How does anecdotal evidence in this passage support the
claim that cruelty is a necessary part of leadership?
Read the passage from chapter 17 of The Prince.
hat it is true his other virtues would not have been sufficient
Thim may be proved by the case of Scipio, that most
cellent man, not only of his own times but within the
mory of man, against whom, nevertheless, his army
elled in Spain; this arose from nothing but his too great
earance, which gave his soldiers more license than is
sistent with military discipline. For this he was upbraided
e Senate by Fabius Maximus, and called the corrupter of
Roman soldiery. The Locrians were laid waste by a
e of Scipio, yet they were not avenged by him, nor was
solence of the legate punished, owing entirely to his
mature. Insomuch that someone in the Senate, wishing
use him, said there were many men who knew much
now not to err than to correct the errors of others. This
tion, if he had been continued in the command, would
estroyed in time the fame and glory of Scipio; but, he
nder the control of the Senate, this injurious
by showing how Scipio was too lenient and his army
rebelled
by depicting how leniency destroyed the Senate
by showing how Fabius Maximus was feared in the
Senate
O by showing how Scipio's army rebelled, and how he
stopped the rebellion
and return

Chapter 17 of Niccolo Machiavelli's (1469 – 1527) "The Prince" concerns cruelty and clemency and whether it is better to be loved than feared.

This passage explains that cruelty is necessary part of leadership. Before these lines Mechiavelli is trying to claim that the success of Hannibal was mainly because of his cruelty and not because of his other virtues. The start of this passage "that it is true his other virtues would not have been sufficient" is referring to Hannibal. Now in order to further prove his claim he gives an example of Scipio. Scipio no doubt had many excellent qualities, not only of his own times but within the memory of the man. But these excellent qualities could not prevent his army rebel in Spain, because Scipio was not cruel, and because his soldiers did not fear him.

Other options are not true because the passage is completely about Scipio's handling of his army.

Senate is NOT destroyed in this passage.

Fabius Maximus upbraided (found faults) Scipio, he was NOT feared in the Senate.

Scipio could NOT stop rebellion in his army.

catmend295 catmend295 · Answer 2 · 2021-01-14T23:24:22+01:00

catmend295 catmend295

14-01-2021

Answer:

A. by showing how Scipio was too lenient and his army rebelled

Explanation:

got a 100 on tthe test

Answer Link