THE PRINCE (Wisehouse Classics Edition)

By Niccolò Machiavelli

THE PRINCE (Italian: Il Principe) is a 16th-century political treatise by the Italian diplomat and political theorist Niccolò Machiavelli. From correspondence a version appears to have been distributed in 1513, using a Latin title, De Principatibus (About Principalities). However, the printed version was not published until 1532, five years after Machiavelli's death. This was done with the permission of the Medici pope Clement VII, but “long before then, in fact since the first appearance of the Prince in manuscript, controversy had swirled about his writings”. Although it was written as if it were a traditional work in the mirrors for princes style, it is generally agreed that it was especially innovative. This is only partly because it was written in the vernacular Italian rather than Latin, a practice which had become increasingly popular since the publication of Dante's Divine Comedy and other works of Renaissance literature.

THE PRINCE is sometimes claimed to be one of the first works of modern philosophy, especially modern political philosophy, in which the effective truth is taken to be more important than any abstract ideal. It was also in direct conflict with the dominant Catholic and scholastic doctrines of the time concerning how to consider politics and ethics. Although it is relatively short, the treatise is the most remembered of Machiavelli's works and the one most responsible for bringing the word “Machiavellian” into usage as a pejorative. It also helped make “Old Nick” an English term for the devil, and even contributed to the modern negative connotations of the words “politics” and “politician” in western countries. In terms of subject matter it overlaps with the much longer Discourses on Livy, which was written a few years later. In its use of near-contemporary Italians as examples of people who perpetrated criminal deeds for politics, another lesser-known work by Machiavelli which THE PRINCE has been compared to is the Life of Castruccio Castracani.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Wisehouse Classics
• Release date: Dec 27, 2015
• ISBN: 9789176371244

Book preview

CHAPTER I

How many kinds of principalities there are, and by what means they are acquired

ALL STATES, ALL POWERS, THAT HAVE HELD AND HOLD RULE OVER MEN HAVE been and are either republics or principalities.

Principalities are either hereditary, in which the family has been long established; or they are new.

The new are either entirely new, as was Milan to Francesco Sforza, or they are, as it were, members annexed to the hereditary state of the prince who has acquired them, as was the kingdom of Naples to that of the King of Spain.

Such dominions thus acquired are either accustomed to live under a prince, or to live in freedom; and are acquired either by the arms of the prince himself, or of others, or else by fortune or by ability.

CHAPTER II

Concerning hereditary principalities

IWILL LEAVE OUT ALL DISCUSSION ON REPUBLICS, INASMUCH AS IN ANOTHER place I have written of them at length, and will address myself only to principalities. In doing so I will keep to the order indicated above, and discuss how such principalities are to be ruled and preserved.

I say at once there are fewer difficulties in holding hereditary states, and those long accustomed to the family of their prince, than new ones; for it is sufficient only not to transgress the customs of his ancestors, and to deal prudently with circumstances as they arise, for a prince of average powers to maintain himself in his state, unless he be deprived of it by some extraordinary and excessive force; and if he should be so deprived of it, whenever anything sinister happens to the usurper, he will regain

Reviews for THE PRINCE (Wisehouse Classics Edition)

[zoes_human · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

Historically significant but miserable to read. Doubtless it's incredibly brilliant. Unfortunately just in a way that reminds me of everything I hate about humanity.

[fdholt · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

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.

[velmeran · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

While I understand that his take is controversial, I have to tell you, it makes sense. It's not nice, but it is practical.

[gottfried_leibniz-1 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

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."

