Holy Roman Empire Presentation

Group Members:
Emily Clarke
Rebecca Driver
Jay Etkins
Zak Flair
Iris Kim
Rebecca Kotula
Mary Kate Luft


SENT AN EMAIL TO YOU WITH POWERPOINT ATTACHED BECAUSE LINK WASN'T WORKING

Questions on Machiavelli

1. Which of the following would be most successful in business today? And what kind of business would they run (Internet startup, chain store, international conglomerate, NGO, mafia)? Remirro da Orca (chapter 7), Oliverotto da Fermo (chapter 8) Cesare Borgia.

             Remirro da Orca, Oliverotto da Fermo, and Cesare Borgia are three minor characters that Machiavelli chooses to depict in The Prince. Remirro da Orca and Oliverotto da Fermo do not play as significant roles as Cesare Borgia in the book but they are important nonetheless. If put into modern economy what occupation would these three men have? Remirro da Orca would be an international conglomerate based on historical fact and his ability as a representative (Chapter 7). Oliverotto da Fermo could take up a position of authority in the mafia due to his “honorable standing” and sometimes violent past (Chapter 8). Cesare Borgia, although violent when necessary, might run a chain because of his strategic planning and family name.

            Remirro da Orca was considered to be a man of charisma. When Cesare Borgia took over Romagna, he needed someone to unite the territory. Borgia knew Orca had been successful in previous endeavors, so Borgia appointed Orca to take on the task (Chapter 7). Orca was granted all the powers necessary to bring peace and unity to Romagna, and in a short period of time he did (Chapter 7). An international conglomerate is a business that is comprised of many smaller companies. The head of an international conglomerate has to be able to bring all the companies together as one (Encarta Dictionary). Remirro da Orca, like a head of an international conglomerate, had to unite the city of Romagna (Chapter 7).

            In modern times, Oliverotto da Fermo would be a part of the mafia. Fermo’s parents died when he was young so he was raised by his uncle, Giovanni Fogliani. Fermo joined military forces at a young age and fought under the Vitellis (Chapter 8). Therefore Fermo was exposed to violence at a young age. That violence continued through a large portion of his life, and for that reason Fermo could have a job in the mafia. Fermo also expected respect and honor when returning to his home town or territory, just like a mob boss would (Chapter 8). After returning home, Fermo had Giovanni and other important representatives murdered. Fermo made himself prince and overtook the territory through violence (Chapter 8). Similar tactics are used in the mafia when wanting to take an enemy’s territory to expand their own empire. Oliverotto da Fermo’s violent past and deception would make him an excellent leader in the mafia.

            Cesare Borgia was a leader who came into power because of his family name (Chapter 7). Many stores are started by one person who builds an empire and expands the company so that it becomes a chain. Then that empire gets passed onto a son or other family member. Pope Alexander VI of the Holy Roman Empire did a similar thing. Pope Alexander VI built an empire of power and eventually the power transferred to his son Cesare Borgia (Chapter 7). Borgia used this foundation to continue his own empire. Borgia was a strategic planner. He destroyed disloyal troops and replaced them with loyal ones, he kept friendly yet cautious relationships with other princes, and he used his power in a way so the common people trusted him (Chapter 7). A chain store owner would have to think in the same terms. It would be necessary for him to be friendly with the competition yet always looking for ways to eliminate them. Borgia would be fit to run chain stores because of the power he received from his family name and the strategic planning he used along with his power.

            

2. Who is a prince's greatest ally? (Chapters 9, 19, 20, 21)

             Machiavelli names several important allies of a prince in the novel. The most important allies of a prince include the people (or populace), the nobles, the army, and the conflict. Machiavelli stresses that having a loyal and strong army is the key to power (Chapter 19), and that being able to choose a side on a conflict is necessary for survival (Chapter 21). However, Machiavelli says that even more important than the army or the conflict, is the people a prince chooses to take into the highest consideration.

The two types of people a prince has to choose between are nobles and the common people. Nobles can be helpful in attaining the position of prince but after the attainment, nobles prove to be more competition than help. The common people on the other hand can help to attain the position of prince but then disconnect themselves from power (Chapter 9). The common people are more prevalent and therefore the prince’s greatest ally.

The common people make up the majority of an empire. If the common people are displeased then the empire will suffer (Chapter 9). The populace will not hesitate to overthrow a prince they do not like him. The populace also has the power to elect one of their own people as a prince. The populace, unlike nobles, will still see the new prince as an authority figure and not consider themselves equals (Chapter 9). Because the common people have the power to overthrow a prince, the prince needs to keep the majority of the common people on his side. The prince must gain the populace’s trust through acts such as not raising taxes. The prince must also take his empire into consideration before plunging into war (Chapter 9). If the prince does simple acts to make the common people happy then he will have his greatest ally.

3. According to Machiavelli, when is generosity a good thing? (Be specific, identify, and cite his argument).

            Generosity is a difficult topic in The Prince. Machiavelli says that generosity is basically a no-win situation, and the prince must choose the worse of the two. Machiavelli states that it is better to be known as generous and a miser rather than ungenerous. If a prince’s generosity goes unknown then his subjects will protest, but if he is overly lavish he will create problems for himself and his principality (Chapter 16).

