Title: Why is it better to be feared than loved according to Machiavelli? - Quora
Headings: 
Why is it better to be feared than loved according to Machiavelli?
Quora User
Duy Truong
Mark Krijgsman
Robert Wrigley
Jonathan M. Jacobs
Gawaine Ross

Content: In short, Savonarolla was a friar who achieved great popularity in Florence, and was greatly loved by many while he was in power. Yet as soon as his power weakened, his followers abandoned him. In the words of Niccolo: If Moses, Cyrus, Theseus, and Romulus had been unarmed they could not have enforced their constitutions for long — as happened in our time to Fra Girolamo Savonarola, who was ruined with his new order of things immediately the multitude believed in him no longer, and he had no means of keeping steadfast those who believed or of making the unbelievers to believe. A strong ruler, therefore, will not make himself unarmed and trust in the good nature and love of his subjects, but will take action to insure that they also fear betraying him. The strongest ruler is one who can do both, the next best is one who can be feared, the weakest is one who depends on love alone. Duy Truong
, Grants and Report Writer at Blue Dragon Children's Foundation (2017-present)
Answered 3 years ago · Author has 450 answers and 2.2M answer views
In The Prince, Machiavelli answered this himself
Men love at their convenience but they fear at the convenience of the prince. Machiavelli viewed humans as “ungrateful, fickle, false.” As such, they are ready to abandon the prince as soon as their interests are attacked. People are in it for themselves and their support to the prince is entirely predicated upon whether that will benefit them.