Machiavelli and the Absolutist Monarchs of Russia

[EmperorBatman999]

This is my first doing this on TWC and doing an essay like this, so here it goes.


The absolute Monarchs of Europe used various strategies similar to the ideal leader according to Machiavelli’s book The Prince to maintain control of their kingdoms. One strategy used was the use of fear to rule people. They also used the use of fear to control foreign powers.
Ivan IV or “The Terrible” was Russia’s first Tsar. When he was a child, both his parents were killed. Ivan IV reigned 1533-1584. Ivan was known for his use of fear. Ivan wielded fear to his advantage. He reorganized Russia. Ivan created the Oprichniki to guard the Tsar and carry out his dirty work.
An example of Ivan’s fear and power is when “In a fit of rage, he, (Ivan IV) murdered his only viable heir, Ivan, in 1581.” (Britannica online)
Another example is, “The following year (1565), Ivan took over about half of the estates of Russia and put them under the administration of men called oprichniks. He then sent the oprichniks into a deliberate civil war.” (Ivan). Machiavelli would approve of Ivan because Ivan used fear to control the Boyars, who were the soldier class. He trusted very few people and always hated the Boyars.
Peter the Great is another example of a leader that followed some on The Prince’s ideas. In this case, he modernized Russia and attacked many Russian traditions to do it, an example of the end justifying the means. Peter set Russia’s modernization in motion. He made many reforms, some attacking old Russian traditions.
An example of Peter being a ruthless leader was he suppressed a revolt by the streltsy. “Hundreds of streltsy were executed, the rest were exiled to distant towns and the corps of the streltsy was disbanded.” (Britannica online) The destruction of the streltsy removed a threat to Peter’s power and allowed him to build a modern army to replace the streltsy.
Another example of Peter’s drive for modernization regardless of cost is how, “The peasants and the poor workers had to bear the great hardship in war and moreover were intensively exploited in the course of Peter’s great work for the modernization and development of Russia.” (Britannica Online)
Machiavelli would approve of Peter because he used the ends to justify the means, in this case; Modernization of Russia, at all costs.
Catherine the Great was Tsarina of Russia. She was originally a supporter of enlightened ideas until a rebellion made her grip tighter on Russia. After the rebellion, she used fear and oppression to keep rebellious people down.
An example of her cruelty was when she brutally suppressed a rebellion by Yemelyan Rugachov, who attempted to dethrone Catherine by attempting to disguise as her dead husband and former Tsar. (Britannica Online)
She was a strict aristocrat, an example of her admitting it herself, “I am an aristocrat. ‘Tis my profession!” (Britannica Online)
Machiavelli would approve of her because she attempted to be loved but after a rebellion she shifted towards fear to rule her subjects and keep them in their place.
There were many absolute leaders that had policies similar to The Prince and were ruthless. These rulers aimed to achieve their own goals at the price of their subjects.

[dezikeizer]

Just some further things that you could add: Peter also had his son imprisoned and executed so as to avoid having him undo the changes Peter had made. Alexi was never really interested in governing the country, and as such Peter feared he would allow the reforms to be reversed. There was also the overthrowing of his older sister Sophia who had been regent for him and his brother, and was intending to keep it that way. She was sent to the convent to become a nun after being overthrown.

I can't really recall many others right now, but anyway, what you have here is good, though I'm assuming that this is just an outline.

[Scorch]

This is a common misunderstanding regarding Machiavelli's philosophy. Specifically:

There were many absolute leaders that had policies similar to The Prince and were ruthless. These rulers aimed to achieve their own goals at the price of their subjects.

Machiavelli is currently represented as believing that "the ends justify the means", however this is not quite accurate. What he stated was that in the absence of any impartial arbiter, "si guarda al fine": one looks to the end. That is to say that without any impartial arbiter (such as a UN or overarching political organism) to attempt to regulate the behaviour of the Prince, their actions are to be judged by their ends alone. His belief is that a well-run, secure and organised state benefits all those who inhabit it, and as such those actions which push the principate in such a direction contribute to a certain good, whether or not conventional morality would sanction them or not.

For example he gives the example of Agathocles of Syracuse, who used several of the tactics that Machiavelli points out as exemplary in other leaders, yet instead of consolidation of power, organisation and security, he brought civil war, disorder, slaughter and prolonged brutality (as opposed to short and concentrated stints of brutality, well-placed for the benefit of the people). It cannot be called virtu, he says, to slaughter ones citizens so recklessly with no broader purpose.

Machiavelli does not advocate achieving their own goals at the price of their subjects at all. This is not what the Prince is about (and even less what i Discorsi are about). In any situation (especially that of 15th and 16th century Italy) where there is no overarching political entity that can hand down judgments, the actions of the Prince are not to be judged by a form of moral code but rather by the good that they bring about ("il bene").

Machiavelli wrote treatises on Republics and a commentary on the first ten books of Livy, dealing with the makeup of the Roman Republic. He was also personally involved in a 3-4 year revolution where the Medici were expelled from Florence and a Republic set up. He is definitely cynical and more accurately the supreme realist, but he definitely would not have approved or advocated sending your own country into civil war, ruling through fear and reckless brutality, especially if it bore no benefit whatsoever to the people.