            The prince will be labeled a miser but his subjects will also come to realize that he is generous. Machiavelli says that being labeled a miser is a common part of being a ruler. Enough people will realize that the prince is generous so they will not try to contest his position of authority (Chapter 16).

            Machiavelli also suggests that when a prince has the opportunity to take from himself and his subject or from someone else, he should always take from someone else. It does no harm for a prince to take possessions, money, and power away from a stranger. The common people will see the prince’s act of generosity and appreciate it because the generosity has not affected them in any negative way (Chapter 16). 

4. Use The Beatitudes to argue against Machiavelli.

             Machiavelli wrote the prince with a pessimistic view of the world. He believed that a prince had to be ruthless and strategic if he wanted to become a prince or stay a prince (The Prince). The Beatitudes, however, contradict Machiavelli’s thinking process. The Beatitudes counter Machiavelli’s argument through forgiveness, kindness, and righteousness.

            The fifth Beatitude says, “Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.” Machiavelli teaches that mercy should be given out very sparingly. He says that mercy should not be shown in battle, towards the overthrown regime, or the common people who break the laws of the principality (Chapter 7&17). Machiavelli’s argument has one major flaw: if a prince shows no mercy towards his people then they will rebel against him. If Machiavelli followed the fifth Beatitude and showed mercy, than his enemies would be more likely to show mercy towards him. The prince’s subjects would also be less likely to rebel against a prince who treated them with care rather than violence (Line 7).

            The sixth Beatitude is about the kindness of the human heart. It says, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.” Machiavelli, however, states that a good prince is deceitful without his subjects knowing that he is. Machiavelli claims that a powerful prince can appear trustworthy while carrying out his own agenda (Chapter 18). The Beatitudes say that a pure heart will bring power and prestige. A pure heart, unlike honestly, cannot be staged. A pure heart cannot back fire like dishonesty can. If a prince listened to the Beatitudes opposed to Machiavelli then the prince would not run the risk of being caught (Line 8).

            The fourth Beatitude is in regards to righteousness, “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.” Machiavelli arguments throughout the novel can be seen as immoral and heartless (Chapter 19). The way to win over people is not through lack of morals and boundaries. A prince needs to have morals, or be righteous, to properly lead his people in a direction that is in the best interest of the principality. A prince without morals would not hesitate to put his principality in danger for his own plan (Line 6).

5. Use Machiavelli to argue against The Beatitudes.

The Beatitudes and  The Prince were written in very different contexts and therefore highly contradict each other. The Prince was written based on political strategies and did not concern religion, while the Beatitudes are a major aspect of the Catholic religion. Machiavelli could then argue against the Beatitudes saying that they do not belong in the world of politics. Machiavelli disproves the need for religion in politics through the examples of forgiveness, kindness, and righteousness.

Machiavelli discusses the need for cruelty when ruling a principality. He states that if a prince defeats another principality then he has to show this authority by destroying the members of the previous ruling family. He also exercises the point that mercy should not be given out to common people who break the laws of the principality in extreme ways (Chapter 7&8). The fifth Beatitude claims that, “Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy," (Line 7). A prince cannot be merciful most of the time because it is a sign of weakness. If a prince let his enemies free to do as they please, then no one would be afraid of rebelling against that prince. A prince has to make a point to show mercy to his subjects occasionally, but also show them that criminals will not be tolerated (Chapter 8).

Historians look at Machiavelli and kind is not the first word that comes to mind. Machiavelli said for a prince to be successful he had to be sly and sometimes dishonest (Chapter 18).  The sixth Beatitude states, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.” Machiavelli can counter this argument with the fact that it is not best for a prince to have a pure heart if he wants what is best for his principality (Line 8). Sometimes lies need to be told to the populace to avoid the havoc truth can bring. Machiavelli took into consideration all scenarios before involving complete honesty.

The Prince is not considered a novel based on morals. Machiavelli considered morals to be unimportant to a prince, if they did not leave him in charge of a principality. Machiavelli knew said a prince had to cheat and do deceitful things sometimes to get ahead (Chapter 19). The Beatitudes say, “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,” (Line 6).  Morals do not have a major role in politics. Morals are not normally needed for political decisions.

References

The Holy Bible: New International Version. (1993). New York: Harpertorch. (Original work published        null) 

Machiavelli, N. (1984). The Prince (Bantam Classics). New York: Bantam Classics.

Microsoft. (2002). Microsoft Encarta Dictionary (Reissue ed.). New York: St. Martin's Paperbacks.

Link to Elizabethan Movie Trailer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtxnluYIX1k

Also in the group: Jay, Etkins, Rebecca Driver, and Jordan Martin

Extra Credit: Renaissance Festival

My friend Rachael and I at the Renaissance Festival with the comedy act Hack & Slash.

(REPOSTED) Was Henry VIII justified in divorcing Catherine and making himself head of the Church of England?

Was Henry VIII justified in divorcing Catherine and making himself head of the Church of England?

