The term "Machiavellian" is defined as being conniving, duplicitous, efficient, and calculating. This term derived its origin from the philosopher Niccolò Machiavelli. But was Machiavelli actually deserving of this expression? Through both building up my arguments, and negating opposing arguments, I will show why it is more reasonable to believe that the term "Machiavellian" is not as fitting to Niccolò Machiavelli as may be thought.
             The main book I will focus on is Machiavelli's The Prince. This book was written both to and for Prince Lorenzo de' Medici. Machiavelli wrote this book as sort of a resume for the prince. Machiavelli had Machiavelli hoped to land an advisory position within the Florentine government, and wrote a dedicatory book in hopes of accomplishing this goal. Some critics have argued that since Machiavelli's motivation for the book was to land a position on the prince's advisory staff, he fulfills the definition of "calculating". The argument has been made that since he was calculating in his efforts, that he is Machiavellian. If we can assume that his book was more or less a resume or a showing of his skill, then it seems very legitimate for him to have these motives. Don't we all have these motives when applying for a job? Regardless of if we turn in a basic resume, or if we are showing off our skill in one form or another, most of us have aspirations of a job or some sort of compensation. From this, it is more reasonable to conclude that his efforts toward an advisory position we more of an average job application, and not a display of Machiavellianism.
             In his chapter about hereditary principalities, Machiavelli says that it is better to keep the majority of the same rules, and to change as little as possible. He says that if the people loved the previous leader, it will be easy for them to love a person who keeps the ...