Everand Logo

Welcome to Everand!

  • Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

    Only $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

    The Prince
    The Prince
    The Prince
    Ebook126 pages2 hours

    The Prince

    By Niccolò Machiavelli

    3.5/5

    ()

    Switch to audiobook
    Read preview

    About this ebook

    Contains Active Table of Contents (HTML) and ​in the end of book include a bonus link to the free audiobook.

    The Prince is the most controversial book about winning power - and holding on to it - ever written. Machiavelli's tough-minded, pragmatic argument that sometimes it is necessary to abandon ethics to succeed made his name notorious. Yet his book has been read by strategists, politicians and business people ever since as the ultimate guide to realpolitik.

    How can a leader be strong and decisive, yet still inspire loyalty in his followers? How do you keep your enemies in check? Is it better to be feared than loved? When is it necessary to break the rules? This shrewd handbook on how power really works answers all these questions by examining regimes and their rulers around the world and throughout history, from Roman emperors to renaissance Popes, from the savagely cruel Hannibal to the utterly devious Cesare di Borgia.
    LanguageEnglish
    PublisherMoon Classics
    Release dateNov 9, 2020
    ISBN9782378077457
    Author

    Niccolò Machiavelli

    Niccolò Machiavelli was born on 3 May 1469 in Florence during the city-state's peak of greatness under the Medici family. In 1494, the year the Medici were exiled, Machiavelli entered Florentine public service. In 1498 he was appointed Chancellor and Secretary to the Second Chancery. Serving as a diplomat for the republic, Machiavelli was an emissary to some of the most distinguished people of the age. When the Medici were returned to Florence in 1512, Machiavelli was forced into retirement. In the years that followed he devoted himself to literature, producing not only his most famous work, The Prince, but also the Discourses on the First Decade of Titus Livius (First Decade here means First Ten Books), his Art of War and The History of Florence. In 1527 the Medici were once again expelled from Florence, but before Machiavelli was able once again to secure political office in the city he died on 22 June 1527.

    Read more from Niccolò Machiavelli

    Related authors

    Related to The Prince

    Related ebooks

    Literary Criticism For You

    View More
    View More

    Related podcast episodes

    Related articles

    • Article

      The Seduction Of Socialism

      Jul 26, 2018

      For the current generation, sometimes referred to as millennials, it appears one thing is more seductive than sex -- and that's socialism. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and 28-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, winner of a New York Democratic primary, a

      2 min read

    • Article

      The Thucydides Trap

      Jun 1, 2017

      When one great power threatens to displace another, war is almost always the result—but it doesn’t have to be.

      4 min read

    • Article

      Matrix Reloaded

      Jun 24, 2021

      Matrix Reloaded
      5 min read

    • Article

      After Capitalism

      Jan 21, 2020

      After Capitalism
      6 min read

    • Article

      Man United

      Feb 25, 2022

      The philosopher Nina Power believes men are under attack. Western society has done away with “the positive dimensions of patriarchy”, that is, “the protective father, the responsible man, the paternalistic attitude that exhibits care and compassion”.

      2 min read

    • Article

      Online At Newphilosopher.com

      Nov 7, 2020

      newphilosopher.com is an online portal for exploring philosophical ideas on ways to live a more fulfilling life. Read the articles, join in discussions, and watch free online documentaries. Now more than ever I want to cling to the idea that findin

      1 min read

    • Article

      The 9/11 Era Is Over

      Apr 6, 2020

      The 9/11 Era Is Over
      13 min read

    • Article

      Georgian Terrorists

      Feb 20, 2020

      Georgian Terrorists
      7 min read

    • Article

      The End Of Empire

      Jun 17, 2020

      The End Of Empire
      8 min read

    • Article

      Richard The Radical

      Nov 26, 2020

      Richard The Radical
      10 min read

    • Article

      The Franks Had Lost The Battle Of Tours

      Nov 30, 2023

      Having established a strong Islamic foothold in the Iberian Peninsula, aspirations of territory and power north of the Pyrenees was perhaps a logical step to take. But the region between Poitiers and Tours was not just a step, it was a giant leap, an

      5 min read

    • Article

      How Will The Queen – And The Monarchy – Cope With The Loss Of Prince Philip?

      Apr 12, 2021

      The future of the monarchy always comes into focus at moments such as this. Britain, a nation greatly troubled by all sorts of divisions, disfigured by what are often branded “culture wars”, needs its unifying figures and forces more than ever. Princ

      4 min read

    • Article

      Templar Myths

      Oct 1, 2021

      Templar Myths
      5 min read

    • Article

      Royal Lineage

      Dec 30, 2021

      Royal Lineage
      8 min read

    • Article

      The Royal Household

      Sep 8, 2023

      The foremost function of the royal household was to satisfy the king’s needs. It saw to his requirements both basic and complex, providing food, drink, shelter, security, companionship, money, and religious comfort. Structurally, it was divided into

      5 min read

    • Article

      A Rising Star

      Mar 2, 2020

      A Rising Star
      6 min read

    Related categories

    Reviews for The Prince

    3.5/5

    3,153 ratings70 reviews

    What did you think?

