Plato Vs Machiavelli

Of the many disparities between Plato and Machiavelli, the distinction of virtue versus virtu sticks out like a sore thumb. Virtue was the political bases for Plato: All men should behave virtuously at all times. Whereas Machiavelli believed virtu was the basis for political prowess. What was best for the state as a whole was the main concern, and the ends always justified the means.

Plato’s object was the creation of a utopian society--a civilization that abhorred war and centered itself upon moral virtue and honor. He saw war as evil; and evil was merely the failure of justice. He believed that there should be a standing army to defend the republic but that war for the sole purpose of waging battles was highly unjust. His utopian society was centered on creating society perfect; he sought to answer the probing question: What would it be like if the world was perfect?

Virtue was a skill that had to be practiced daily to attain perfection. To be a good ruler in Platonic society one had to aspire to all the virtuous qualities of a perfect soul and aim for utopia. A good ruler acted the same all the time. One without moral virtue was considered unjust. Doing evil to men who were evil was shunned. It was seen as adding to the evil in the world. The way to conquer evil was with honor and virtue. The division of public and private lives did not exist in Platonic society, and ulterior motives were non existent to him.

Machiavelli, on the other hand, wrote the Prince as a guide book for rulers on how to maintain powerful and successful states. His stark realist ideas were centered on war, not on the utopian state that Plato spoke of so often. Machiavelli stressed that war was the key to maintaining a polity. “The first way to lose your state is to neglect the art of war; the first way to win your state is to be skilled at the art of war.” (The Prince, 62) A good prince was to take charge in solving any possible problems, so having a powerful and skillful standing army was imperative for future solutions. “The Romans did what all wise rulers must: cope not only with present troubles but also with ones likely to arise in the future.” (The Prince, 12) Machiavelli considered foresight essential because he thought it was far more successful to navigate problems if prepared for them. Not only was it imperative to have foresight and but the skilled standing army had to show loyalty to the Prince. So auxiliaries who might be hired to fight were strictly out of the question. They would have been there for themselves and were usually loyal to another crown.

Machiavelli also considered it imperative to conquer other lands to expand a kingdom’s territory and wealth. He studied empires of the past to decipher why they succeeded or failed and decided on three essential rules for governing and holding conquered polities securely. The first was to devastate them, second was to live there in person, and third was to allow them to maintain their own laws. “If the inhabitants are not dispersed and scattered, they will forget neither that name nor those institutions; and at first opportunity they will at once have recourse to them.” (The Prince, 21) He regarded it essential for the Prince to be hands-on with his conquered polity because it was harder for people to go behind his back if he was present all the time. And by allowing them to maintain their own laws it created some sense of friendship between the prince and the people, or at least a sense of mutual respect.

Machiavelli also described in painstaking detail the folly of becoming overly generous. He iterated that although