A ruler who is feared will rule for a few generations at most.
A ruler who is loved will reign in the hearts of generations yet to come.

i think it depends more on their achievements and context rather than their attitudes
a loved ruler with a placid reign will be better remembered if they represent a break from prior misery, and a feared ruler will be defended as necessary if their actions lead to long-term benefit
but a loved ruler with nothing noteworthy will be easily forgotten, and a feared ruler that leads to ruin will be forever maligned

>>134782
pic unrelated?

You should read Machiavelli.

He says it's better to be feared but you have to be feared in a fair and just manner. You can't just randomly punish people. People should know that if they do something wrong they will be punished but not feel like they might be punished unfairly out of nowhere.

He also says that giving rewards to people can actually cause issues because if one subordinate is given a reward the others will get angry and feel that they should have been rewarded too.

>>134794
the prince was written from the perspective of a guy who gave up on the idea of leaders ever being good

>>134795
That's not quite it, you should read it. It's written by somebody who idolised Cesare Borgia.

>Cesare Borgia was thought to be cruel, yet his cruelty restored order to Romangna and united it, making the region peaceful and loyal. When you think about it, he was much more compassionate than the Florentines whose reluctance to be thought cruel led to disaster in Pistoia.

he wrote it in a jail cell about the people who imprissoned him...

>>134798
Mo he didn't. He was only imprisoned for three weeks and then he was let go.

Look, you really do need to read it to understand what his philosophy is and the reasoning for it.

>>134799
>Mo he didn't.
Bleh... I meant No he didn't.

>>134799
I might be mixing up facts with him and Gramsci.

>>134794
>>134795
when searching for stuff about machiavelli what really strikes me is how differently he can be received by people, and all the discussion about whether he's coldly helping autocrats or is secretly a subversive republican, both interpretations having inspired various folks
looking at texts beyond the prince it seems to me that he does value the common good in and of itself, and that if a leader is to be cruel it should be for the sake of getting shit done, and that furthermore the populace is more virtuous than a prince and a republic preferable to a princedom
consider this section in "The Multitude Is Wiser and More Constant Than a Prince" from the discourses on livy
>I say, thus, that all men particularly, and especially princes, can be accused of that defect of which the writers accuse the multitude; for everyone who is not regulated by laws would make the same errors as the unshackled multitude. This can easily be known, because there are and have been very many princes, and the good and wise among them have been few.
>I conclude, thus, against the common opinion that says the peoples, when they are princes, are varying, mutable, and ungrateful, as I affirm that these sins are not otherwise in them than in particular princes. Someone accusing peoples and princes together might be able to say the truth, but in excepting princes, he would be deceived; for a people that commands and is well ordered will be stable, prudent, and grateful no otherwise than a prince, or better than a prince, even one esteemed wise. On the other side, a prince unshackled from the laws will be more ungrateful, varying, and imprudent than a people.
and in book one of the art of war he also has his two characters cosimo and fabrizio agree over this:
>Cosimo. What are these things you would introduce in imitation of the ancients?
>Fabrizio. To honor and reward virtù; not to scorn poverty; to value good order and discipline in their armies; to oblige citizens to love one another, to decline faction, and to prefer the good of the public to any private interest; and other such principles which would be compatible enough with these times. These principles might easily be introduced if due means were taken for that purpose because they appear so reasonable in themselves, and because their expediency is so obvious to common sense that nobody could gainsay or oppose them. He that takes this course plants trees under the shade of which he may enjoy himself with greater pleasure, and more security, than we do here.
>Cosimo. What you have said of this matter admits of no contradiction, and I shall therefore leave it to the consideration and best judgement of our present company.
but his views on democracy don't line up with common ideals today
pic explains it in its lengthy introduction, it's quite interesting

Feared as long as the fear is based on rational and orderly principles. Once you start being feared as a "mad emperor" it's pointless because nobody will want to risk your whims targeting them for no reason.

Machiavelli: The Scumbag

I think it's probably easier to be feared, with the basic evil things you could do to establish that fear. I guess it depends on how far you'd go to become feared, as you'd also create a bunch of enemies that could dispose of you. I don't think it could reach the same heights as a leader that's beloved. The latter almost never happens, though, so it's almost inconsequential.
Well, I guess it depends on the scale of things. Becoming a beloved leader of an army unit or firefighting group seems fairly common, as does leading, uhh.. small companies or something?

Well, can't say it's something I've thought much about.