    Tap to rate

    Review must be at least 10 words

    • 5/5
      I should have read this book (free for Kindle) years ago. Machiavelli's works on ancient history came up frequently in a different book I read recently, and he has been cited in several other books on my lists. Alas, I've now read this work. I find some of the oft-cited passages I hear are somewhat taken out of context.

      The version I read had a brief biographical sketch of Machiavelli, which was helpful. Machiavelli is foremost a historian, so he cites examples of rulers and conflicts both from Florentine and Italian history, the current Ottoman state, Greco-Roman history, and the Bible.

      He starts by looking at the failures of statecraft-- how a monarch can lose a state which he has conquered or inherited. Louis XII was one such object of failure in his aims on Italian provinces. He talks of how one holds a free Republic, you either have to destroy it or make it a tributary while encouraging development of an oligarchy there to maintain defacto control. This seems like it's played out accurately in world history.

      Machiavelli's "it's better to be feared than loved" is in the context of a Prince who takes a territory who was originally not his own. There will likely be unrest, so the advice is to do some large act of cruel suppression up front to quell dissent and then do small acts of benevolence over time to keep the populace pacified. If a ruler drags out the cruelty, he will breed hatred which is the ultimate failure of a monarch. The ruler must appear to be capable of both cruelty and mercy, so that he appeals more broadly, and where possible he should have an underling be the "bad cop" enforcer. It'd be best to be both feared and loved, but you will always have to give one of those up and it's best to give up love. The great projects of history, according to Machiavelli, were done by rulers who were remembered to be mean and not kind.

      It's always a bad idea to rely on foreign mercenaries for your army. Machiavelli marks the decline of Rome with the hiring of Goths to do soldiering at the cost of the Roman army. France was making the same mistake in relying on Swiss mercenaries at the time of his writing. Building fortresses are of no defense when the people hate you.

      A ruler has to be "liberal" in his spending. Games and welfare for the people, benefits for the standing army. This is obviously hard to do unless you're conquering and expropriating-- otherwise you bankrupt your treasury. The Prince gains glory and reputation by accomplishing big tasks-- namely conquering territories and enriching the kingdom.

      The Prince should also seem to be a man of integrity. The great rulers abandon virtue when they have to-- sometimes they have to break their word in order to protect their position or the state. This is acceptable so long as not done in such a away that the people despise him. The prince should be virtuous but also know how and when to get his hands dirty.

      A Prince should have a few advisors that he listens to and that he rewards for speaking honestly and openly; he should ignore all other opinion. The Prince should always make sure his advisors and viceroys know that their positions-- their wealth, authority, and very lives-- are at the whim of the Prince so that they don't go seeking their own gain or become corrupt.

      A Prince is someone who believes he has the power to shape world events, that everything isn't left to "fortune" or random chance forces of history. He yields that authority and has other men follow him.

