Customer Reviews

The Prince

5 star:		(80)
4 star:		(25)
3 star:		(11)
2 star:		(7)
1 star:		(9)

 

 

The term "Machiavellian" is frequently used to describe ruthlessness and brutality in a leader, and most people who have read about Machiavelli but have not actually read Machiavelli's own works assume that he believed "the ends justify the means." However, this is a common misperception. His actual words are: "[. . .] in the actions of all men, and especially of princes, where there is no court of appeal, one looks at the outcome." He does not, here or anywhere else in his writing, attempt to provide any moral justification for ruthlessness, but merely says that a leader will always be judged by his people based on the end result of his actions. He was very pragmatic in his outlook on princely rule, and sought to explain the actions that would and would not be effective in gaining and maintaining the rule of a nation.

Another point of some confusion is the saying that "it is better to be feared than to be loved." Again, this is not quite what Machiavelli meant. His actual words are: "[. . .] there arises a dispute: whether it is better to be loved than feared, or the contrary. The reply is that one should like to be both the one and the other, but as it is difficult to bring them together, it is much safer to be feared than to be loved if one of the two has to be lacking." It is also noteworthy to point out that the word "fear" at the time Machiavelli was alive was less synonymous with its modern meaning than it was with the word "respect." He was saying that a prince's throne is more secure if he is feared/respected but not loved than it is if he is loved but not feared/respected. Machiavelli does not say that a prince who is feared is the moral better of one who is loved.

"The Prince" is a truly fascinating work of philosophy, describing the ideal conduct (in mechanical and not moral terms) of an effective sovereign. Despite the fact that it is entirely concerned with the government of principalities, Machiavelli himself was a republican, and believed that the most effective form of government would combine elements of a principality, an aristocracy, and a democracy. His motivation to write "The Prince" came from his desire to ingratiate himself with the Medici family, the ruling power in Florence at the time, and also from his belief that only a single, strong ruler would be powerful enough to unify and liberate a then-factionalized Italy.

The book is not an easy read, but is more accessible than, say, Rousseau's "Social Contract" (I'm not equating the topics of these two books, but just comparing literary style). Machiavelli tends to use very long, complex sentences, and it's easy to get derailed before reaching the end of one. Some of his sentences easily take up a third of a page. Nevertheless, the content of "The Prince" is definitely worth the time and concentration it takes to read.

Readers who do not already have a detailed knowledge of pre-16th century Italian and ancient Roman history will no doubt have additional difficulties understanding Machiavelli's work. Being Italian, he used examples primarily from Italy's political history and from his studies of Rome. Machiavelli also, at times, misrepresents history either inadvertantly, or purposefully so as to better back up his arguments. He also has a tendency to over-simplify things, and does not take into account that real life is rarely as clear-cut as he presents it.

While many things have changed since Machiavelli wrote "The Prince" in c.1513, much of what he says is still relevant to some degree. The basic concepts he presents can be adapted for application in just about any position of leadership. However, it must always be remembered that this book was only meant as a technical guide, and does not attempt to justify itself on moral grounds. "The Prince" is also a worthwhile read for the reason that it will give the reader a better, more complete understanding of the term "Machiavellian," and the ability to recognize when it is or isn't being used correctly, as well as the ability to use it correctly themself. This is a must-read for anyone interested in political philosophy, and has much to offer whether you agree with Machiavelli's ideas or not.

Perhaps it is fair to call Nicollo Machiavelli a teacher of the tyrants. After all, this early sixteenth century book has long served as a reference guide to the likes of Hitler and Mussolini, despots who ruled with an iron fist and unmitigated cruelty. Yet, certain aspects of Machiavelli's text might also serve in some capacity to aid a free society as well.

Written by Niccolo Machiavelli (a Florentine nobleman of the early sixteenth century) to a local ruler, "The Prince" is a short text of just over 100 pages which reads very much like a personal letter. The text was sent as a gift by Machiavelli with an explanation that he could not afford to purchase a gift and had written this instead. It is, at the very least, likely that the gift was meant to find the author a place in the royals hearts and obtain Machiavelli some recognition.

"The Prince" is simply a guide. It instructs the reader on becoming a ruler and in the maintenance of power. From launching attacks on fellow kingdoms to conducting oneself in public, this book covers it all. Machiavelli dictates that a ruler must be affable, yet must stand above others at all times. He must know how to please both his guards and his peasants. He must form alliances and know when to break them. He must never let down his guard.

More controversial are the many cruel "necessities" dictated by Machiavelli. Machiavelli unabashedly declares that when taking over (deposing) or otherwise unseating a leader you must kill all of his/her bloodline. There must be no one left to vie for the throne. And that is one of many of the mandates that has fixed him forever with a terrible reputation. One nickname for Satan himself is Ol' Nick, probably taken from the Niccolo in Machiavelli's name. When it comes to grabbing and maintaining power, Machiavelli pulls no punches. His suggestion of eradicating a leader's bloodline harkens one back to the Bolshevik revolution of 1917 Russia, When Czar Nicholas and his family were slain. It is easy to imagine "The Prince" having been used as a reference by many of the world's cruel dictators.

Machiavelli also cites many examples from governments of his time, such as the emperors of the Roman Empire. In each case he explains why the leadership did or did not work and what we can learn from it.

I found this book very entertaining. "The Prince" is as harsh as anything being published today and enthralling, but it will appeal more to history or political fans than others. It is also short enough not to be too daunting a read. "War and Peace" it is not.

While Machiavelli's arguments are valid (albeit cruel) there is one bothersome detail in his work that serves as a blaring irony. Upon exacting on us some barbaric charge that bloodlines must be slain or that untrustworthy officers must be killed, the author will turn around and give reference to God and declare that a good leader should always keep aware of him. Ol' Nick vows to slay and then to do God's good work all in the same breath. Hmmm...