[dypaloh · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

You’ve witnessed it too, or something similar: Your city’s NFL team has a 13-point lead at home with six minutes to go, plus 1st down and possession—should be a sure win, right?—but then they turn over victory to the opponent, losing the game in regulation.It’s stuff like this that Machiavelli just hated. Except that, with Renaissance Italy bedeviled by an absence of NFL teams even the passage of five centuries hasn’t repaired, his annoyance was with princes whose misadventures cause them to blow it when trying to keep power.Machiavelli’s advice? Be prepared to flout fairness. That competitors and coaches should overreach the rules makes sense. It’s impossible to be penalized for an infraction each time. And once the game is over, no NFL victory is ever overturned, no defeat nullified, no team put on probation. So why would a Head Coach repudiate advices given in The Prince? Well, he might repudiate them if he doesn’t mind increasing the risk of losing his head (isn’t that what happens when the head coach is axed?). Otherwise . . .Going beyond the morality of winning at games, there is a fundamental question: Is it virtuous to speak the truth and keep promises? Machiavelli teaches, the editor of my edition advises, that the real or true standard is that no one should keep a promise when by doing so he would diminish his own power and when the conditions which occasioned the promise are gone.That’s troubling. But also brilliant at unveiling much of what is disappointing in political action and discourse to idealistic or more hopeful people. Word is such persons may find a less alienating brand of political thought in Niccoló’s The Discourses.Note on Translation: The Editor of the edition I read, Angelo M. Codevilla, stresses that he made his translation more literal than is the custom to better illustrate how Machiavelli uses language to subvert commonplace ideas about virtue. This seems a good objective but the translation is no easy text—I would not want to read one that’s even a little bit less welcoming.

[lydiasbooks · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

Used for classes and evil essays.

[etxgardener · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

The classic “how to” book for Princes who want to rule the world

[harrod_1 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Interesting

[tullius22 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

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)

[karl6steel · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

First time reading it since my 1989 Great Books course at Evergreen. A lot of fun to teach. The Dover edition, so far as I can determine, is perfectly serviceable, and, presuming I'm rating the right book, is improved vastly by including excerpts from The Discourses. Complicates things nicely for the students.

[alcracka · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

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.

[piggelin_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

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.

[jgcorrea-1 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

The reasons why The Prince endures the ages while the rest of Macchiavelli's philosophy gathers dust in the back of an old library warehouse are chiefly 1) it's a really short treatise, and 2) it angries up the blood. The best way by far to get a best-seller is to write anything that pisses everyone off. The drawback is, it confounds the messages of any works that were only meant to be understood in context.

[dandelionroots · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Am now a Machiavelli groupie. Need to read his alluded to work(s) on Republics STAT. Ah, my first historical crush."Since it is my object to write what shall be useful to whosoever understands it, it seems to me better to follow the real truth of things than an imaginary view of them. For many Republics and Princedoms have been imagined that were never seen or known to exist in reality. And the manner in which we live, and that in which we ought to live, are things so wide asunder, that he who quits the one to betake himself to the other is more likely to destroy than to save himself; since any one who would act up to a perfect standard of goodness in everything, must be ruined among so many who are not good."

[jasonli_1 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

A charming tome on military history and the politics around being a good ruler in 16th-century Italy. Not as cut-throat as it's caricatured to be; if anything Machiavelli is simply trying to be cold and analytical about the military victories of his time.

