Machiavellian Villains of History, Literature, and the Screen

Machiavellianism is the concept of doing whatever it takes to achieve a political goal regardless of ethics or morality. The term was coined after Italian political theorist and philosopher, Niccolo Machiavelli. He wrote about this method of achieving power in his 16^th Century work: The Prince. It is where the cultural and literary archetype of a ‘Machiavellian villain’ is formed from.

Title Page of a 1550 Edition of Il Principe di Nicolo Machiavelli

This list uses examples of Machiavellian figures from history, literature, and the screen to explore the different ways in which Machiavelli’s concept manifests. Some are more emotionally manipulative and deceitful, some are more upfront and ruthless, but all are selfish.

Cesare Borgia

Profile Portrait in the Palazzo Venezia Rome

An inspiration and key case study for Machiavelli in The Prince was Cesare Borgia, a cardinal and member of the infamous House of Borgia as son of Pope Alexanda VI. Machiavelli spent several months at court with Borgia and observed his brutal cunning. Machiavelli praised Borgia’s violent military campaigns and his purging of conspirators; he’d lure enemies to their assassinations through false pretences. Despite Machiavelli’s admiration of Borgia’s methods in gaining power through much of Italy, he believed he could have gone even further as Borgia did eventually lose the state.

 

Iago in Othello

Castle Rock Entertainment, Othello 1995

Perhaps the first example people think of when they hear the term ‘Machiavellian villain’ is Iago from Shakespeare’s Othello. His spiteful asides that allow audiences an insight into his plotting exemplify the thought process behind such a cunning figure.

Iago single-handedly creates chaos and pain as a way to satisfy his thirst for control. He deceives Othello by praying on his insecurity as an outsider to his court and makes himself appear invaluable to him, making Othello paranoid of all others around him. This is especially true with Desdemona, whose genuine love for Othello threatens Iago’s monopoly over his trust.

When Cassio is promoted above Iago’s station, he pivots his plans in removing Desdemona to include Cassio in staging a scene that appears to be an affair between the two in front of Othello. Two birds, one stone! The ability to chop and change a plot when necessary is a Machiavellian trait.

What adds some depth to his motivations of power, revenge, chaos, and control, is the often-debated view that Iago has a homoerotic obsession with Othello, hence his particular cruelty towards Desdemona and other women in the play. Shakespeare definitely uses intimate language in scenes between Iago and Othello. I think these are the best types of literary Machiavellian characters: the ones whose quests for power overlap (often unbeknownst to themselves) with their own emotional needs in personal relationships, needs they try so hard to repress in favour of their grand plans. The dual – slash, murky – motivation is always fascinating.

 

John Dudley, 1st Duke of Northumberland

Posthumous Portrait of John Dudley 1st Duke of Northumberland 1607

John Dudley was prominently powerful in England in the time of Machiavelli’s political writings so people tend to analyse him through this lens. His background saw him be ruthless and intimidating in collecting money for his debts and he managed to build an estate for himself including Dudley Castle through both legitimate and shady means. He became leader of the Navy to Henry VIII and brutally quelled rebellions.

Where his Machiavellianism really kicked in though, was at the end of Edward VI’s reign…

John Dudley led the young King Edward VI’s government after Henry VIII died. When Edward fell ill, there was a succession problem. Edward was very Protestant and did not want to give the crown to next in line, Mary, a Catholic. Equally, it would’ve been unwise to crown his other sister the Protestant Elizabeth: Henry VIII never repealed either of his daughters’ illegitimacy statuses after their mothers were named traitors, one divorced, one beheaded (despite restoring them as royals). Therefore, Edward could not be seen denying Mary then crowning Elizabeth.

The King named Protestant cousin once removed, Lady Jane Grey, as his successor instead of either of his sisters. How heavily that decision was influenced by his advisors and councillors is not known for certain but John Dudley wasted no time marrying his son, Guilford Dudley, to Jane swiftly before Edward officially named her heir. Members of the Privy Council agreed that Jane should be named Queen and those that didn’t were bullied into it by Dudley.

