy and Greco-Roman culture. During this time, Niccolò Machiavelli and Desiderius

Erasmus became two of the most discussed rulers of their time. Niccolò Machiavelli

believed it was better to be feared than loved, whereas Desiderius Erasmus believed that a

true leader looked out for everyone else. In this case, Machiavelli is correct that a person

should rule with fear as opposed to putting yourself on the line every single time because it is

more effective.

Niccolὸ Machiavelli was a political opportunist, which means that he attempted to

increase his political influence in society by disregarding ethical principles and using other

unethical methods. He believed that a ruler should be feared and loved, but if that is

impossible to achieve, it is much safer to be feared. When people fear someone, they will do

their best to avoid angering that person and the punishment that will ensue. If a ruler is too

lax with their people, they could start a rebellion to dethrone the higher power. This could

lead to death and destruction, as well as a broken society. Machiavelli says that men will

turn their back on a ruler who is not frightening simply because they won’t respect him and

his laws/rules. The fear that is inflicted upon the people will make them afraid of the
consequences that could follow their actions. While believing that a ruler should rule with

fear, Machiavelli acknowledged that there is a very thin line between provoking fear and

provoking hatred. The only way to provoke hatred is to seize property and women of the

citizens. It is very dangerous to provoke hatred since it could also start rebellions and wars.

In his book, The Prince, Machiavelli discusses how to effectively rule, and he states that

there are still certain morals that you should follow. These morals include only killing

someone when you legitimately need to, not touching other people’s property, and being sure

to show cruelty in battle. He says that men will be quicker to forget a death of a family

member or friend than the loss of their inheritance. Also, by being cruel in battle, it keeps

the army united and ready for the action. When examining Erasmus’ view on what it is to be

a good ruler, it is clear that Machiavelli and Erasmus are definitely two sides of the same

coin.

Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus was a Dutch philosopher and a Christian humanist

who is considered to be one of the greatest scholars of the Renaissance. In 1516, Erasmus

wrote a treatise on political power entitled Education of a Christian Prince. In his thesis,

Erasmus discussed what he believed to be the most effective way to rule, and it included

being kind to everyone and everything. He states that a true prince should only think of his

moral obligation to the people he rules over and ensure their safety daily. A true leader

should not engage in violence, corruption, bribing, or looting. Erasmus believes there should

be no hesitation when looking out for the wellbeing of his people at risk to himself and be on

the lookout for any sign of injury to them. His paper, Education of A Christian Prince,

focuses solely on putting others before yourself to ensure a person can still be a good ruler,
but also be lenient enough to not cause problems. In his eyes, violence should never be

thought of and that war was the source of all misfortune that came to the state. It was

logical, only to him, that they would be united through their kindness and love.

When considering both sides of this topic, some might argue that Desiderius Erasmus

Roterodamus’ view on how to properly rule was more efficient. They might believe this

because of the way in which it is explained. Erasmus tells his audience that being a kind

ruler will never backfire. According to him, kindness will beget kindness, and no unlawful

things will occur because of it. Erasmus is seeing through rose colored glasses because there

will always be that one person who believes violence is the key to everything (Machiavelli).

If one person manages to help others realize that not everything is as it is told, rebellions and

internal wars could become a true disaster within society. Machiavelli is correct when he

says that it is more effective to rule through fear rather than altruism and love. As he says in

his dissertation, The Prince, men can be very ungrateful, fickle, deceptive, and eager to gain

anything and everything. With these kinds of people, they will try to take whatever they can

without any regard for who they might crush in the process. The only way to keep them in

check is their fear of the punishments they might receive for their actions. If Erasmus used

kindness to rule, people could attempt to take advantage of him and not respect him. Other

countries would attempt to conquer them because it was illogical to be a good, kind leader

and be prepared to fight at a moment’s notice. Benevolence would be taught and practiced in

society, as opposed to violent procedures to prepare for battle. They would not take

advantage of Machiavelli for fear of the consequences that could follow. Therefore, Niccolὸ

Machiavelli’s way of ruling is more effective and makes more sense.

 In history, there will always be opposing viewpoints about a certain topic. This will

occur, in part, because of the Italian Renaissance which allowed people to spread different

ideas and beliefs through society at a faster rate. Machiavelli and Erasmus were very vocal

about their opinions/views which opens a political discussion for scholars.