      I enjoyed this book, it's obviously a 5 star classic.
    • 5/5
      Thought rereading this might shed some light on the Trump presidency until I realized that there is a crucial difference between realpolitik and realityTVpolitiking.
    • 3/5
      Looking to make a rise to power? Interested in the many ways to maintain a small province? Planning on conquering a neighboring city and winning the hearts of the people?The Prince is for you.By that introduction I did not mean to underplay the significance of The Prince. I found that much of what Machiavelli said on the maintaining power in provinces after war to be very relevant, an impressive accomplishment seeing as how this book dates to the 1500s. Most notably the guideline about which people are easily conquered, and the ease in which that group can be maintained falling into two distinct categories; Do they speak the same language and do they follow the same religion? While reading this book I considered America's venture into the Middle East, and was quite astonished to see the similarities. This book is practically a guide on political strategy and the acquisition of power.If I knew how to add half a star to my review I would. :D
    • 5/5
      A Great Book!
    • 5/5
      I highlighted this book like crazy. It's not necessarily that I agree with what he says in practice, but rather that the principles which he enumerates can be redefined and reused in a modern context, replacing "the prince" with "the people." I could write a long, lengthy treatise on the matter. I will say though that move of it is taken up in examples which are rather tedious in the process of reading itself.
    • 4/5
      A book still relevant today in the 21th century. Even if some of the described techniques are neither adviseable nor morally and legally possible in today's society.
    • 3/5
      I *think* this book is wicked, and I *hope* that all who choose to read it choose to see its wickedness.And I do *not* feel guilty for saying a book is Bad when I believe that its ideas would be harmful if employed against human beings. There is nothing heroic about being immoral, no matter what Shrewd Policies say so, or what Glorious Nation says so. Also, comparing Machiavelli to Baldassare Castiglione, as is often done, seems to me to be quite mad. Would it not be better to compare him with Hitler or Stalin or Mussolini or Nero or *any other Caesar*? Were not all these men Princes with a Capital P? I mean, if I were rating him based on how well he does as a propaganda writer for an imaginary dictatorship, I'd have said that he's done rather well with *all that*. But being a propaganda writer for an imaginary dictatorship is worthless, and being a real propaganda writer for a real dictorship is worse than worthless, is it not?But, oh, wait, I forgot, since it's written in a good style in some foreign original, and since its ideas would have helped the Florentine elite out-flank the Papacy and the French several eternities ago, we must surely make ourselves forget what fair flowers are trampled down into the earth by this kind of thinking. Although I'll say that I personally found it to be basically boring (especially the random-Renaissance history-of-backstabbing stuff that I found difficult to care about) and sometimes stupid (the citizens of a conquered republic will want to get their lost freedom back, but if you go to live in the same city as them, your semi-divine presence will magically make them lose their desire for freedom), stupid even from his own point of view. (If you do this, nothing good will happen for you, but if you only do this, nothing but good things will happen. It's like he's one of those guys trying to sell you a watch--like he's going to open up his coat and it'll be full of watches, and he'll say, 'Wanna buy a watch? A watch like one of these will make you powerful and strong, so that nothing bad will happen to you.' He's like a tinker or a knacker who thinks he's the Grand Doge of Doge-land.) It's also so abstract that it can't be anything other than theory (somehow I think it would have to be different to be social or political science), and yet it is so mucked up in details and precedents and examples that it's hardly good as theory, either. Not to mention the fact that he never even explains what you'd want a prince for, or what good a prince is meant to aim at. If "every art...seems to aim at some good" and all arts have some purpose (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, first sentence) what is the purpose of the prince's art, and what good does he aim at? Machiavelli almost doesn't have an answer, and he doesn't even bother to address the question, except for the nationalist agitprop bit at the end, which I hope no-one mistakes for philosophy. Also, the odd forays into military matters are to me little more than tokens that this man did not really know what sort of book he wanted to write, or what purpose he was trying to accomplish. A dilettante, if I may use the Italian word. Although I suppose that even a dilettante, armed with delusions of gradeur and with guns in his hands, might be dangerous and harmful enough, but I certainly do not see what good might ever have come from this. Furthermore, some people seem to think that Machiavelli was good to be amoral (read that phrase again) because he 'liberated' politics from religion and morality and so on. My only reply is that no-one can compel you to read Aristotle's 'Nicomachean Ethics' before you read his 'Politics', or force you to read Epictetus before trying to get through John Locke--and yet anyone who seriously thinks that politics has no connection at all, whatsoever, with ethics, needs their head examined for holes, or dents. Or, better yet, such people should be encouraged to read a few books about the Nazis or something. 'Be generous with other people's money,' says Machiavelli. 'Well, yeah, that's what the Jews are for,' says Hitler. 'And that's what the unwashed barbarians are for,' says Caesar. (See how I paired a modern and an ancient example, just like old Nicc-y. I guess that makes it all okay, somehow.) And as for his famous dictum that, concerning fear and love, that is it best to be both feared and loved, but, that if one must choose, it is safer to be feared than loved--well, if I point out that both Hitler and Stalin, and every other Caesar and proponent of Caesarism, would agree with this statement--having said that, does it make anyone who did not already so believe understand the necessity of subordinating politics to ethics in philosophy, and, indeed, in real life? I was also amused, and yet somehow, also unsurprised, to see the brave, good, "unarmed prophet" Machiavelli, so describe the "great feats" of Ferdinand of Aragon, in a chapter called "Of What A Prince Should Do To Acquire Prestige", that the reader, unless he or she were previously informed of the matter, would walk away without the slightest impression that there was a certain girl named Isabella in the mighty monarch's life, a woman who, my sources tell me, may have been of some slight importance in the history of Spain, and the killing of Jews and Muslims and other such acts of "pious cruelty" which brought the noble Ferdinand "much honor". He also goes through the next chapter, "Of The Advisers Of Princes" without once correcting his mistake. I can only wonder how many students of ethics would accept the phrase "pious cruelty" as being valid. But perhaps I might venture an informed guess...It is certain, however, and good to mention, that it is a blessing that we live in a free society, where we are free to read this non-sense if we choose to. In any real tyranny, I suppose that this sort of thing would surely be swiftly suppressed. ~eh, but we were just trying to have fun. THEN READ A NOVEL!!(5/10)
