The Prince

By Niccolo Machiavelli

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

"The Prince" is a political treatise by the Florentine public servant and political theorist Niccolò Machiavelli. Originally called De Principatibus (About Principalities), it was written in 1513, but not published until 1532, five years after Machiavelli's death. The treatise is not representative of the work published during his lifetime, but it is the most remembered, and the work responsible for bringing "Machiavellian" into wide usage as a pejorative term. It has also been suggested by some critics that the piece is, in fact, a satire.

• Language: English
• Publisher: knowledge house
• Release date: Sep 27, 2022
• ISBN: 9782380375480

Book preview

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 differ

Reviews for The Prince

[xofelf · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

It only gets three stars because it was a school assigned reading, and i've read better books that were school assigned.

[maowangvater · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

This is a short (37 pages in this edition), practical, and amoral treatise on statecraft."A prince must not have any other object nor any other thought ... but war, its institutions, and its discipline; because that is the only art befitting one who commands."

[adrianmb-916642 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Another book which most people have not read but love to talk about. Interesting thoughts. Some of them foreign to me as I do not have a good background in medieval history.

[sgtcat · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

I remember trying to read this book about 15 years ago when I was still in high school and not being able to get through it. It had a great infamous reputation, but it was just too dense. Having done a lot of studying of history and the history of empires (at the BA and MA level) what this guy says makes a lot more sense. It's a good book to read and think about, in terms of methods of governing and controlling land. It may not have as much applicability today, but in terms of thinking about historical dynasties and empires, it's a useful tool, I think.

[zeborah · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Sometimes Niccolò is very very right ("there is nothing more difficult to take in hand ... than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things"), and sometimes he is very very wrong ("as there cannot be good laws where the state is not well armed, it follows that where they are well armed they have good laws" no, dude, not only is your premise wrong but your logic could be dissected by a five-year-old), but he does point out more than once that things that work in other times and places won't necessarily work in renaissance Italy, by which it follows (through real logic this time) that things that may have been good advice in renaissance Italy aren't necessarily appropriate to, say, the 21st century corporate world.

[sarahebear · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

This is a difficult book to rate as it isn't exactly something that one enjoys reading. It is, however, well research and well written (or translated). "The Prince" reflects the political machinations of the day and is a guide to maintaining power over the people. It has been described as an "evil" book but I don't agree. Any 'evil' related to the book would be the result of how the advice (and which advice) is applied to a certain situation, by certain individuals. It is very matter-of-fact and is based on astute observations of human behaviour. It is mercifully short and makes for an interesting read.

[damiella-533991 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Having watched 'House of Cards' I found Ian Richardson's voice perfect for this reading.

This book has been on my 'must read' list for a fair while so it's good to get it marked off

[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.

[etxgardener · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

The classic “how to” book for Princes who want to rule 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."

[lydiasbooks · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

Used for classes and evil essays.

[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.

[tommi180744 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

A very sharp commentary on the art and business of politics when ruling a nation/people. As it did for previous generations this 16th Century tome has many pertinent pointers for today's would-be establishment elite: however, the pitfalls of power & being consumed by the desire for authority that it also mentions have been neglected by so many ill-equipped & haplessly inadequate Leaders of the 20th/21st centuries it would appear many of them were not concentrating when they read Machiavelli's masterpiece!

[tonifgmamtc · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Although it is a blueprint for how to rule over the common people, it has some really great points that carry over into many of life's situations.

[judithrs · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

The Prince. Niccolo Machiavelli. 2008. Our book club chose this classic of how to get and keep political power because it was an election year. What surprised several of us was how mild it seemed. We decided we were no longer idealistic and had lived too long to be shocked at what lengths a man in power will go to maintain that power

[datrappert · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

It's easy to be a cynic about this book, but there is some very good psychological advice here. Such as, after a victory, make friends with your enemies, and you'll be able to trust them more than your allies, who now that you have won, will be looking to take advantage of you or overthrow you. Your enemies, on the other hand, will be grateful for your mercy.

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

The introduction to Italy at the beginning of the book is almost worth more than the book itself. However it is a decent read and one that can happily be chalked off the "must read that one day" list without feeling one has completed a chore.The core of the book is somewhat repetitive in that the advice given seems to boil down to a relatively few nuggets, but in some ways that was maybe his point, that no matter the situation the best course of action doesn't vary all that much.The biggest surprise to me was how much Italy was a real concept even when the city states and provinces were the methods of governance, I guess I'd always thought it was only when the state was brought together that it really existed, but it was obviously in people minds and, indeed, Machiavelli's dreams.

[timoroso · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

It would be absurd to "review" the most important book on politics ever written. Go read it if you haven't already. It is very funny too.

[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."

[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.

[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.

[trilliams · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

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

[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