Fascinating. Edifying. "The Prince" makes me more aware of the world around me and even more certain that I never want to go into politics. One final thought is the much-used quote by Machiavelli, taken from "The Prince:"

"Fortune is a woman and must be taken by force."

That's a standard Machiavellian idea for you. Pick up a copy of The Prince, and judge the book for yourself. For those of you who HATE the idea of power and tyranny, let me make a contrasting recommendation -- a recent Amazon purchase I truly enjoyed -- 180 degrees opposite from the philosophy of Machiavelli - it's a book called THE LOSERS CLUB: Complete Restored Edition by Richard Perez, a very engaging, comic novel told from the point of view of an admitted "weakling." Thank goodness.

The Prince is truly a legendary masterpiece. More than a book on political theories, it covers topics such as human nature, influence, leadership, trickery, psychology, philosophy, etc. However, it is mostly the latter chapters that are interesting and deal with these subjects. The first half or so is not that interesting of a read. So I would advise that you just skip over the first forteen or so chapters at first, and then read them later if you want.

Also, there is a fantastic summary and overview of The Prince in the book A Collection of Wisdom by Rodney Ohebsion that I highly recommend. In ten pages or so, it gives you really the essence of The Prince that is applicable to people in their lives.

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.

Being as though it's on our school's required reading list, we have to buy a copy and read it.

I would have no problem if the book wasn't so boring.

The book talks about how a country should be ruled if it were to be successful, and he does it rather well. The only problem is he doesn't make it interesting.

I've forced myself through a majority of the book and I still don't see a real point in reading it.

Machiavelli might have been one of the best political writers in his time, but I have to say, let bygones be bygones.

I've never read any book related to politics in my whole life, and I found out by one of my World History teachers, that this book is a good way to get into politics and learn to be a good leader for your people.
The book really explains or simulates almost every single problem that a king, prince, president or any kind of governor would face. The book talks about how to treat the people of your kingdom, Machiavelly argues if you should use Love to rule your people or fear, to support his ideas Machiavelli uses examples from past rulers explaining what weaknesses they had and big mistakes the made.
For the first politic book I've ever read I found it really interesting and really helpful, the only thing that I didn't really like about it, was that to get a better understanding of the book you have to get some more background of the Kings, Dukes and governors he used.

One word alone drew me to this title...Machiavelli. A word that is now synonymous with deception and deceit, I felt compelled to visit the source and see for myself what Niccolo Machiavelli had to say. Unfortunately, I have come to the conclusion that "The Prince" is merely a convoluted text with little modern day relevance.

Basically, the book is a "how to" guide for being an Italiance prince in the 16th century. Most of the book is quite specific to his set of circumstances. For example he discusses the difference between inheriting a country and acquiring a country by prowess. He talks about the difference between conquering a land with a single ruler as opposed to conquering a land with many rulers. Some statements are blindingly obvious "When you see a minister thinking more of himself than of you, and seeking his own profit in everything he does, such a one will never be a good minister."

The text is heavily laced with anecdotes to back up his points. These tales are not really generalisable to modern day times, for example "We have in Italy, the duke of Ferrara; he withstood the assaults of the Venetians in '84 and those of Pop Julius in 1510, for no other reason than his power had been established a long time".

The book does contain some pearls of advice - "A prudent ruler cannot, and should not, honour his word when it places him at a disadvantage and when the reasons for which he made his promise no longer exist". Machiavelli seems to have been a very pragmatic character and if he were alive today, I suspect he would be the embodiment of anti-poltical correctness.

Overall I found the book a very dry read. Try as I might, I found it difficult to extract much that was of modern day relevance. Note that I have read and reviewed the book as a person with little knowledge of Italian history, political science, or other related topics that may help in comprehending this text.

I have heard references to the book in question for many years. I was looking forward to the chance to finally read it, but I was sorely disappointed. I found the book very dry and extremely difficult to understand. All I can say about those who have praised this book is that they surely must be more intelligent than I.

Machiavelli starts out on the very first page by saying that "I have not sought to adorn my work with long phrases or high-sounding words or any of those superficial attractions and ornaments with which many writers seek to embellish their material..." This statement is a mockery of itself. This whole drawn-out book is filled with embellishments of all sorts and it is beyond me how Lorenzo the Magnificent, the prince who Machiavelli wrote the book for, ever managed to get through it.

After reading every last page, I am still as clueless as when I began. ...

This is probably one of the most backwards and boring books I've ever read. It is a complete waist of time, unless you plan on becoming some sort of ruler, and even then I'd pass it up. Steer clear of this one.

Machiavelli's The Prince is undoubted one of the books that gives historical evidence of past governments. Niccolo Machiavelli in this piece of literature analyzes and judges the use of power in traditional autocratic governments. He explains how at the time monarchs were able to prosper or to fail based on their rule. His political views are not all expressed in this book, but it is clear that there were several meanings behind this piece of literature.
The Prince is strengthen by the introduction that is given by Christian Gauss. It gives the reader background information on the life of Machiavelli and in reasons he would relate the book to events that were going on in Italy. The introduction can also be considered a Global History textbook because it gives detailed information about the rise and fall of different leaders in Europe and Machiavelli's involvement in them.
I never thought that just a single book that I picked would keep me so interested. Machiavelli's ideas on autocratic governments were used at the time by rising leaders and are still used today. The Prince indeed strengthens global history based on Machiavelli, we are able to judge monarchies that have existed. This is indeed one of the books to read.

Ludwing-New York City