Dudley obviously saw an opportunity to insert his own blood on the throne and his influential relationship with Edward VI helped with this plot. He was a man who took full advantage of the crown’s instability for his own ends after carefully working his way up the highest seats of power in Tudor England all his life. Unfortunately for him, public support for Mary’s far more direct claim was too large. John Dudley was betrayed by his fellow councillors and named a traitor when Mary I beheaded Jane and became Queen. He was nicknamed the ‘wicked Duke’.

 

Malcolm Tucker in The Thick of It

The Thick of It, BBC

Of course, in a satirical comedy of politics and power, Machiavellianism is explored. Malcolm Tucker is a Whip, a literal professional spin doctor. He is paid to manipulate the truth for the government’s gain, but of course being so good at it means he prioritises that gift for himself first. We watch him puppeteer people and situations every episode. His colleagues are afraid of his successful track record, anger, biting tongue, leverage, and intimidating influence.

His allyship with the young political advisor Ollie develops over time. Tucker sees a budding ‘will do anything to achieve for himself’ in him and he nurtures and encourages that not only by example but by implicating Ollie, against his will, in his lies. It’s a personality trait that can get you far in politics. Ollie is Tucker’s unofficial apprentice. This relationship benefits them both for a very long time. Ollie’s eventual betrayal is everything Tucker taught him so he is proud but devasted that the student became the master and ruined his only true love in life, his career.

Larys Strong in House of the Dragon

House of the Dragon, HBO

Several characters from the Game of Thrones universe fit the Machiavellian model. Otto Hightower is one. However, whilst extremely Machiavellian in orchestrating a usurpation, by the time Otto’s family was in power he was unable to adjust his manipulations to fit his grandson King Aegon who required a different language of persuasion than Otto was used to. Otto lost his influence as a result. He also planned to maintain control and peace in the Realm through appeasing the ‘smallfolk’, however, this goes against a key characteristic of Machiavellianism: the relentless pursuit of war and continuous expansion of power.

Larys on the other hand played an even longer game than Otto did with the goal to expand his individual power. Larys as a character is a master of manipulation and swooped into King Aegon’s ear the moment Otto fumbled. Even before that – when Larys recognised Otto was planning to usurp the throne after he made his teenage daughter, Alicent, Queen through marriage – Larys befriended Alicent as his key to power. This pulled Queen Alicent’s confidence away from Otto, her oppressive father and placed it in Larys, her much-needed and refreshing new ally.

Those familiar with Game of Thrones may ask why I haven’t picked Petyr Baelish as an example of Machiavellianism as Larys has been compared to Petyr Baelish and they are extremely similar. Both characters are textbook Machiavellian in model but I’m focussing on Larys because his motivations are more complex in my opinion. He is angry at the world for ignoring and mistreating him because of his clubfoot so power is more about revenge for him. Furthermore, Larys’ originally strategic friendship with Alicent turned into an obsession which was never part of his plan. Larys is a sadist that hurts and betrays Alicent to get to the top, yet he still wants to be close to her and know everything she thinks or does. This is especially true when Alicent uses and betrays him too in retaliation. Larys is unwillingly attracted to Alicent because he recognises their ‘similarities’: they play the same game, they have a unique understanding of politics, and they are both outsiders of the Targaryen dynasty.

This is why I’d argue Larys is the most Machiavellian type in the Game of Thrones universe. He is similar to Iago from Othello in my opinion. His motivations for power are both to serve revenge against a world that has done him wrong, and to serve his possession of the only person he’s felt closeness to. He isn’t pursuing just one goal in his climb to the top. It is also important to consider that Larys quite skilfully hijacked Otto’s own Machiavellian foundations, gradually cut Otto out, and built his own influence over the council, Queen Alicent, and King Aegon from it.

Even Larys is not without his weaknesses though. He underestimates others. Alicent is the only person privy to Larys’ truest colours, therefore she figures out how to carefully hide her own secret plot from him and his network of spies that follow her everywhere. Thus, I think Larys potentially foreshadowed his own downfall in Season 1 when he (ever so Machiavellianly) tells Alicent – the only human object of his obsessions – ‘Love is a weakness’.