    • 4/5
      This is the ultimate “how-to” book for anyone who wants to rule a country and stay in power for a long time. He states that good arms and good laws make for success, whether one inherits or conquers an area. His examples are drawn from antiquity as well as the Italy of his day. Niccolò Machiavelli wrote this book to get back into favor with the Medici’s who ruled vast parts of Italy at this time; however the book was not widely read until after his death.My copy includes an excellent introduction by translator Thomas Bergin, along with footnotes and a bibliography. There is also a map, necessary to those of us unfamiliar with the political divisions of the time.I had always assumed that Machiavelli was sneaky, cunning and evil (think the word “machiavellian”) but I don’t think this is really the character of the man. He may have written this to curry favor with the current rulers. That doesn’t make him a bad person.Even though The prince doesn’t have examples of a democratic republic, the book is still pertinent today in that good arms and good laws are necessary for peace. The country who does not heed this advice is in trouble! Perhaps this should be required reading for all lawmakers in the world.
    • 5/5
      This is a classic and available in many translations. The one pictured above isn’t the one that I have, but it is probably close enough. Avoid ones with lots of commentary and dreck added. Read the true Nick and think for yourself. I first read this while in college, but for pleasure (don’t go there). Then I reread it for a history course several years later. I think that I got more out of it the second time around making it one of those fairly rare books with true reread potential. There is probably more here than I got out of it, but it isn’t my main period and there are other fish to fry...Even though Machiavelli was never a military commander, his grasp of the essentials of political strategy and it’s sometimes necessary extension, military force is excellent. This book is not for the whifty, politically correct whiners in the crowd, however. One must place this treatise in the context in which it was written, Machiavelli wrote this after being kicked out of office by Lorenzo de’ Medic in 1512. The Italy of his time was a collection of small city states at nearly constant war.The following quote sums things up quite nicely:"It must be understood, that a prince ... cannot observe all of those virtues for which men are reputed good, because it is often necessary to act against mercy, against faith, against humanity, against frankness, against religion, in order to preserve the state."
    • 4/5
      Other people have reviewed The Prince's content. I gave this book four stars; I would have given it five if the translation were better. This edition (Dover Thrift) is certainly economical, but the sentences are long, convoluted, and reverse subject and object. It took me a while to get through even though it runs only 71 pages. I had to sit there and wrestle with the verbiage as I went.Otherwise, thought-provoking and a handbook of international relations.
    • 5/5
      His very name has become, like that of Hobbes and Nietzsche, a byword for a cold, brutal ruthlessness. It's even said on the Wiki that he helped make "Old Nick" a term for the Devil (something the introduction to my edition denies) and political philosopher Leo Strauss called him "the teacher of evil." His book The Prince is one of the most influential books of all time and is known as the Bible of realpolitik, and Machiavelli is seen by some as the father of political science. In a letter Machiavelli claimed his "little work" (it's less than a hundred pages in paperback) was designed to examine the state, "discussing what a principality is, what kinds there are, how they are acquired, how they are maintained, why they are lost." The heart of his advice to the ruler is to be "prepared to vary his conduct as the winds of fortune and changing circumstances constrain him and … not deviate from right conduct if possible, but be capable of entering upon the path of wrongdoing when this becomes necessary." Thus The Prince can be said to be at the other end of the scale to utopian thinking; it's utterly pragmatic. And given my lack of sympathy for utopian schemes, you'd think this would be more to my taste. Yet in some ways I see both approaches as similar. Both sorts of thinking believe that ends justify the means. Utopian schemes from Plato to Mao willingly bend humans like pretzels to fit their ideals--Machiavelli wants his rulers to manipulate, deceive, and force his subjects to his ends, without worrying about whether the means are moral. Without caring about principles, what's left is just naked power. So why rate this so high? Well, I at least appreciate Machiavelli's style compared to that of so many political thinkers. One thing at least all commentators agree on is that his writing is succinct and lucid--and memorable. Hard to forget such precepts as "politics has no relation to morals" and "it is better to be feared than loved" and "a prince never lacks legitimate reasons to break his promise" and "Fortune is a woman, and if you want to stay on top of her, you have to knock her around." The man can turn a phrase. Fun and chilling to read at the same time--and great insight into politics and the minds of many politicians. And given Machiavelli's experience as a diplomat and head of a militia, and his deep pragmatism, it's not like even principled statesman working for their ideals should ignore his advice--if only as a warning.
    • 5/5
      The most memorable introduction I had to this book was that it was one of those enduring sets of ideas, from which each enthused reader would take something different. And indeed that it what I found. The result is that the read tells you little about the end of Italy's dark ages and more about your own personal struggle with life. Machiavelli's nobility, mercenaries and people become like the mountains, valleys and the earth of Chinese philosophy, mere figures for the politics of one's own life.

