The Prince (Bantam Classics)

"... to do so and when his reasons for making the pledge are no longer operrative." We live in an era of high definition television, Internet, fast cars, space travel when change is the word of the day and everything seems to become outdated before tomorrow arrives, and then you come accross a book like this... You realise that there is something in our nature that has not changed that much. I read the book in disbelief, amazed by how contemporary this text is despite the fact that Niccolo Machiavelli wrote this book five hundred years ago. Machiavelli wrote this book after losing a high powered position in the Florentine state. It is believed he wrote the book in 1513, or at least he started working on the book that year. You read the text I quoted in the title of my review and you cannot escape the thought of how well that applies to today's politics - in any country. The quote captures the essence of the book, a political manifesto that was applied in practice a hundred years later by Richellieu, the creator of "raison d'etat" concept. Machiavelli is focused on stating the principles of acquiring and sustaining political power in Italy. His belief is that a true leader is a person with political abilities, fortune and military skills. While sifting through history to find examples that support his organisation of various power systems, Machiavelli uses his sharp observations to discuss human nature and attach them methodically to an arsenal of skills that a successful prince needs to master. Thus the book becomes something that can be used in debate about history, politics, human nature, sociology or I dare say economics. This book is excellent material for people that have a deep belief that humans are bad and they can be managed mainly through fear: "For this can be said about the generality of men: that they are ungrateful, fickle, dissembling, anxious to flee danger, and covetous of gain. So long as you promote their advantage, they are all yours...". This lack of trust is present throughout the book and Machiavelli does not discriminate in his conclusion between classes. The poor and the rich are alike when it comes to interest. In my view, this is a conundrum for Machiavelli: he generalises men as being untrustworthy and yet he talks about loyalty and patriotism, especially when it comes to himself. The book is more than a study of human nature and politics. While reading it I started to understand much better the Italian history. It is clear in my view why Italy is so fragmented and the politics of this country so volatile. It goes back to hundreds of years of struggle for power between influencial families. During this time they have become experts in diplomacy and in finding the right balance of power. I found amazing how papacy has managed to survive in a landscape littered with stories of ruin, deceit, death and temporary success. Italy has been a battle ground between papacy, powerful Italian families, French and Spanish emperors. That country has lots of old memories that, I believe, still have strong a presence in today's affairs. It is interesting that Machiavelli noted that a strong pricipality could be based on strong cities. He uses the example of German cities that have strong fortifications, moats and artilery and "... they have enough work of the sort that is the mainstay of the city to keep the populace engaged at their usual crafts for the space of a year". This is the description of economic power, the seed of the future capitalism. I found interesting that although he noted the importance of the economic capacity, he missed it from the list of critical elements to success, limiting it to include only the political and the military. Machiavelli's principles of power in politics can be applied to warfare in business. He discussess extensively what a prince should do to maintain power when conquering new territories. I worked for a couple of years in a company that was an aggressive acquirer and I can say that Machiavelli's observations apply incredibly well to many scenarios of acquisitions, especially if they are hostile. Apart from mergers and acquisitions, some of the studies on human nature that is revealed when people have a new leader apply quite well to today's politics that is played even at department level. There are a few lessons there. An example is that if the new ruler conquers a new territory the chances of preserving the territory increase greatly if the ruler moves residency in the new territory. This is what the Turkish sultan did to preserve the Greek territory. I find that instructive, in today's terms, to follow more closely to see if an acquiring company has a high ranking officer moving to new territory belonging to the acquired company. Machiavelli is a master of language. He manages to express human beliefs touching on a primitive cord and makes you pay attention and wonder. He is, however, biased too much towards the idea that humans are either evil or greedy or arrogant or stupid. I supose that one could forgive that considering the living conditions he endured when he wrote the book. Nowadays, he could have published the same book, cash in the royalties, make a movie, and make a very comfortable living. Here is a fragment from a letter he wrote to his friend, Francesco Vettori: "...Meanwhile lunchtime arrives and, together with my family, I eat whatever food my poor house and scanty patrimony afford. Having lunched, I return to the inn. There I generally find the innkeeper, a butcher, a miller, and two kiln-tenders. In their company I idle the rest of the day away playing at cricca and tricchetrach - games that give rise to a host of quarells, cutting remarks, and insults. Often we fight over a penny and are heard yelling as far off as San Casciano. Set down among these lice, this is how I keep the mould from my brain and find release from Fortune's malice. I am content to have her beat me down this way to see if she won't become ashamed" Great book, worth every penny and every minute. To be served with a good glass of wine, or a cup of tea in a quiet environment. Get ready for surprises, interesting associations and intellectual delight.

