When studying Machiavelli's "The Prince", we found that the description of Borgia's political career and the Christian satire behind it are very worthy of attention.

This allows us to delve deeply into Machiavelli's political philosophy while also conducting an in-depth analysis of the complex political environment of that era.

Burckhardt felt that when Machiavelli told the story of Borgia, he was actually showing how he used the power of the pope to expand his own power.

In Italy at that time, Borgia may have been deeply entangled in the intricate web of Roman church power.

He used a variety of strategies to even make it possible for the papacy to transform into a traditional monarchy, which fully illustrates the close relationship between political maneuvering and religious power at that time.

This approach caused considerable fluctuations in Italy's political landscape at that time, and may have an impact on the balance of power among all parties and the future development direction.

Borgia's behavior reflects the relationship between the people and the monarch.

At that time, the people rated Borgia's achievements highly, and this praise deepened his connection with the people.

Under the social background at that time, if the monarch could achieve certain results, the people would often recognize it relatively easily.

Some of Borgia's actions were controversial, but the public did support him.

This is reflected in Chapter 4 of The Prince.

What happened to the lands he conquered after Alexander's death has created a great deal of interest in the outcome.

Even though Alexander here is not a relevant figure in the Pope of Borgia.

When people at that time encountered these complicated relationships between political figures and subsequent territorial disputes, they paid more attention to the final direction of things. As for the methods used to achieve their goals, they may not be the focus of their greatest attention.

This conclusion has also been verified here in Borgia.

Borgia's actions, including waging war and lying, may have seemed acceptable to the public as a result.

The people seemed to feel that Borgia was not fully involved in Remillo's bloody execution, and therefore accepted the "non-involvement" attitude behind this cruel act.

Machiavelli argued that there was less danger in siding with the people.

In the political and social structure of that era, if a king offended the people, the people would at most choose to abandon the king.

Borgia did not encounter resistance in Romagna, which shows that although some of his practices are controversial, they have not yet touched the bottom line of the people.

The social and political conditions in Italy at that time limited the people's tolerance for the monarch. Taking Borgia's behavior in Romagna as an example, the reaction of local residents showed this subtle relationship.

This situation reflects an expression of popular power.

People demonstrated their stance by abandoning their allegiance to the monarch, and this was particularly true in the case of Borgia.

In a race against time, Borgia sets out to eliminate the bloodline of those who were plundered after his father's death.

During the power struggle in Italy, Borgia carried out extreme purges, with the intention of ensuring his independence and becoming the "arbiter of Italy."

By the time of Alexander's death, he had completed most of the cleanup tasks. These measures undoubtedly caused huge waves among the various factions in Italy at the time.

He resolutely cleans up the remaining hidden dangers, which shows that he intends to break free from the shackles of fate and change his fate entirely based on his own character.

He occupied a place in the power struggle in Italy. However, he may have realized that relying on external forces, such as the Pope, was not reliable, so he chose this extreme method in an effort to completely consolidate his position.

Borgia's power had a popular base.

Despite his vulnerability, Romagna does not resist him.

This shows that he still has a certain degree of public recognition or deterrence in the local area.

The people of Romagna, driven by certain interests or attracted by some of Borgia's actions, did not challenge his rule.

Popular support constitutes his source of strength, which gives him a certain advantage in Italy's political competition.

This was a very critical resource in the context of competition among many forces in Italy at that time.

Machiavelli and Borgia showed the way for princes.

In The Prince, despite Borgia's failure, Machiavelli re-describes his words and deeds, treating him as a proper example of a new monarch who rose to depend on fate.

The research value of Borgia's case cannot be underestimated for subsequent scholars who study the behavior of political figures and the example of monarchs.

The political environment of Machiavelli's time was complicated. Taking Borgia as an example may be to provide reference for many monarchs and leaders, especially on key issues such as how to interact with the people.

Do you think Machiavelli’s analysis of Borgia has any implications for modern political management?