      As someone always on the look out for material, I found this an incredibly rich source. Its strong points are its organised approach and the author's astute understanding of power relations. What is intriguing is that it is hard to tell how much of his knowledge was earned from erudition, how much from conversation and how much from imagination. Some ideas are, as his reputation precedes, controversial, but that does not take away from the overall portrait he paints. Nor does it predict his cloudy ambition or somewhat pure motivations.
    • 3/5
      Interesting
    • 1/5
      I'm fascinated with politics, but I can't read this edition. The font and the paragraph structure are distracting from the actual words. My eyes would not let me finish it.
    • 4/5
      Having heard many thing about this book, I was eager to dig in and see what the fuss was about. I have to say, Machiavelli was an INTJ. His prose, his ideas, his assessments - all of them are logical, well-explained, and rational. I understand why people might assume he is conniving and evil. But truthfully, he's just practical and honest about what it takes to rule. If I ever decide to take over the world, Machiavelli will be my guide.
    • 4/5
      Despite the aura that has grown up around this book, I don't think it's as shocking to readers in the 21st century as it evidently was to those in the early 16th; it seems pretty much "politics as usual." In fact, it seems refreshingly honest about politics, never attempting to obscure the acquisition and maintenance of power with claims of high or noble purposes.I also found it interesting that...at least as far as I was concerned...there was a connotation to the term 'Machiavellian' that was a bit more self-interested than the philosophy he actually espouses.This is definitely a book worth recommending.
    • 4/5
      While I understand that his take is controversial, I have to tell you, it makes sense. It's not nice, but it is practical.
    • 4/5
      The Prince is filled with advice for leaders hoping to hold on to their positions. This book does a great job at describing situations of power and statesmanship. From political and corporate power struggles to attaining advancement, influence and authority over others, Machiavelli’s observations apply. He gives advice based on the example of many leaders who came before, especially those in Italy. I loved reading this while watching Game of Thrones. So much of the advice is applicable. The show is all about vying for the throne and multiple people desperately maneuvering to get closer to the power. The book is all about the different ways of ruling, gaining favor, ruling with fear, etc. I loved seeing how the advice in The Prince was so perfectly mirrored in the different actions of characters on GOT. Every Lord or Prince in GOT takes a different route in their struggle for power and each one is like an example acting out the pros and cons of the advice in The Prince. So much of the book deals with the tightrope leaders must walk between being loved and feared…“Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved?”Just like being a parent, the ruler must decide which is more important to him. If he is only feared there is always the chance of disloyalty and revolt. If he is only loved than people might not respect his leadership and will rise against him. It is a difficult decision to make. BOTTOM LINE: Ruling has always been a cutthroat profession. One must almost always chose between making your subjects love you or fear you and that decision is at the heart of this book. I enjoyed reading about the different ruling styles and once again realized that not much has changed in politics. “This has been figuratively taught to princes by ancient writers, who describe how Achilles and many other princes of old were given to the Centaur Chiron to nurse, who brought them up in his discipline; which means solely that, as they had for a teacher one who was half beast and half man, so it is necessary for a prince to know how to make use of both natures, and that one without the other is not durable.”“Therefore, one who becomes a prince through the favour of the people ought to keep them friendly, and this he can easily do seeing they only ask not to be oppressed by him. But one who, in opposition to the people, becomes a prince by the favour of the nobles, ought, above everything, to seek to win the people over to himself, and this he may easily do if he takes them under his protection. Because men, when they receive good from him of whom they were expecting evil, are bound more closely to their benefactor; thus the people quickly become more devoted to him.”“But to exercise the intellect the prince should read histories, and study there the actions of illustrious men, to see how they have borne themselves in war, to examine the causes of their victories and defeat, so as to avoid the latter and imitate the former”“A prince, therefore, ought always to take counsel, but only when he wishes and not when others wish; he ought rather to discourage everyone from offering advice unless he asks it; but, however, he ought to be a constant inquirer, and afterwards a patient listener concerning the things of which he inquired.”
    • 4/5
      Et klassisk værk om hvorledes en fyrste bør regere.Indeholder 26 kapitler: "Om forskellige arter af fyrstevælder og måder at erhverve dem på", "Om de arvelige fyrstevælder", "Om blandede fyrstevælder", "Hvorfor Darius' rige, som Alexander erobrede, ved dennes død ikke gjorde oprør mod hans efterfølger", "Hvorledes man skal styre de byer og fyrstevælder, der før erobringen havde egne love", "Om erhvervelsen af et nyt fyrstevælde ved egne våben og dygtighed", "Om erhvervelsen af et nyt fyrstevælde ved fremmede våben og lykkens hjælp", "Om fyrster, der når herredømmet ved forbrydelser", "Om folkefyrster", "Hvordan alle fyrstevælders kraft skal måles", "Om gejstlige fyrstevælder", "Om forskellige arter stridskræfter og om lejetropper", "Om hjælpetropper, blandede og egne tropper", "Om en fyrstes militære opgaver", "Hvad der skaffer menneskene og især fyrsterne ros eller dadel", "Om gavmildhed og gerrighed", "Om grusomhed og mildhed, og om at det er bedre at blive frygtet end elsket", "Hvorvidt en fyrste altid skal stå ved sit ord", "Man må undgå ringeagt og had", "Om fæstninger eller andre forholdsregler, der træffes af fyrsten, er til nytte eller skade", "Hvorledes en fyrste skal optræde for at vinde anseelse", "Om fyrsternes statssekretærer", "Hvorledes man skal undgå smiger", "Hvorledes Italiens fyrster har tabt deres stater", "Hvad skæbnen formår i de menneskelige anliggender, og hvorledes man skal kæmpe imod den", "Opråb om at befri Italien fra barbarerne".I denne bog behandler forfatteren kun fyrstedømmer. Han indleder med at sige at arvestater er meget lettere at bevare end nyerhvervede stater. Han betoner at folkets gunst er vigtig at bevare og at man bør bosætte sig i en nyerobret stat. Man bør svække de stærke naboer og støtte de svage uden at styrke dem.Udmærket læsning. Machiavelli argumenterer for sine synspunkter, fx at lejetropper og hjælpetropper kun er af det onde, og har mange underbyggende eksempler.En manual for at opnå og bevare magt
    • 5/5
      Everyone relates this book as explaining how to be an unethical (possibly immoral) self-centered person to attain success by back-stabbing and the like. It gives tips on how to play people against one another, etc.I must say that honestly it is really just common sense stuff. Obviously these are all undesirable traits to find in someone, and in fact I avoid people who live their lives with any resemblance to the methods in the book, but none of this is new. Basically it is all just politics as usual. Watch a group of how teenage girls interact with one another, ostracize a friend for a while, steal each other's boyfriends, etc. You'll learn everything you need to know about The Prince.
    • 5/5
      Although The Prince is Machiavelli's best-known work, his Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livius is a more comprehensive treatment of the same subjects.
    • 3/5
      Does Machiavelli deserve his sinister reputation? Is he advocating evil in this book? Or only describing it? His focus is not on defending, but on acquiring and governing; that is, on imperial conquest and dominance over others. This book is about aggression. He claims that human conditions do not permit princes to be good, and he is right about that. They never will. But do human conditions compel people to become princes? In seizing a state, he says, cruelty is necessary. No doubt this is true, but is seizing a state necessary? Is it moral? Machiavelli's model prince was Cesare Borgia, a ruthless imperialist, mass murderer, and rapist. Machiavelli admired him for his power, then criticized him when he lost his power. He praises King Ferdinand of Spain for his "pious cruelty," calling it an "admirable example." Yes, Machiavelli deserves his sinister reputation. He worshipped power, believing it to be beyond good and evil. This book is a portrayal of statecraft as it is practiced in the real world, but it is also a how-to book on gaining and maintaining dominance over others. It raises interesting issues, without necessarily resolving them. It can be useful as food for thought, but don't try this at home!
    • 4/5
      Read this simply because I had heard interesting things and it was indeed an interesting read with some interesting themes and ideas. A must for anyone considering politics.
    • 4/5
      This is an excellent book. It is straightforward and easy to read. It was a political treatise that offered advice on how a prince could gain and keep power. The book is actually dedicated to one of the Medici family members. Many people belive the reason he did this was to win favor of Lorenzo de’ Medici, then-governor of Florence. Machiavelli was involved with politics but had lost his job so he had hoped to land a position within the Florentine government. Unfortuantely, this plan did not work for him. This is a great book and everyone should read it.
    • 3/5
      This is an interesting book on Political Philosophy, I think it falls under Realism.
      Machiavelli doesn't want to systematize but simply shares from his experience.
      As I kept reading the book, I had to reflect a lot of the ideas and try to draw conclusions from this world. I think, most of what he says stands True.