[santhony_35 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

For Christmas, I ordered an mp3 player (Library of Classics) that was pre-loaded with 100 works of classic literature in an audio format. Each work is in the public domain and is read by amateurs, so the quality of the presentation is hit or miss. The Prince is a very well-known and controversial work of political theory written by 15th century Florentine Niccolo Machiavelli. The work is famous for advocating a very cynical, manipulative and violent form of governance, but I was somewhat surprised after hearing the work in its relative short entirety by its simplicity and reputation.Machiavelli essentially describes the various forms of government in existence at the time and throughout the then history, and comments on the strengths and weaknesses of each. He breaks down these forms by methods of attaining and maintaining power, using many examples at his disposal. He is particularly enamored of the leadership style of Cesare Borgia, the bastard son of Pope Alexander VI.In criticizing Machiavelli’s choice of the ideal Prince, one must consider the time and place of his existence. It would be hard to argue against the Renaissance Italian city and Papal states being among the most politically volatile and complicated landscapes to traverse in recorded history. In addition to the feudal Princes of Milan and Florence (among others), the Venetian Republic and the regions nominally under the control of the Vatican, the Kings of France and Spain also showed up frequently in force. Mercenary forces were rampant and alliances and power blocs shifted constantly. If you were not a cynical, crafty, even duplicitous ruler, you likely didn’t last long.The work is relatively short and largely simple in its classifications and analysis, making arguments and suggestions that at times seem glaringly obvious, but it must be remembered that this was written in the 15th century and as a collection of political thought and history, was unique for its time. Much of what is contained in the book holds true to this day, though current political constructs make much of Machiavelli’s writing appear politically extreme and his name has become synonymous with a repressive, reactionary, heavy handed and duplicitous style of leadership.My version of The Prince also included The Life of Castruccio Castracani of Lucca, also penned by Machiavelli, a very short biography of one of the most well-loved and successful princes of the era.

[trilliams · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Bombastic at times, though quite entertaining. Still not sure when Tupac is coming back.

[justindtapp · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

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.

[jimocracy · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

This was mediocre and boring. I was expecting great insight and all I got was my time wasted.

[villemel-1 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

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.

[empress8411 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

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.

[dlott_13 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Ok book - best way I can describe. Simple to read and interesting to parallel to the world we now live in but overall nothing amazing

[starkravingmad_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Now understand why it's a classic 

[mrslee_1 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

I read this because it is one of those books everyone says should be read. It wasn't terribly long, the translation was easily understandable and I thought I would give it a try.What surprised me, was that I enjoyed it. I found Machiavelli's teaching style very good. He sets forth a principle, then illustrates it with examples from both ancient history and his times. It was easy to go from there and find examples in our modern times of most of the principles he set forth. I found myself marveling at his insight into human nature and the practicalities of leadership in a fallen world.Needless to say, I now feel myself prepared to take on the leadership of any minor principality which would have me. World, beware!

[stillatim · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

Well, you probably know about this book. Now, I'm sure that I could have read it much more closely and come up with some very interesting material to think about. But honestly- it's just not that interesting. If you're easily shocked or titillated by the idea that powerful people are powerful because they're immoral, you will be shocked and titillated. If you didn't spend your formative years reading Cicero's 'De Oficiis,' on the other hand, you won't be surprised. And honestly, if you've read a newspaper in the last century, Machiavelli won't teach you anything. He has a bunch of nice stories to illustrate his points, but without knowing the context of the stories he tells it's difficult to know why I should care. The chapter on republics is interesting, granted. But to be honest I think I'd rather read someone who knows a lot about Machiavelli than the man himself. Skinner, here I come.

I should say, too, that the Cambridge edition is excellent. 'The Prince' is in desperate need of annotation, and the editors do an excellent job of making things clear without making the text unreadable.

[wyvernfriend · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Pretty illustrations intermingled with the text to show the period during which this is written. Not terribly fond of the translation, will have to try another one to get a better feel for the text, probably a good historical and close to the original style of the book but feels a bit forced. It's an interesting look at power and how power is won or lost and while many people have taken inspiration from it to take power not many of them seem to have read the portions on keeping power.I believe I read this years ago in college but it was interesting to go back and read it again for no purpose other than pleasure. Many authors could get inspiration for how to set up governments and how to keep power in the hands of both the good and bad guys.

[reganrule · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Thought rereading this might shed some light on the Trump presidency until I realized that there is a crucial difference between realpolitik and realityTVpolitiking.

[bnielsen_30 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

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

[mithril_1 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Fascinating historical perspective.

[bookomaniac-1 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Zeer geromantiseerde inleidingIntussen overbekende politieke theorie (efficiëntie gaat voor op ethiek). Moeilijke lectuur