Machiavelli vs. Hitler

685 Words3 Pages
Machiavelli’s the prince summarizes strategies for a leader to take hold of and maintain lands under his control. These tactics have proved to be efficient throughout history. Hitler is proof that Machiavelli’s tactics can be successful. Machiavelli stated that princes should rather be feared than loved. Hitler chose his army to be his own rather than be mercenaries or auxiliaries. He also wanted two kinds of principalities, “new” and “mixed”. Machiavelli also described how to hold on to the lands a prince gained, which Hitler took into account. Machiavelli stated “it would be best to be both loved and feared…the two rarely come together…” Hitler had rare qualities that made him both loved and feared by people. This is one of the reasons he was so successful in building such a loyal following in Germany. Hitler was charming and a great public speaker, but he was still a ruthless leader whose cruelty helped him maintain order. Machiavelli stated in the prince that a good leader will "find a greater security in being feared than in being loved," Machiavelli also described the different types of troops a prince can have. There are mercenaries, men who fight for money, auxiliary troops, men borrowed from another country, and native troops, a rulers own troops. Hitler did not use mercenaries, auxiliary troops or an army that combined all three types. Machiavelli expressed how much more effective native armies were, and that countries that used other types would fail. He described mercenaries as “disorganized, undisciplined, ambitious and faithless.” Auxiliary troops do not have the loyalties to the nation as native troops would, and fight only for alliances that would not last long. Since mixed armies include mercenary and auxiliary troops, they are much less effective than a fully native army. Native troops, the only type that Hitler made use of, fight harder due
Open Document