      I learnt about power distribution in a political system.
      Machiavelli says if it is concentrated with just one person (King), and people under him are servants, then if the King is toppled, it is easier to maintain the Kingdom in the long run. This reminds me of North Korea, I do not see a long future for it anyway.

      Meanwhile, if there are nobles, barons who share some influence then it will be difficult to maintain if toppled. I was thinking of China, which I used to think has a good political system.
      They do not waste time in election et cetera, however, the disadvantage in Chinese political system is that, if a new political party takes over, they will maintain the whole population under control. Meanwhile, it is difficult in America because the power is distributed differently. I can see how the Founders of America were cautious and knew all systems inside out.

      I was surprised to find that Machiavelli supports people who believe in God for defense (Army) are better. He goes on to say that it is easier to train them as they will be Loyal to you.
      The people who depend only on money will desert you. He says ministries who only think of them are fickle minded, this reminds me of political system of Tamil Nadu. I wonder how long the Government can run? Based on Machiavelli's writings, not long.

      He also talks about weakness of mercenaries, which, I think was one of the causes of downfall –– Roman and Ottoman Empire.
      The Ottoman Empire's Janissaries started to decline in power due to lack of training, corruption.

      The Roman empire started to bring mercenaries from Germanic tribes. There's always a tension between common people and nobles. Machiavelli says, common people are more important and the Prince ought to give them first priority.

      "As the observance of religious rites is the foundation of a republic's greatness, so disrespect for them is the source of its ruin."

      "Where a fear of God is lacking, the state must either fail or be sustained by a fear of the ruler which may substitute for the lack of religion."


