Is It better to be loved or feared, as a sovereign?

Question

The commoners are best served loving their king, or fearing him?

Answer 1

Cartainly, by loving him....

Answer 2

If you were a loving king your subjects would serve you with a real smile, not a fake smile. If you were a king that was feared than people wouldn't like you. You might as well be a loving king and put down in history as a good king than a horrible king!

Answer 3

How about admired because the commoners would have do good deeds in their name even though they are long gone.  

Answer 4

oh the answer has to be loved because if you have love then you have nothing to fear

Answer 5

I think it is best to be loved by some and feared by some. This way, both sides are faithful to you, but in any event, you have loyal followers who will not go against you. And those who love you would stand up for you when you are powerless. If it had to be one or the other, and as far as power and success go, I would say it is better to be feared.

Answer 6

Ultimately Loved, to effectively govern and protect your territories from invasion, you need the support of your people. They fight the wars and keep the economy afloat. While ruling via fear is always an efficient method for a while, It usually ends with the sovereign being overthrown and is completely detrimental to the wellbeing of the country.

Answer 7

fear is by far the best, but if you win a war as well, your on a winner!

Answer 8

Sovereigns haven't become rulers through love, but the age of enlightenement has changed the dynamic.To draw the perks and keep low is best for sovereign .. fooling the plebs with circus appearances and  distribution of baubles to the vulgars

Answer 9

Someone who rules a country has to be both loved and feared, it has to be known that he is kind and just, but also that he will not tolerate treason. If you look at history all of the greatest rulers were both loved and feared by the people - Queen Elizabeth, Caesar, Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Shah Jahan, King David, Solomon, etc. They were all extremely loved rulers - but also greatly feared (especially in the case of Shah Jahan).

A ruler that is loved is easily assassinated (after all if he is greatly loved who would think someone would want him dead).

A ruler that is feared is easily assassinated (those who thrive on fear have many enemies).

A ruler that is loved and feared is bound to live a long and prosperous life (if your people love you they will be willing to fight for you, if your people fear you they will do what it takes to avoid your wrath, the combination equals success .... after all who wants to p**s of a loving king?)

Answer 10

That answer would depended upon whether a prince was an absolute monarch, such as those Niccolo Machiavelli was originally advising in "Il Principe" (1532), or a constitutional monarch who reigns rather than rules. Since Machiavelli was inspiring the Medici family, "fear" was probably the most logical tactic.

Above all else, Machiavelli counseled that a ruler should do everything he/she could to achieve stability since a virtuous and stable state was the greatest moral good.  Interestingly enough, Machiavelli's entire quotation on this topic advised that a prince should strive to achieve both fear and love:  "It is best to be feared and loved; however, if one cannot be both, it is better to be feared than loved."

Constitutional monarchs, beginning with Queen Victoria, have been able to inspire admiration and loyalty, although they clearly reign rather than rule.  A contemporary constitutional monarch who reverted back to the earlier dictatorial model simply wouldn't be tolerated.

Answer 11

By killing him, I would think... =)