Niccolo Machiavelli's, The Prince
Like Sun Tsu's, The Art of War, Niccolo Machiavelli's, The Prince, is considered by many a sort of "required reading," for anyone who is, is soon to be, or desires to be in a position of power. Both of these books discuss what is to be a leader, how one should govern, conduct they're business, and use the practical knowledge of the past to better aid they're current reign over whatever area they control. Where the two differ is in the approach of this similar subject; both The Prince and The Art of War discuss at length a standard set of values that generally help a ruler to succeed (i.e. Prudence, Prowess, Fortune, etc.); however, in the end, The Art of War results in becoming a general guideline stratagem to success for all rulers with certain stated rules in which, must be adhered; where Machiavelli has customized this work for one persons aid (Lorenzo De Medici'), but discusses and defines - at length - every aspect of what a ruler is, looks like (with proven examples stated from the past), does, and focuses more on human leadership, the achievement of power and success, as well as the things that should be looked after maintain it all.
Both of these classics discuss the things of that should be of the ut most importance to a ruler; their similarities lie in the natural qualities, facts, trials, tribulations, and obligations a good ruler both has and goes through to maintain a powerful and successful remainder of control. Within The Prince, Machiavelli provides his realistic political theories on how one should truly govern their states. To provide its reader with the most important points of the complete book, Machiavelli intentionally repeats and stresses certain points to make it as clear as possible to the reader what they should do and where, to live successfully. Along with providing the qualities of a good ruler, Machiavelli also takes the time to paint a picture of what bad/ineffective rulers look like, how they act, and to display through example what shouldn't be done in any one situation.
Machiavelli first delves into the different types of control, or principalities; focusing intentionally only the kinds of rule where there is absolute power. For nearly the first third of the book, Machiavelli discusses "how many kinds of principality there are and the ways in which they are acquired." (Machiavelli, 5) He does so for only one reason, to suit only the needs in which this work is written, to help guide the thoughts of the "Magnificent Lorenzo De Medici." (Machiavelli, 1) However, unlike a large number of other treaties on the way to govern and conduct business (or "war"), from a most realistic perspective, he examines each of the principalities in their own right, and discusses why some have better chances of succeeding that others, do succeed more than others; why some fail; why some are more easily acquired, but harder to maintain; why some are more difficulty acquired, more easily maintain, etc.
The biggest and most important point to take away from this section of the book is when he discusses how to keep the power in each principality and instance. And this is where it can be seen, that a running theme through this entire section of different principalities is that, to maintain power, you must always be upon the side of the people. Machiavelli consistently implies that all power is derived from the people, not the noblemen, or from the exploits ones own army, but from the people in which are being governed. Within a more exotic means, he states that without the people on your side, all of your efforts to keep control will forever be to no avail. (Machiavelli, 31-34) The only principality the power of the people isn't discussed in, is the one pertaining to God, the Ecclesiastical principalities. Machiavelli quaintly dances around this topic - most likely a result of the time and power of the Church.
After Machiavelli finishes off his discussions of what principalities there were, and how one should/could acquire and run each, he delves into the operation and conduct of ones army and ones self. Machiavelli continuously stresses the importance of war in the leadership of an estate; it is the job of a prince to wage war as if it were the only way to maintain his power and reign, so "a prince therefore, must have no other object or thought, nor acquire skill in anything, except war, its organization, and its discipline." (Machiavelli, 47) "He must never let his thoughts stray from military exercises, which he must pursue more vigorously in peace than in war. These exercises can be both physical and mental" (Machiavelli, 47) Machiavelli brings the mysticism of the importance of war down to reality, and for the most part, flat out states to its reader that one must always be prepared for battle; this includes keeping subordinates inline and structured, as well as versing ones self in "practical geography," battle strategy and the like. (Machiavelli, 48)
The stream-of-consciousness style that Machiavelli so elegantly portrays within this book is but a glimpse at why it's a magnificent work that so accurately displays the necessities of a leader. Because of this, The Prince has a natural and logical progression in its discussion of ones conduct of their rule, army and self. After Machiavelli finishes his discussion of army structure - thankfully detailed just enough, but not over bearing - he continues then to discuss how a leader is to conduct themselves in the eyes of their peers, allies, and his subjects. This discussion sparks a whole list of derivatives pertaining to a leaders own honor, self-respect, contempt or hatred, cruelty and compassion etc.
It is within this last portion of the book that we see a discussion of cruelty verse compassion. (Machiavelli, 53-56) "It is better to be feared than loved, more prudent to be cruel than compassionate." (Machiavelli, 54) This discussion is an important piece in the whole of The Prince. It examines what result occurs when the worries of a ruler is not focused upon doing the job that will help him and the rest of his estate profit, but is more concerned with his own image in the eyes of subjects. It is the sense that it is better do your job, rather than to put all your efforts into changing the minds of the people you govern unless completely necessary. Too often leaders focus more in this facade of they're position, than the content they must enact to complete it successfully. Compassion is a derivative, and a characteristic of ones personality, "a prince must want to have a reputation to have a reputation for compassion rather than for cruelty: none the less, he must be careful that he does not make bad use of compassion." (Machiavelli, 53) Compassion in the eyes of governing is good, but not when it interferes with the job at hand, which is what Machiavelli stressed within his book to Medici.
Machiavelli takes into account a large number of variables when delegating advice on how to govern and stating how one should conduct their reign. He sees a few key elements in a personality that run through many and most great rulers in all of time. "A powerful, and courageous prince will always be able to overcome all difficulties." (Machiavelli, 36) He sees courage in a prince a huge positive factor in a prince; that along with other attributes like prudence and prowess both help to create a general picture of the ideal and successful ruler. Césare Borgia was found by Machiavelli to be a very effective ruler, even if he didn't agree with his policies. Within The Prince, he is portrayed as a cruel and cunning man; he was admired by Machiavelli for his boldness, and his expert use of a clever mind, malice and cruelty.
As well as providing its reader with what attributes lay in the minds of great and famous rulers, he also made it quite clear what attributes lay in those of the bad and ineffective rulers. In this sense, Machiavelli pertains to rulers who care more for their image than their actions as weak. He states with great discretion that a prince should always be aware of the actions around him, within the state, and otherwise; prudence, in other words. Weak rulers care not for careful watch of their complete territories. Over and over, it's stated that once a problem is detected, it is much easier to then diagnose, but harder - and generally impossible - to cure. The same is true of the reverse, it is harder to detect a problem (if one doesn't have a close watch over their own society), but is much easier to kill off early on. Along with this, rulers who have no concern for war, are untrue to their word, without honor, govern only on fortune etc. are poor rulers all together.
In the end, Machiavelli created a fantastic work, that had a better insight into the reality of what it was to be leader than any other of his time. The Prince still stands as a moniker, a guide, and one of the best and concise analyses on the subject of ruling and leadership today. The Prince addresses just about every major issue that concerns the leaders of our modern world, and still provides important insight that could aid some of them towards success. It is a timeless work that will always apply because it appeals to the attributes of our most basic qualities of human nature in the great leaders of our world.