    • 2/5
      Used for classes and evil essays.
    • 3/5
      The classic “how to” book for Princes who want to rule the world
    • 5/5
      I'm weirdly pleased that The Prince lives up to its reputation: it is indeed Machiavellian. Here's his advice on conquering self-governing states (i.e. democracies): "The only way to hold on to such a state is to reduce it to rubble." Well then.

      I'd like to say that any guy whose last name becomes a synonym for evil is a badass, but Machiavelli wasn't; he was a failed minor diplomat who wrote this in a failed attempt to get reemployed. Stupid attempt, too; anyone who hired him would be advertising that he espoused Machiavellian values. This book was published. And as he himself advises, "A leader doesn't have to possess virtuous qualities, but it's imperative that he seem to possess them."

      So I'll go with this: anyone whose last name becomes a synonym for evil has written a good book.

      I hope to match that effect with my first novel. Working title: "Unicorns are Pretty."

      So if Machiavelli was such a loser, how did his book get so famous? It's not because it's great advice; it sortof isn't. I think it's because it's just a ton of fun to read. It's chock full of over-the-top quotes like the ones above. It's really funny.

      Which brings up a recurring topic for debate: did he intend for this to be taken seriously, or is it satire? I think it's the former: mixed in with the zany stuff is a fair amount of common-sense advice. He could certainly have included that to make the zany stuff pop more, or to camouflage it a bit, but I prefer to think he meant the whole thing seriously. And it's not like any of it is advice someone hasn't followed at some point. (See my first quote above: yeah, we've tried that.)

      Translation review: this is the very latest translation. Parks has gone to great trouble to reduce the crazy complexity of Machiavelli's sentences - I know this from reading his excellent Translator's Note - and I appreciate that. He's also tried hard to make it accessible to modern audiences, and sometimes I think he's tipped a tiny bit overboard on that front. "When a ruler occupies a land that has a different language...then things get rough." "Difficult" would have been perfectly clear; "rough" is too colloquial. We want to be able to read our classics, but we don't need to pretend they were written yesterday.

      That's a relatively minor complaint, though; this is a clear and easy translation. Good intro, too. And a glossary of proper names at the back, so you can sort out the various contemporary figures you don't recognize.

      I'll close with my favorite quote: "It's better to be impulsive than cautious; fortune is female and if you want to stay on top of her you have to slap and thrust."

      Machiavelli: kindof a dick.
    • 4/5
      In this day when the US is concerned with using mercernaries versus militia, occupying other countries, and still trying to hang on to democracy, this short book with examples from his own time and place make this a good current read.
    • 3/5
      Zeer geromantiseerde inleidingIntussen overbekende politieke theorie (efficiëntie gaat voor op ethiek). Moeilijke lectuur

    Book preview

    The Prince - Niccolò Machiavelli

    Machiavelli

    Chapter 1

    Of the Various Kinds of Princedom, and of the Ways in Which They Are Acquired

    All the States and Governments by which men are or ever have been ruled, have been and are either Republics or Princedoms. Princedoms are either hereditary, in which the sovereignty is derived through an ancient line of ancestors, or they are new. New Princedoms are either wholly new, as that of Milan to Francesco Sforza; or they are like limbs joined on to the hereditary possessions of the Prince who acquires them, as the Kingdom of Naples to the dominions of the King of Spain. The States thus acquired have either been used to live under a Prince or have been free; and he who acquires them does so either by his own arms or by the arms of others, and either by good fortune or by merit.

    Chapter 2

    Of Hereditary Princedoms

    Of Republics I shall not now speak, having elsewhere spoken of them at length. Here I shall treat exclusively of Princedoms, and, filling in the outline above traced out, shall proceed to examine how such States are to be governed and maintained.

    I say, then, that hereditary States, accustomed to the family of their Prince, are maintained with far less difficulty than new States, since all that is required is that the Prince shall not depart from the usages of his ancestors, trusting for the rest to deal with events as they arise. So that if an hereditary Prince be of average address, he will always maintain himself in his Princedom, unless deprived of it by some extraordinary and irresistible force; and even if so deprived will recover it, should any, even the least, mishap overtake the usurper. We have in Italy an example of this in the Duke of Ferrara, who never could have withstood the attacks of the Venetians in 1484, nor those of Pope Julius in 1510, had not his authority in that State been consolidated by time. For since a Prince by birth has fewer occasions and less need to give offence, he ought to be better loved, and will naturally be popular with his subjects unless outrageous vices make him odious. Moreover, the very antiquity and continuance of his rule will efface the memories and causes which lead to innovation. For one change always leaves a dovetail into which another will fit.

