Kate Lyons

AP European History
Mr. Keane
September 20, 2011
Machiavellian Ability vs. Fortune
In Machiavellian conviction, a prince with the capacity to conquer and maintain a
province will always have an empire that endures longer than that of a prince with immense
fortune but mediocre talent. Nicolo Machiavellis emphasis on individual potential and
intellectual worth make The Prince a classic embodiment of Renaissance thought. For it is these
abilities that allow the successful prince to innovate, improvise and anticipate qualities that
surpass Machiavellis standards of lasting rule for a prince of either predisposition.
In the beginning of his work, Machiavelli establishes the baselines for a successful ruler
which he contends that history continuously affirms to be universally true. These standards
include taking residence in any newly acquired appendage, installing fearful reverence in the
conquered people, and ensuring its swift assimilation to the new sovereign. However, he asserts
the most important quality a sovereign may possess is foresight, and in that foresight, the
prevention of another to power to attain influence in his empire. Additionally, he claims the
degree to which these traits will be successful depends on the rulers strength in fortune or
ability.
Machiavelli describes the most favorable conditions for the fortunate prince as hereditary
wherein power is imparted by some widely accepted system of ascendancy warranted by

tradition, such as dynastic rule or the doctrine of divine right of kings. The people are thus more
inclined to accept the newly appointed prince since, in the antiquity and duration of his rule,
[the peoples] memories and motives for making a change are lost, (Machiavelli 2). However,
he maintains that the structure of such a rule is always vulnerable and destined to meet an
inevitable fall as foreshadowed in his belief that time drives everything before it, and is able to
bring with it good as well as evil, and evil as well as good. Here Machiavelli insinuates that the
rise of another power, perhaps with a greater ability, has a substantial chance at toppling the
long-standing monarchy when fortune is favorable to him who challenges the prince of fortune.
The prediction may very well be true in accordance with the aforementioned principles that,
introduced to the changes induced by the new usurper, the people will more than likely be
exposed to change whereby one change always leaves the toothing for another and the chance
for the hereditary monarch to regain his regime will dwindle (Machiavelli 10, 3) . However, he
never directly addresses the possibility or mentions a historical account of either of the two
spheres of ability and good fortune interacting, or moreover who would overcome the other,
though it is implied that the former would prevail when he says he who has relied least on
fortune is established the strongest.
Then there are those who create new truths or manipulate the old ones according to the
specifics of their situation, thereby making them innovators and distinguished in their ability.
Machiavelli describes the new appendage of skilled prince as one that is difficult to get but far
more permanent in its keeping. His ability lends itself to the virtues of prudence and selfreliance which Machiavelli accredits to the innovators, not the men, walkingin paths beaten
by others yet unable to keep entirely to the ways of others or attain to the power of those they
imitate. Again, the theme is reestablished with time and inevitable change, it is not enough to

emulate a traditional model to secure a newly acquired state. It is implied that a prince with even
a traceable amount of virtue- a wise man, though perhaps not a great man, in his abilityat
least will savour of itknowing the limits to which the strength of their bow attains, take aim
much higher than the markto be able with the aid of so high an aim to hit the mark they wish
to reach. According to Machiavellis philosophy, virtue renders prudence and coinciding
innovation that does not cripple his ambition.
Machiavelli states that the classic innovator archetypes, for example Syracuse, never
owed anything to fortune beyond opportunity, which brought them the material to mould into
the form which seemed best to them. Without that opportunity their powers of mind would have
been extinguished, and without those powers the opportunity would have come in vain. The
mediocre prince may well have been a bystander to such opportunities making little progress as
some other power fortifies itself in its ability to manipulate them to their own advantage. His
commentary, therefore, is not limited to how to maintain a state; it promotes innovation in the
presence of opportunity which correlates with progress as an aim of politics and civilization.
This belief that man dictates his own future in response to the opportunities he is given may have
very well stemmed from the circulating philosophy of humanism during the Renaissance since it
is clear that, while he remains amply detached from the morality of the princes actions as
opposed to their efficiency, enthusiasm for the creation of new models for a successful rule is
sufficiently present.
Machiavelli asserts the level of difficulty in annexing a region and establishing an
enduring regime is proportional to the measure of ability in him who has acquired the state.
The skilled prince is described as having the favorable stance in comparison to his mediocre
counterpart even if he has good fortune and a well-rooted governmental foundation on his side.

Work Cited
Machiavelli, Niccol, and Wayne A. Rebhorn. The Prince and Other Writings. New York: Barnes
& Noble Classics, 2003. Print.

