Post 2: In the book The Prince, Machiavelli expresses the sorts of ideas that typify the use of his name today to describe acts of insidiousness, evil, and cruelty. Indeed, in this book he sets about describing the ways in which a ruler can accomplish and maintain his authority over people, including a willingness to act immorally. However, he also makes it clear that in order to be a successful leader, one must find ways to win over the people, the so-called “hearts and minds” of his subjects so that the kingdom can be successful on many levels. This can be demonstrated when he focuses on the importance of leading with care and compassion rather than ruling people with fear. Machiavelli combines success as a military leader with the characteristics that make for a compassionate leader; one without the other will not lead to a successful and stable society. Sun Tzu clearly believes that the key to the success or failure of a society is contingent on having a competent and fierce military, which will lead to the security of the citizens. He simply does not address winning over the people of the citizenry in ways other than militarily.

Post 3: If Machiavelli and Sun Tzu were part of a modern panel and were questioned as to whether their philosophies were equally relevant to military commanders and political leaders, my sense is that the ideas of Sun Tzu were more tailored to military strategy specifically than were those of Machiavelli. Sun Tzu’s work was focused specifically on methods and theories that would lead to waging war successfully; Machiavelli’s book, The Prince, was concerned with governing as well as gaining the loyalty of his subjects by being an effective and compassionate leader. The Prince also discussed the need of a leader to determine when to commit acts of cruelty and evil that were necessary, ultimately, for the good of his realm and how to cover up those acts, i.e., place blame on others to avoid being identified as the guilty party. Hence, the modern-day meaning of “Machiavellian.” Sun Tzu’s work was “the gold standard” for many nations, including China, on ways in which to wage war, but did not go beyond that topic to address how to be a successful leader of the people. Therefore, my sense is that Sun Tzu’s work is certainly applicable to military commanders but not necessarily to political leaders; Machiavelli’s work appears to me to have relevance to both military commanders as well as political leaders. In the United States, the separation between being a military leader versus being a political leader can be demonstrated by the fact that only slightly more than half of US presidents have served in the military; 100% of them were politicians, however.