Difference Between Aquinas And Machiavelli

Kingship is a topic that has stood the test of time. Civilizations around the world have debated the terms of kingship and what they entail. As nations have come and gone, have flourished and fell, and have gone through their trials and tribulations, the idea of kingship has been reevaluated by scholars, philosophers, and nobles. The definition of the ideal king has changed with history and reacted to praiseworthy and blameworthy examples that have gone before. Through their many written works such as On Kingship, The Prince, and The Discourses, Aquinas and Machiavelli gained fame as great political thinkers and established their opinions on kingship; however, they differed in their views on the motive of a king’s actions, the king’s relationship …show more content…
Aquinas took on the Christian tradition and believed that a king should emulate Jesus and be a shepherd to the people. In On Kingship, he describes that a king should act for “the good of the multitude subject to him.”1 If the king sought the good of the common men, it would bring a right and just reign, according to Aquinas. Machiavelli also believed that kings should keep the people’s interest in mind, but only because it is easier to influence the people rather than the nobles. Machiavelli held that a king should be steady and strong and should be willing to use power or force. As he said in The Prince, “when they depend upon their own strength to carry their innovations through, then they rarely incur any damage.”2 Kings shouldn’t have to rely others for support or for …show more content…
Aquinas accepted that the Church is the head of divine government on Earth and insisted that a king be obedient to the Church in matters that regarded the faith. He conveyed this point when he wrote, “the king ought to be subject to the divine government administered by the office of priesthood.”6 For Aquinas, a king must be religious so that he can lead his people to God. Whereas Aquinas was a devout Christian, Machiavelli saw problems with the Christian religion and how it was governed. He recognized the corruption of the Church and blamed it for the impiety in Italy. Although he didn’t completely dispel Christianity, he saw the benefits that the pagans of Rome had. Romans were ferocious in war and weren’t concerned about their actions. Machiavelli thought that Christianity attached “less value to the honors and possessions of this world”7 which was a burden to a king that wanted a fierce