    Chapter 3

    Of Mixed Princedoms

    But in new Princedoms difficulties abound. And, first, if the Princedom be not wholly new, but joined on to the ancient dominions of the Prince, so as to form with them what may be termed a mixed Princedom, changes will come from a cause common to all new States, namely, that men, thinking to better their condition, are always ready to change masters, and in this expectation will take up arms against any ruler; wherein they deceive themselves, and find afterwards by experience that they are worse off than before. This again results naturally and necessarily from the circumstance that the Prince cannot avoid giving offence to his new subjects, either in respect of the troops he quarters on them, or of some other of the numberless vexations attendant on a new acquisition. And in this way you may find that you have enemies in all those whom you have injured in seizing the Princedom, yet cannot keep the friendship of those who helped you to gain it; since you can neither reward them as they expect, nor yet, being under obligations to them, use violent remedies against them. For however strong you may be in respect of your army, it is essential that in entering a new Province you should have the good will of its inhabitants.

    Hence it happened that Louis XII of France, speedily gaining possession of Milan, as speedily lost it; and that on the occasion of its first capture, Lodovico Sforza was able with his own forces only to take it from him. For the very people who had opened the gates to the French King, when they found themselves deceived in their expectations and hopes of future benefits, could not put up with the insolence of their new ruler. True it is that when a State rebels and is again got under, it will not afterwards be lost so easily. For the Prince, using the rebellion as a pretext, will not scruple to secure himself by punishing the guilty, bringing the suspected to trial, and otherwise strengthening his position in the points where it was weak. So that if to recover Milan from the French it was enough on the first occasion that a Duke Lodovico should raise alarms on the frontiers to wrest it from them a second time the whole world had to be ranged against them, and their armies destroyed and driven out of Italy. And this for the reasons above assigned. And yet, for a second time, Milan was lost to the King. The general causes of its first loss have been shown. It remains to note the causes of the second, and to point out the remedies which the French King had, or which might have been used by another in like circumstances to maintain his conquest more successfully than he did.

    I say, then, that those States which upon their acquisition are joined on to the ancient dominions of the Prince who acquires them, are either of the same Province and tongue as the people of these dominions, or they are not. When they are, there is a great ease in retaining them, especially when they have not been accustomed to live in freedom. To hold them securely it is enough to have rooted out the line of the reigning Prince; because if in other respects the old condition of things be continued, and there be no discordance in their customs, men live peaceably with one another, as we see to have been the case in Brittany, Burgundy, Gascony, and Normandy, which have so long been united to France. For although there be some slight difference in their languages, their customs are similar, and they can easily get on together. He, therefore, who acquires such a State, if he mean to keep it, must see to two things; first, that the blood of the ancient line of Princes be destroyed; second, that no change be made in respect of laws or taxes; for in this way the newly acquired State speedily becomes incorporated with the hereditary.

    But when States are acquired in a country differing in language, usages, and laws, difficulties multiply, and great good fortune, as well as address, is needed to overcome them. One of the best and most efficacious methods for dealing with such a State, is for the Prince who acquires it to go and dwell there in person, since this will tend to make his tenure more secure and lasting. This course has been followed by the Turk with regard to Greece, who, had he not, in addition to all his other precautions for securing that Province, himself come to live in it, could never have kept his hold of it. For when you are on the spot, disorders are detected in their beginnings and remedies can be readily applied; but when you are at a distance, they are not heard of until they have gathered strength and the case is past cure. Moreover, the Province in which you take up your abode is not pillaged by your officers; the people are pleased to have a ready recourse to their Prince; and have all the more reason if they are well disposed, to love, if disaffected, to fear him. A foreign enemy desiring to attack that State would be cautious how he did so. In short, where the Prince resides in person, it will be extremely difficult to oust him.

    Another excellent expedient is to send colonies into one or two places, so that these may become, as it were, the keys of the Province; for you must either do this, or else keep up a numerous force of men-at-arms and foot soldiers. A Prince need not spend much on colonies. He can send them out and support them at little or no charge to himself, and the only persons to whom he gives offence are those whom he deprives of their fields and houses to bestow them on the new inhabitants. Those who are thus injured form but a small part of the community, and remaining scattered and poor can never become dangerous. All others being left unmolested, are in consequence easily quieted, and at the same time are afraid to make a false move, lest they share the fate of those who have been deprived of their possessions. In few words, these colonies cost less than soldiers, are more faithful, and give less offence, while those who are offended, being, as I have said, poor and dispersed, cannot hurt. And let it here be noted that men are either to be kindly treated, or utterly crushed, since they can revenge lighter injuries, but not graver. Wherefore the injury we do to a man should be of a sort to leave no fear of reprisals.

    But if instead of colonies you send troops, the cost is vastly greater, and the whole revenues of the country are spent in guarding it; so that the gain becomes a loss, and much deeper offence is given; since in shifting the quarters of your soldiers from place to place the whole country suffers hardship, which as all feel, all are made enemies; and enemies who remaining, although vanquished, in their own homes, have power to hurt. In every way, therefore, this mode of defence is as disadvantageous as that by colonizing is useful.

    The Prince who establishes himself in a Province whose laws and language

    Enjoying the preview?
    Page 1 of 1