What defines a successful leader? In Machiavelli’s The Prince, the author provides an ideal model to follow: a leader should exemplify intelligence, practice appropriate virtues, and be greatly loved by the people (Machiavelli). These guidelines heavily influence the effectiveness of a leader’s realm. In Shakespeare’s Hamlet, the two political leaders demonstrate viable examples of the struggle to practice Machiavellian guidelines. Claudius and Hamlet attempt to follow all of the guidelines of the Prince, but fall short in other aspects.

Claudius fails to exhibit some of the Machiavellian principles, but appropriately exemplifies others. The antagonist does not to practice virtue when he murders his brother for personal gain. Murder in itself is immoral, thus making Claudius’ action a vice. This fact hinders Claudius’ leadership because of the overwhelming sense of guilt that he felt. A leader cannot be effective if they possess excessive guilt within them, which in turn negatively affects a leader’s efficiency. On the other hand, Claudius does meet some of the Machiavellian rules. For instance, European opinion thought it to be incestuous when a man married his brother’s wife. Through his Machiavellian traits of intelligence and manipulation, Claudius somehow convinced the public that his marriage to Gertrude was legitimate. The fact that the public pardoned Claudius from this Elizabethan atrocity proves his ability as a Machiavellian leader. In contrast, his failure to practice appropriate virtue shows that Claudius is not entirely a Machiavellian leader.
  Hamlet only partially meets the Machiavellian guidelines. The fact that he is greatly loved by the people is most certainly a Machiavellian quality. This can be proved when Claudius debates whether or not to send Hamlet to England to be killed, but realizes the public’s love for Hamlet, “Yet must not we put the strong law on him: He’s loved of the distracted multitude” (4.3 3-4). Claudius obviously hesitates to send Hamlet to die due to the fact that the public would get upset. Hamlet unsuccessfully practices Machiavellian policies when he does not practice appropriate virtue. For instance, when he makes crude sexual comments to Ophelia (3.2), he undoubtedly fails to practice virtue. This proves to be an obstruction of Hamlet receiving the fullness of being a Machiavellian prince. The public’s love for Hamlet and his inability to practice virtue show that Hamlet is not a full embodiment of a Machiavellian prince.
Had Hamlet surpassed the life of the king and ascended the throne himself, he would have made a much more practical king. King Claudius does not show as many Machiavellian traits as Hamlet does. While there are many minor examples of why Hamlet is the better leader, the fact that Claudius killed his own brother ultimately proves that Hamlet is the better suited king. A good leader is supposed to be noble and chivalrous. For one, the least chivalrous action one can commit is to kill their own brother. Secondly, it is Hamlet who seeks to avenge his father’s death, perhaps the noblest deed that one can do. Hamlet is undoubtedly more of a Machiavellian leader in the play, and would have made a better king if he had survived Claudius.
Machiavelli’s principles are often referenced in the play Hamlet in regard to Claudius and Hamlet. These characters fail to acknowledge some of Machiavelli’s counsel. Despite their ignorance, they actually endorse other aspects of Machiavelli’s teachings. Even though both characters struggle to uphold the practical guidelines of being a proper ruler, it is ultimately Hamlet that proves to be the better leader. If a ruler exemplifies chivalrous traits and is greatly loved by the people, they attest to being the superior leaders.