Help! I need a comparism and contrast between Machiavellis "The Prince"

Question: Help! I need a comparism and contrast between Machiavellis "The Prince" & Einchard's "Life of Charlemagne
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:

Einhard's work is essentially a bio of Charles the Great (Charlemagne) while Machiavelli's "The Prince" is a political commentary on the very early 1500s in medieval Italy!. "The Prince" is modeled after Cesare Borgia and his machinations to achieve and hold power - - observed by Niccolo Machiavelli!.

From the source listed below:
"The Prince is an intensely practical guide to the exercise of raw political power over a Renaissance principality!. Allowing for the unpredictable influence of fortune, Machiavelli argued that it is primarily the character or vitality or skill of the individual leader that determines the success of any state!. The book surveys various bold means of acquiring and maintaining the principality and evaluates each of them solely by reference to its likelihood of augmenting the glory of the prince while serving the public interest!. It is this focus on practical success by any means, even at the expense of traditional moral values, that earned Machiavelli's scheme a reputation for ruthlessness, deception, and cruelty!."

The Full Text of Einhard's Life of Charlemagne is also available here - - http://www!.fordham!.edu/halsall/source/ei!.!.!.
Both works are worth reading to best compare and contrast!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Einhard's Life of Charlemagne was a hagiographic biography of Charlemage best seen in light of the political usages of such literature!. Not meant to be a factoid driven account, rather to present what Charlemagne's (and the myth of this fairly bloody-handed man) dynasty meant in the history of Europe!. Machiavelli's The Prince is a tragically misunderstood tongue-in-cheek commentary on politics - his examples tell all, but should the reader lack historical knowledge they would miss the irony!. For instance, Machiavelli lauds Hannibal for his generalship and contrasts it with how poorly Scipio Africanus disciplined his troops!. This is highly satrical, since the Battle of Zama resulted in Africanus routing Hannibal's army - and a well read contemporary would have known this and realized that Machiavelli was having fun with the reader!. Machiavelli was an ardent exponent of republicanism and in fact spent time in prison for his beliefs, yet The Prince is written as a guidebook for despots!. It is tragic that so many readers utterly miss the humor and satire of Machiavelli, yet such is the fate of literalists!. This is why a work of literature lifted from its time and read without contemporaneous knowledge may so badly miscontrued!. By the way, my interpretation of Machiavelli is not original with me; Voltaire noted the same incongruity of Machiavelli's examples (a number of them) with the avowed intent of the book!. A close reading of The Prince is richly rewarding!.Www@QuestionHome@Com