Hamlet, the Prince of Denmark and the rightful heir to the thrown of his dead father,
should have been King of Denmark and would have been King, but his Uncle married
Hamlet's mother before he could claim his place. In the final act, Hamlet kills his uncle
to avenge the murder of his father, but is poisoned and dies. If Hamlet had not been
poisoned, survived the final act, and took over the thrown then he would of been the
perfect Machiavellian ruler. Hamlet had all the attributes described by Niccolo
Machiavelli to be a leader of Denmark's monarchy. In Machiavelli's famous document,
The Ruler, the leader must show that he is a good man, but when the time comes he must
be prepared to act ruthless and conniving, when ever he is too speak he must be constant
in showing good faith, kindness, godliness, and honesty, he must be greatly loved by the
people, and the rulers actions must always appear to be honourable and for the good of
the state. Hamlet shows all of these attributes and therefore if he had lived past the fifth
act he would have been one of the best King that Denmark ever had.
When ever Hamlet is in public, he appears to be the most nobel and moral of men.
Hamlet shows how great of a guy he right off the bat when we first meet him in act one.
The scene takes place at the wedding of Hamlet's Mother and Uncle who are entering
into marriage right after the death of the King. Even though the Queen is doing
something as disgusting and unholy as to marry the brother of her dead husband when his
corpse hasn't even become stiff, Hamlet is able to keep his cool in front of everyone. The
Queen asks Hamlet something and he responds calmly to her , "I shall in my best to obey
you, madam."(I, ii l.120). This is an amazing feet that Hamlet accomplishes to hold back
his anger. Later in the play Hamlet has no trouble being merciless. At one point, his
friends, Ros...