 

Roy Cohn

File Photo 1971

This pick feels a little too relevant at the time of writing as Cohn is credited as the ‘mentor’ and ‘creator’ of none other than the former and now re-elected US President, Donald Trump. He certainly provided Trump with the means and strategies of gaining and maintaining power that are painfully evident in Trump’s leadership style today. Cohn is as real-world Machiavellian as it gets. I won’t have to explain why because the extremely pertinent history speaks for itself…

Roy Cohn was a lawyer notorious for manipulating his cases with his well-kept archives of private conversation tapes and blackmail material. He rose to provenance in the 1950s after his involvement in the Rosenberg Trials. The Rosenberg’s were convicted as Soviet spies but only received capital punishment because of Cohn’s personal interference with the Judge’s ruling.

Cohn’s performance in this trial saw him hired by Senator Joseph McCarthy in the era of the Red Scare: a period of escalated intolerance towards communism in America, along with anything else that did not fit the ‘White Anglo-Saxon Protestant’ ideal. Cohn’s position as Chief Counsel to McCarthy oversaw the systemic implementation of this political and societal movement referred to as the Red Scare and McCarthyism. It involved driving up paranoia through anti-communist propaganda, publicising accusations that had little concern for evidence, and encouraging Americans to report their peers and families.

Parallel to the Red Scare, and indeed a large subsection under its umbrella, was the Lavender Scare. The Lavender Scare was a focus on rooting out homosexuals in society but especially in the military and government. Roy Cohn personally hunted and prosecuted men working in governmental branches suspected of being homosexual despite Cohn being a gay man himself.

In 1973, Roy Cohn met a young Donald Trump when representing him in a racial discrimination case. The Trumps were accused of discriminating against people of colour from renting in their properties. Cohn constructed an aggressive defence, filing a countersue of 100 million dollars and going so far as to stage a news conference. Cohn remained Trump’s lawyer for many years after, helping Trump dodge justice, grow his businesses, and secure more money and power in the process. Of course he benefitted from this relationship significantly.

Cohn taught Trump his three rules: ‘1. Attack! Attack! Attack! 2. Admit nothing and deny everything. 3. No matter what happens you claim victory and never admit defeat.’

Like I said, very scary and unnervingly Machiavellian. So much so Cohn’s ethics (or pathological lack there-of), approach, politics, and legacy are engrained in the societal landscape of the US today and by the looks of things, the future too.

‘Trump reportedly exclaimed ‘Where’s my Roy Cohn?’ when Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from election interference investigations’ - (The Mueller Investigation 2017-2019).

 

A key theme emerging in this list is the Machiavellian tends to be behind the scenes pulling the strings, or perhaps more accurately put, adjacent to the figure-head of power whispering in their ear. They don’t care for the credit as much as they care for the control and like to have someone to take the fall as the face of their conniving work. This way it is easier to regroup, reposition, and rebirth their power over someone else. Naturally, the Machiavellian tends to be a close advisor, a second in command, a sidekick, a wife (I will write about women and Machiavellianism separately), or just generally a trusted ‘friend’ in any form, to the seen: Kings, Queens, Presidents, Emperors, the popular and the like.

Niccolo Machiavelli statue, Florence, Italy. Gordan Bogicevic / Alamy

It is also fun to explore (in the fictional stories) where these characters’ commitment to Machiavellianism, unexpectedly to them, intersects with any emotional needs that they repress in their pursuit of power. They tend to suffer loneliness as much as they could never admit it to themselves. God forbid someone comes along that they can identify with in some capacity. A toxic obsession over this person is often formed – the Machiavellian uses them in their pursuit of power but at the same time wants to be needed by that person. They want to feel needed by that person. A conflict of aims is formed out of this and it is incredible to watch this conflict in a character that claims to be immune to such distracting emotional dilemmas (or weaknesses as they’d consider them) and incredible but chilling to watch the lengths they’ll go to, to achieve both in one plan.