Michael without a Consigliere

Good day, much as I love arguing about Fredo getting killed , I'd like to hear everyones opinion on the significance of Michael acting as his own council. Do you think this made him more ruthless and certain in his thoughts? How significant was it in terms of his development as Don? And do you believe it would have adopted more of his fathers 'humanistic' tendencies?

Serm

I think it definetely made him more ruthless as he didn't have Tom to be well more reasonable.

Also I'd just like to say I don't like your picture being a Rangers fan myself

I think the whole point of a consigliere was to provide a sort of checks and balances to the Don. It allowed another point of view. I definetly see Michael acting alone as a significant part of his downfall.

One of the major themes of the GF Trilogy is how Michael distanced himself from all meaningful human contact, and became ever more the loner. That applies to his decision to act as his own consigliere.
In the novel, Puzo describes the role of consigliere. One of his aspects is to be the Don's "best friend." Michael had no friends. He became less and less "humanistic," to use Sermanni's phrase. The Don died while having fun with his grandson; in the novel, his last words are, "Life is so beautiful." In GFIII, Michael died, alone, embittered, with only a little dog as company.

even without having an official consiglieri, I think Michael always asked for advices from his father (while alive), Tom, Rocco and Neri. in my opinion, the way he was ruthless and not as "humanistic" as is father was just the way he was, either having or not a consiglieri

I would think that it is dangerous for Mike to not have a consiglerie, because, although he wasnt as quick to jump to conclusions as Sonny, he might still let his emotions get in the way. Although Neri, Tom, Rocco etc might tell him something, none of them could really make him listen to them.