For hundreds of years, European scholars and theologians have understood their world through the prism of scholasticism. They used dialectical discourse to abstractly evaluate inferences and reconcile contradictions. However, this method of explaining reality was often weighed down by unquestionable religious dogmas and other influential precedents that make the actual discovery of truth a speculative endeavor. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned"?Get the original essayIn the early modern period, Niccolo Machiavelli pioneered a pragmatic and humanistic method for explaining political realities in his treated The Prince. Machiavelli's use of historical examples reflects a break with medieval scholasticism and the rise of humanism in Renaissance Europe. The central argument of the treatise is to prove that conventional ideals of virtuous leadership are rarely what creates and maintains power. A prince must act only on what will benefit his position and the longevity of his tenure as ruler. A strong prince carefully analyzes the successes and failures of those who ruled before his time. Today's trials can be resolved by yesterday's decisions. For example, in Machiavelli, “examples are provided by the Spartans and the Romans.” In The Prince, Machiavelli writes an instruction manual for the aspiring ruler. His style of heuristic analysis, in which he uses historical facts and emphasizes practicality, differs significantly from scholasticism because the method of arriving at a conclusion is free from the shackles of tradition or religious dogma . Machiavelli's humanist arguments focus on how people actually act rather than on an ideal of how a person should act to be a good ruler. He shows a deliberate attempt to distinguish his methods from scholasticism when he writes: "I have thought it proper to represent things as they are in real truth, rather than as they are imagined." Many imagined republics and principalities whose existence we never really knew. Machiavelli cites historical evidence from the past as well as that of his powerful contemporaries in order to justify his often amoral view of politics, state-building, and war. Machiavelli's positions on politics and war come from his exemplary knowledge of ancient history. He shows his admiration for the elders by writing: “I put on royal and curial robes; and dressed in a more appropriate manner, I enter the ancient courts of ancient men and I am welcomed by them with kindness… and there I am not ashamed to speak to them, to ask them the reasons for their actions; and they, in their humanity, respond to me. Throughout The Prince, Machiavelli tends to favor the rulers of ancient empires. He is frequently impressed by the vast empire of the Romans and other rulers such as Cyrus and Alexander the Great. The Romans were competent rulers because they knew how to deal with their neighbors; befriend those who are close, but weaken those who are strong and create a colonial system in which the rulers will live. When looking for princes to criticize, Machiavelli turns to his own contemporaries. Machiavelli makes an effective effort to portray King Louis as the antithesis of what made the Romans powerful. According to him, Louis had therefore committed these five errors: he had destroyed the weaker powers; increased someone's power alreadypowerful in Italy; brought into this country a very powerful foreigner; stayed away from Italy itself; failed to establish colonies there. Even these errors, if he had lived, would not have been fatal if there had not been a sixth: his dispossession of the Venetians from their State. If he had not made the Church strong or introduced Spain into Italy, it would have been reasonable and necessary to crush the Venetians. Machiavelli ends this calculated diatribe by confidently writing, “King Louis lost Lombardy because he did not observe any of the rules observed by others who seized countries and decided to keep them. There's nothing fantastical about it. Machiavelli is confident in his judgments because they are based on observed history rather than ideals or conceptual ideas. Although this process of believing in the realities and themes of history may seem simple to an educated citizen of the 21st century, it challenged the moral and religious dogmas of the time. There is something every prince can learn from the legendary conquerors of history. Essayist Isaiah Berlin argues that Machiavelli believes that great leaders have always been the same type of men when he writes that Machiavelli does not believe in the irreversibility of the historical process or the uniqueness of each of its phases. The glories of antiquity can be revived if only vigorous, gifted and sufficiently realistic men can be mobilized for this purpose. In order to cure degenerate populations of their diseases, these founders of new states or churches may be forced to resort to ruthless measures, to force and fraud, to trickery, to cruelty, to treason, to the massacre of innocent people, to the surgical measures necessary to restore a rotten body to a state of health. This means that only the boldest, most cunning, and most pragmatic princes will enjoy true long-term success, firm control, and lasting glory. Because for a rational humanist, these bold, cunning and pragmatic people are the only ones who become true princes. It is men like this who will always hold power, because Machiavelli believes that the weak will always be crushed by the strong and intelligent. The Prince's political analysis describes human history as a cyclical affair. For Machiavelli, humans have always been the same and there is much to learn from their past successes and failures. Any society that experiences growth and prosperity will one day slide into decline and decay. A state in decline will reach its lowest point and begin to grow again. For any event occurring in the early modern period, there is a type of ancient event that is similar. For this reason, Machiavelli rejects the idea of ​​an upward and progressive trajectory of humanity throughout history. In Machievelli's world, there will always be states in decline, just as there will always be states that gain power through the expansion and consolidation of power. Machiavelli's many historical quotes (including examples of conquest and revolution) describe a world with a fragile political order. . Although the circumstances of a principality can change quite quickly, this is never arbitrary or random. According to Machiavelli, there is a direct causal relationship between what the prince did or left undone and the fate of his lands. It is in this historical causal relationship that Machiavelli's challenge to scholasticism is fully realized. The purpose of the story in The Prince is to provide evidence of how people actually behave and act when in positions of power and what the end result is. Machiavelli's Understanding of Recurring Patterns in Politics.