the archives
dusted off in read-only
dusted off in read-only
Would you consider Kellhus a good example of Machiavellianism or no? If your not familiar with Machiavellianism simple explanation here [url:35vscvkf]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machiavellianism[/url:35vscvkf] Just not sure you could classify him as such. view post
based on this definition: [quote:32n8stmq] They believe the best way to get by is to use deception, rewards, promises, flattery, and even punishments to manipulate others into doing their bidding. To them, power may be more important than love.[/quote:32n8stmq] i think you'd have to say that Kellhus certainly is. however this is a rather broad definition. i believe Conphas would be classified as a "high mach" as well, and as we've seen Kellhus and Conphas operate quite differently. view post
You could almost say that nearly every character, in some way or another, could be defined this way with the exception of a few. view post
[quote="Warrior-Poet":2ykkbeet]Would you consider Kellhus a good example of Machiavellianism or no? If your not familiar with Machiavellianism simple explanation here [url:2ykkbeet]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machiavellianism[/url:2ykkbeet] Just not sure you could classify him as such.[/quote:2ykkbeet] It's been a long while since I tried to read [i:2ykkbeet]The Prince[/i:2ykkbeet]; it was pretty hard going as I recall. In answer to your question, I think Kellhus exceeds all Macchiavelli's aspirations. A better book on [i:2ykkbeet]realpolitik[/i:2ykkbeet] is in my opinion Basil Liddel Hart's [i:2ykkbeet]Strategy[/i:2ykkbeet], in which he opines that the essence of strategy is to keep your enemy totally ignorant and confused as to what you are actually doing, and as to what your real aims are. Kellhus has scored highly in both respects. view post