Welcome to Gaia! :: View User's Journal | Gaia Journals

In 1513 Machiavelli wrote, “A prince, therefore, must not have any other object nor any other thought, nor must he take anything as his profession but war, its institutions, and its discipline.” These words may have been true back in that time period, but, with today’s technology and social dynamics, this statement is not as water-tight. Today, whether the leader of a county, province, or region should be armed is really dependent upon the style of government which that area chosen to subject itself to. As with whether he should be armed, there is also the question that if he is armed, in what manner should he be armed; should he be in a military uniform, carry a side-arm, have a squad of men to protect him, be equipped with armor (bullet-proof materials, etc.), or just the head of the military as a civilian.
There are some cases in which being physically armed in some manner is a necessity. In most third world countries under dictatorships, the threat of invasion is constant, thus, the prince of that nation must be ready and able to lead his people in a fight for their “freedom.” In these places, it is imperative that the prince demonstrate competence as a military leader. In cases like this, if the prince is unarmed, he will be despised for abandoning his people and leaving them defenseless, and he will lose his station regardless of the outcome of the conflict. However, if the prince is armed and leads his people to victory, he will be loved and maintain his station; but, if he is armed and does not lead his nation to victory over his assailants, he will lose his station and be despised, although he will not be despised as much as the unarmed prince who deserted his people in a time of desperation.
In established monarchies, empires, and dictatorships, it is not necessary that the prince be armed, but, it is to the prince’s advantage to have knowledge of military strategy. In such established countries, they are generally respected by their neighbors, and need not fear invasion from neighboring countries. There are however, instances in which a countries interests are compromised, and military action must be taken. At these times, a military background of any sort will prove to be very useful, whether the background be from studies, military experience, or conversations with relatives and friends about military strategy. In the case of invasion or invading, it is not necessary that the prince be at the front lines, because generally, they will have trained military leaders and strategists to do the fighting and leading for them.
In world super-powers, the need to for the prince to be physically armed, meaning having a weapon at his side twenty-four hours a day is pretty much nonexistent. It is however beneficial to have some sort of armor, whether it be a Kevlar jacket, a squad of bodyguards, or armored and bulletproofed vehicles. If the prince of such territories wishes to be armed, he must do so at his own risk, for fear of being called a militant, and thus, being despised. But then again, what leader of a world super-power isn’t despised by members of other nations, if not some members his own nation.
Thus, we see that it is indeed recommended and sometimes practical for the prince to be armed in some fashion in most cases, while in a few cases, it is necessary to be armed to the teeth to defend their country. As with most debatable issues in life, the root of this question is the personal definition that each of us gives to the key words of the debate, in our case those words being: war, prince, armed, and weapon.


Grade earned: 100 (it was a completion grade)

your thoughts?