Who does Machiavelli believe exemplifies the characteristics of a true prince in The Prince, and why does he hold this belief?
In Machiavelli’s, The Prince, Machiavelli describes in great detail the extent to which a true prince should rule their state to ensure complete dominance and obedience of its people. He explains the numerous prerequisites and responsibilities of a prince, in which he exemplifies throughout the text through the different figures, in both positive and negative contexts. Throughout The Prince, one figure, who Machiavelli makes clear he has great respect for, highlighting quite frequently, is Cesare Borgia whom he even refers to with the status comparable to the level of God exclaiming that “there was one man who showed glimpses of greatness... that made you think he was sent by God” (26). Similar rhetoric is frequently used to describe Cesare Borgia throughout the text. In search of who truly exemplifies the characterization of “The Prince,” it can generally seem to be Cesare Borgia from the high praise of Machiavelli, but in reality this is not the case. Rather, the title of “The Prince” belongs to a more subtle figure: Ferdinand of Aragon, the King of Spain. This connection is made because of the numerous contradictions Machiavelli makes in praise of Cesare Borgia and other important figures in the text, while many key characteristics of a true prince that Machiavelli speaks of hold without contradiction for Ferdinand.
Machiavelli exemplifies his teachings through Cesare Borgia’s actions seen in chapter 7 when Cesare Borgia conquered the state of Romagna: immediately crushing the opponent using great cruelty, using a scapegoat to thwart the hatred away from him, and finally killing the scapegoat to create a sense of power and fear within the new states inhabitants. These actions, that explain why he is so highly idolized by Machiavelli, do not go without the fact that other
 
 fundamental characteristics of Cesare Borgia directly contradict Machiavelli's notion of the most dominant prince. A prime example is in how “Cesare Borgia... acquired his state during the ascendancy of his father, and on its decline he lost it” (7). Inheritance obviously requires significantly less effort compared to creating a new principality. Although Cesare Borgia later conquers new principalities, it can be inferred that a rise to power through his fathers fortune was a significant catalyst and does not exemplify virtues of the ideal prince.
Other figures in the book receive similar praise in leadership abilities, but still lack what qualities compare to the ideal prince. These figures include Pope Julius II, whose power is highlighted by Machiavelli in chapter 13 as being consistent more with fortune rather than virtù in his campaign for conquer, Pope Alexander VI, who although displays cunning ability to bring the catholic empire eventual dominance and power, did so with the initial help of being “granted a title and income from the Roman Catholic Church by his uncle Alonso”.1 Many figures follow the same pattern in that they follow many principles exemplified in The Prince, but of course with so many requisites to be a true prince, these figures do not follow the explicit definition of a prince. One figure however, follows Machiavelli’s points very closely and exemplifies the fundamentals of a true prince in his beginnings, leaving almost no flaws in his rise to becoming a true prince: Ferdinand of Aragon.
Ferdinand’s characteristics lead him to the title of “The Prince” but a core virtù is what truly sets him apart from the other figures: his rise to power. Almost immediately in The Prince, Machiavelli describes the differences between principalities and emphasizes how maintaining a
1 “Alexander VI.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., www.britannica.com/biography/Alexander-VI.
 
new principality is far more difficult than inheritance. This is largely evident in Ferdinand’s rise to leadership in what Machiavelli describes him as “, by fame and glory, from being an insignificant king to be the foremost king in Christendom” (21). Ferdinand demonstrates his cunning deception through his plot for power, “always using religion as a plea, so as to undertake greater schemes,  himself with pious cruelty to driving out and clearing his kingdom of the Moors” (21). Machiavelli marks this never being “a more admirable example, nor one more rare” in which he uses religion as a cloak of invisibility to deceptively conquer states (21). These natural abilities are what make Ferdinand admirable and what separate him from the rest of the figures in the text. This feeling is shared by Machiavelli exclaiming “that his actions have arisen in such a way, one out of the other, that men have never been given time to work steadily against him” (21).