Henry VIII, king of England, was not justified in divorcing Catherine of Aragon based on religious and political aspects. He was a man of the Church, and because of this his act of divorcing Catherine was not right. Henry was justified in making himself head of the Church of England for political and historical reasons. Henry took into account the laws and history of England before declaring himself head of the Church of England. For these reasons, he was more than justified in naming himself the head of the Church of England.

Henry VIII wanted the Tudor name to continue on after he died. To do this, Henry needed to produce a male heir. Unable to achieve this with Catherine of Aragon, Henry sought a divorce issued from the Catholic Church. Henry had read in the Bible somewhere that it was “blighted in the eyes of God” to marry your brother’s wife after he died (The Bible). Henry used that statement as ammunition in a plea for an annulment from Pope Clement VII. Henry claimed that because of that statement the marriage of Catherine and himself was never valid. Pope Clement denied the request for the annulment. The Pope could not annul the marriage because of Canon Law, but other reasons may have factored into the Pope’s decision (Canon Law 1st century). At the time, Charles V was the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. Charles V was Catherine of Aragon’s nephew. Because of the Catholic Church being within the Holy Roman Empire, the Pope would rather make an enemy with the King of England than the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire (Coronation of Charles V, 1516).

Despite having Parliament on his side, Henry could not get the Archbishop of Canterbury to go against the Pope’s decision. Advisors, lawyers, and clergymen all advised Parliament not to go against the Pope’s decision. Henry divorced Catherine because he could not get an annulment (Letter of Thomas Cramer 1533). The Church did not recognize Henry and Catherine’s divorce as legitimate. Henry also decided to marry Anne Boleyn, which the Church also did not recognize. Since Henry was still a part of the Catholic Church at the time of his divorce to Catherine, he was not justified in his actions.

Henry VIII’s marriage to Anne Boleyn caused an even larger rift between the Catholic Church and England. The Pope, wanting Henry to admit his marriage to Boleyn was invalid, threatened Henry with excommunication. Henry, along with Anne, researched documents and found that he, as ruler of England, was entitled to rule the Church in England. Through a series of documents, the Act in Restraint of Appeals and the Act of Supremacy, King Henry was effectively made the head of the Church of England. The Act in Restraint of Appeals was made by Parliament in 1533, and it stated all of England’s complaints against the Catholic Church starting in the 1920s. The idea for this document was started by one of Henry’s advisors, Thomas Cromwell, who said the document would make it seem as if the government was completely behind Henry’s decision to divorce Catherine and marry Anne (Act in Restraint of Appeals). In 1534, the Act of Supremacy came out stating that Henry VIII and all his successors had supremacy over the Church of England, not the Pope . The act was made by Parliament so it was legal. Because the acts were legal and made by Parliament, Henry was justified in making himself the head of the Church of England (Act of Supremacy 1534).

Ultimately, King Henry VIII was excommunicated from the Catholic Church but became head of the Church of England. Henry was unjustified in divorcing Catherine, but justified in making himself the head of the Church of England. The main difference between one being justified and the other unjustified was that one was legal and the other was not. Henry went through legal measures to make himself the head of the Church of England. Henry, however, broke the laws of the Catholic Church when he divorced Catherine. Simple distinctions made all the difference between King Henry VIII’s actions.

                                                         References

Medieval Sourcebook: Letter of Thomas Cranmer, 1533. (n.d.). FORDHAM.EDU. Retrieved October 1, 2010, from http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/cramner-hen8.html

Primary Sources - Letter from Katharine of Aragon to her husband,  King Henry VIII, 16 September 1513. (n.d.). EnglishHistory.net. Retrieved October 1, 2010, from http://englishhistory.net/tudor/letter2.html

Primary Sources - Letter of Katharine of Aragon to her daughter,  Princess Mary, April 1534. (n.d.). EnglishHistory.net. Retrieved October 1, 2010, from http://englishhistory.net/tudor/letter3.html

Primary Sources - Letter of Katharine of Aragon to her husband,  King Henry VIII, 7 January 1536. (n.d.). EnglishHistory.net. Retrieved October 1, 2010, from http://englishhistory.net/tudor/letter5.html

Primary Sources: A contemporary description of Henry VIII, 1515. (n.d.). EnglishHistory.net. Retrieved October 1, 2010, from http://englishhistory.net/tudor/henrydes.html

Primary Sources: The coronations of King Henry VIII and Katharine of   Aragon, 1509. (n.d.). EnglishHistory.net. Retrieved October 1, 2010, from http://englishhistory.net/tudor/h8crown.html

Primary Sources: The coronations of King Henry VIII and Katharine of   Aragon, 1509. (n.d.). EnglishHistory.net. Retrieved October 1, 2010, from http://englishhistory.net/tudor/h8crown.html

The Act in Restraint of Appeals. (n.d.). History Learning Site. Retrieved October 1, 2010, from http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/act_restraint_appeals.htm

The Act of Supremacy. (n.d.). Then Again. . .. Retrieved October 1, 2010, from http://www.thenagain.info/Classes/Sources/ActSupremacy.html