Essay Found on Email Submitted to Keane (Much Different)

Kate Lyons
AP European History
Mr. Keane
September 20, 2011
Machiavellian Ability vs. Fortune
In Machiavellian conviction, a prince with the capacity to conquer and maintain a
province will always have an empire that endures longer than that of a prince with immense
fortune but mediocre talent. Nicolo Machiavellis emphasis on individual potential and
intellectual worth make The Prince a classic embodiment of Renaissance thought. For it is in
these abilities that allow the successful prince to innovate, improvise and anticipate qualities
that surpass Machiavellis standards of lasting rule for a prince of either predisposition.
In the beginning of his work, Machiavelli establishes the baselines for a successful ruler
which history has continuously affirmed to be universally true. These standards include: taking
residence in the new appendage, the establishment of fear and reverence for the ruler, quick
assimilation of the people and attaining their allegiance, foresight, and in that foresight
disallowing another to power to gain influence in his empire. The degree to which these traits
will be successful depends on their strength in fortune or ability.
In fortune, Machiavelli describes the most favorable conditions to be hereditary whereby
power is imparted to the prince by some greater authority, namely the tradition of dynasty rule in
the state. This princes empire is more easily assimilated to the newly ascended power since, in

the antiquity and duration of his rule, [the peoples] memories and motives for making a change
are lost, (Machiavelli 2). However the structure of such a rule is always vulnerable and subject to
an inevitable fall as foreshadowed in his belief that time drives everything before it, and is able
to bring with it good as well as evil, and evil as well as good. Here Machiavelli insinuates that
the rise of another power, perhaps with a greater ability, has a substantial chance at toppling the
long-standing monarchy when fortune is favorable to him who challenges the prince of fortune.
The prediction may very well be true in accordance with the aforementioned principles that,
introduced to the changes induced by the new usurper, the people will more than likely be
exposed to change whereby one change always leaves the toothing for another and the chance
for the hereditary monarch to regain his regime will dwindle (Machiavelli 10, 3) . However, he
never directly addresses the possibility or mentions a historical account of either of the two
spheres of ability and good fortune interacting, or moreover who would overcome the other,
though it is implied that the former would prevail when he says he who has relied least on
fortune is established the strongest.
Then there are those who create new truths or manipulate the old ones according to the
specifics of their situation, thereby making them innovators and distinguished in their ability.
Machiavelli describes the new appendage of skilled prince as one that is difficult to get but far
more permanent in its keeping. His ability lends itself to the virtues of prudence and self-reliance
which Machiavelli accredits to the innovators, not the men, walkingin paths beaten by
others yet unable to keep entirely to the ways of others or attain to the power of those they
imitate. Again, the theme is reestablished with time and inevitable change, it is not enough to
emulate a traditional model to secure a newly acquired state. It is implied that a prince with even
a traceable amount of virtue- a wise man, though perhaps not a great man, in his abilityat

least will savour of itknowing the limits to which the strength of their bow attains, take aim
much higher than the markto be able with the aid of so high an aim to hit the mark they wish
to reach. According to Machiavellis philosophy, virtue renders prudence and coinciding
innovation that does not cripple his ambition.
Machiavelli states that the classic innovator archetypes, for example Syracuse, never
owed anything to fortune beyond opportunity, which brought them the material to mould into
the form which seemed best to them. Without that opportunity their powers of mind would have
been extinguished, and without those powers the opportunity would have come in vain. The
mediocre prince may well have been a bystander to such opportunities making little progress as
some other power fortifies itself in its ability to manipulate them to their own advantage. His
commentary, therefore, is not limited to how to maintain a state; it promotes innovation in the
presence of opportunity which correlates with progress as an aim of politics and civilization. This
belief that man dictates his own future in response to the opportunities he is given may have very
well stemmed from the circulating philosophy of humanism during the Renaissance since it is
clear that, while he remains amply detached from the morality of the princes actions as opposed
to their efficiency, enthusiasm for the creation of new models for a successful rule is sufficiently
present.
Machiavelli asserts the level of difficulty in annexing a region and establishing an
enduring regime is proportional to the measure of ability in him who has acquired the state. The
skilled prince is described as having the favorable stance in comparison to his mediocre
counterpart even if he has good fortune and a well-rooted governmental foundation on his side.

Work Cited
Machiavelli, Niccol, and Wayne A. Rebhorn. The Prince and Other Writings. New
York: Barnes & Noble Classics, 2003. Print.