Discussion Starter - Machiavelli

Throughout the Prince, Machiavelli writes about virtù. This word shows up behind a variety of positive terms - skill (skilful), strength, sound, magnificent, first-rate, valor (in the case of auxiliaries), bold, and manliness. However, is the concept all good?

Though Machiavelli does not consider "virtù" to massacre fellow citizens or betray friends, this concept seems to be sometimes applied to evils he considers necessary. On page 28 he says "his wicked behaviour testified to so much strength [virtù] in mind and in body." Is it a sign of a good person then, or a strong leader? Aristotle criticized Plato's kallipolis saying that if the guardians are unhappy then how can the people be happy; if the leader is not good why should the people be expected to be good?

Machiavelli can be psychologically manipulative though practical and efficient in controlling the people. He says that as a ruler, you should commit all your evils at once so that the full force is not as noticeable, but if you are doing good and being generous, you should do it little by little so that they will notice it. This goes against the principle in Matthew/the New Testament of doing good for the sake of doing good, not to be seen by other people or other reasons. If this concept is followed and are what Machiavelli considers to be a good ruler, then what exactly is virtù?

His justified inequality is to impose harsh punishments on a few to stop disorder from spreading and affecting more people. He thinks better to be cruel and keep people peaceful for the sake of the community, than to be too compassionate and allow the whole community to suffer long term. What do you think of this concept? Is it impossible to create a community out of love and respect, or is it necessary in our nature to experience cruelty in order to be good and law-abiding citizens? (This reminds me of different parenting methods like some parents think discipline and punishment is necessary yet others can raise children without striking them etc.) He also thinks generosity is not a great thing, because "there is nothing so self-defeating as generosity, for the more generous you are, the less you are able to be generous."

Although the term seems to embody many good qualities, I wonder if it necessarily defines a good person. Since most of the text is about practical wisdom of how to seize and remain in control of the people, is virtù more closely connected with phronesis or eudaimonia or arete, in Aristotelian terms? Which of these Aristotelian terms, or combination of different degrees of these terms, would be the most accurate description of Machiavelli's virtù?