Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on Julius Caesar as a Machiavellian Leader. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
This 3 page paper examines the Shakespearean play and that author's portrayal of the well known leader. The paper argues that in part, Caesar is portrayed as a Machiavellian leader, but there are portions where he is weak in certain areas. No addition sources cited.
Page Count:
3 pages (~225 words per page)
File: RT13_SA422S.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
a contradiction but certainly people are multidimensional. On one hand, Caesar may be too bold, as he considers, for the most part, his own desires. On the other hand, Caesar
embraces the Machiavellian mindset where he takes the country to war when that is needed. Simply, Shakespeares play is quite objective. It clearly shows that both flaws and strengths are
found in the main character. In Shakespeares play, the protagonist Julius Caesar is portrayed as someone who is more concerned with his legacy, and own well being, than someone
who truly wants to do the will of the people. He is at the same time portrayed as a strong leader. When evaluating Machiavellis paradigm as outlined in The Prince,
a student writing on this subject might want to point out that the leaders downfall is related to his lack of caring for the people. What does Machiavelli say that
would render Caesar an undesirable leader? Many are familiar with Nicolo Machiavellis The Prince. It is a classic work on leadership. Not a volume on leadership style, this work to
come from the High Mediaeval period is a classic that many politicians consider as valuable today. There seems to be a great deal of support for the fact that Machiavelli
always had the interests of the people at heart. Much of The Prince revolves around anecdotes concerning various types of monarchs and then finally, Machiavellis own philosophy surfaces. It appears
that Machiavelli believes that Princes must meet the needs of the people. They cannot merely look to please themselves. He did not believe that methodology was particularly important as different
rulers have different styles. Above all, Machiavelli believed that what is done is not as important as the character of the leader nor of his ability to lead. The book
...