In the course of my political science training, I studied at great length the modern idea of realpolitik. In that study I came to realise that it was somewhat incomplete, without the companionship of The Prince, by Niccolo Machiavelli, a Florentine governmental official in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. The Prince is an oft quoted, oft mis-quoted work, used as the philosophical underpinning for much of what is considered both pragmatic and wrong in politics today. To describe someone as being Machiavellian is to attribute to the person ruthless ambition, craftiness and merciless political tactics. Being believed to be Machiavellian is generally politically incorrect. Being Machiavellian, alas, can often be politically expedient. Machiavelli based his work in The Prince upon his basic understanding of human nature. He held that people are motivated by fear and envy, by novelty, by desire for wealth, power and security, and by a hatred of restriction. In the Italy in which he was writing, democracy was an un-implemented Greek philosophical idea, not a political structure with a history of success; thus, one person's power usually involved the limitation of another person's power in an autocratic way. Machiavelli did not see this as a permanent or natural state of being -- in fact, he felt that, during his age, human nature had been corrupted and reduced from a loftier nobility achieved during the golden ages of Greece and Rome. He decided that it was the corrupting influence of Christianity that had reduced human nature, by its exaltation of meekness, humility, and otherworldliness. Machiavelli has a great admiration for the possible and potential, but finds himself inexorably drawn to the practical, dealing with situations as they are, thus becoming an early champion of realpolitik carried forward into this century by the likes of Kissinger, Thatcher, Nixon, and countless others. One of the innovations of Machiavelli's thought was the recognition that the prince, the leader of the city/state/empire/etc., was nonetheless a human being, and subject to all the human limitations and desires with which all contend. Because the average prince (like the average person) is likely to be focussed upon his own interests, a prince's private interests are generally in opposition to those of his subjects. Fortunate is the kingdom ruled by a virtuous prince, virtue here not defined by Christian or religious tenets, but rather the civic virtue of being able to pursue his own interests without conflicting those of his subjects. Virtue is that which increases power; vice is that which decreases power. These follow Machiavelli's assumptions about human nature. Machiavelli rejected the Platonic idea of a division between what a prince does and what a prince ought to do. The two principle instruments of the prince are force and propaganda, and the prince, in order to increase power (virtue) ought to employ force completely and ruthlessly, and propaganda wisely, backed up by force. Of course, for Machiavelli, the chief propaganda vehicle is that of religion. Whoever reads Roman history attentively will see in how great a degree religion served in the command of the armies, in uniting the people and keeping them well conducted, and in covering the wicked with shame. Machiavelli has been credited with giving ruthless strategies (the example of a new political ruler killing the deposed ruler and the ruler's family to prevent usurpation and plotting is well known) -- it is hard to enact many in current politics in a literal way, but many of his strategies can still be seen in electioneering at every level, in national and international relations, and even in corporate and family internal 'politics'. In fact, I have found fewer more Machiavellian types than in church politics! Of course, these people would be considered 'virtuous' in Machiavellian terms -- doing what is necessary to increase power and authority. The title of this piece -- the virtues of Machiavelli, must be considered in this frame; certainly in no way virtuous by current standards, but then, it shows, not all have the same standards. Be careful of the words you use -- they may have differing definitions. Perhaps if Machiavelli had lived a bit later, and been informed by the general rise of science as a rational underpinning to the world, he might have been able to accept less of a degree of randomness in the universe. Perhaps he would have modified his views. Perhaps not -- after all, the realpolitikers of this age are aware of the scientific framework of the universe, and still pursue their courses. This is an important work, intriguing in many respects. Far shorter than the average classical or medieval philosophical tome, and more accessible by current readers because of a greater familiarity with politics than, say, metaphysics or epistemology, this work yields benefits and insights to all who read, mark, inwardly digest, and critically examine the precepts.

This book was not what I expected at all. I always thought this book was only about stab in the back politics. Machiavelli is tremendous observer of human nature. He understands human nature on a individual level, and on the larger scale of an entire society. He explains how an individual will react to certain situations, and how the group at large will react. His conclusions are timeless. Machiavelli also draws many conclusions from the lessons of history. He recommends that leaders study history. He also has valuable lessons in regards to the various types of governments. He points out the positive and negative aspects of democracies, aristocracies, and dictatorships. Once again his conclusions are timeless.

i love it

The quality of paper is not good. So, reading is a bit difficult.

Very interesting

My book arrived in a very bad shape , it had many scratches on its spine, more so the book looks very old ,an unsold one that's been dumped upon needy buyers like me...