Scan barcode
suicidylan_epub's review against another edition
3.0
Si Lasso leyese éste libro no estarían a punto de cuajarle el Gobierno.
livia7552's review against another edition
3.0
nice instruction manual (would have helped if I were a prince)
izraezer's review against another edition
3.0
Responsible for my longstanding crush on Cesare Borgia.
drudri_yones's review against another edition
dark
informative
reflective
medium-paced
3.75
Reading challenge 2024: Book 20 of 27
Niccolo Machiavelli: Tutor of Tyrants or Spitter of Facts?
Everyone has heard at least once in their lives the term 'Machiavellian.' Used mainly in the West to describe politics and politicians in a negative light, it instantly conjures the idea of cruel and cunning mustachioed despots throughout history. As much as I'd like to discuss why mustaches are such a common trend among tyrants, that's for another day. Instead, here I shall focus on why I've concluded that Machiavelli is actually just firing facts in The Prince rather than writing a how-to-guide for aspiring dictators.
The Prince, Machiavelli's most famous work, for better or worse, is a 16th century political treatise written by who many consider the father of political philosophy and political science. This little treatise was dedicated to the ruler of Florence Lorenzo di Piero de' Medici, and serves as a manual on how a prince can effectively hold and rule his principality.
Divided into three sections, the guide covers topics such as the types of principalities, how a prince might end up ruling, or why mercenaries are a terrible idea. Together with some bits of history, such as some of Cesare Borgias shenanigans, The Prince makes for an entertaining read with points that, in our current times, are simply obvious. That these points are pretty sad if you think about it, there is nothing we can do, as unfortunately, it's the way our world works, or as some people like to say to make themselves feel better, it is what it is.
What these points help a reader conclude is that The Prince is in fact, very akin to the concept of realpolitik since one of its main arguments is that an amoral prince, rather than a moral one whose sole focus is the good of the people, is the best way to be an incredibly effective ruler. One who has a strong pulse and is not afraid to be cruel when some heads need to roll is more likely to find success. One who is good and friendly and goes to your house to have breakfast with you everyday, will most likely fail. It's quite bleak and you can bury your head in the sand all you want, but it will be the nature of our reality.
As such, in my opinion, Machiavelli didn't write a guide on how to be the world's best (or worse?) next dictator, but rather, the guy was just stating facts a lot of people don't like to hear, and in return managed to put his mother as the recipient of some very nasty words.
Overall score: 3.75/5
Niccolo Machiavelli: Tutor of Tyrants or Spitter of Facts?
Everyone has heard at least once in their lives the term 'Machiavellian.' Used mainly in the West to describe politics and politicians in a negative light, it instantly conjures the idea of cruel and cunning mustachioed despots throughout history. As much as I'd like to discuss why mustaches are such a common trend among tyrants, that's for another day. Instead, here I shall focus on why I've concluded that Machiavelli is actually just firing facts in The Prince rather than writing a how-to-guide for aspiring dictators.
The Prince, Machiavelli's most famous work, for better or worse, is a 16th century political treatise written by who many consider the father of political philosophy and political science. This little treatise was dedicated to the ruler of Florence Lorenzo di Piero de' Medici, and serves as a manual on how a prince can effectively hold and rule his principality.
Divided into three sections, the guide covers topics such as the types of principalities, how a prince might end up ruling, or why mercenaries are a terrible idea. Together with some bits of history, such as some of Cesare Borgias shenanigans, The Prince makes for an entertaining read with points that, in our current times, are simply obvious. That these points are pretty sad if you think about it, there is nothing we can do, as unfortunately, it's the way our world works, or as some people like to say to make themselves feel better, it is what it is.
What these points help a reader conclude is that The Prince is in fact, very akin to the concept of realpolitik since one of its main arguments is that an amoral prince, rather than a moral one whose sole focus is the good of the people, is the best way to be an incredibly effective ruler. One who has a strong pulse and is not afraid to be cruel when some heads need to roll is more likely to find success. One who is good and friendly and goes to your house to have breakfast with you everyday, will most likely fail. It's quite bleak and you can bury your head in the sand all you want, but it will be the nature of our reality.
As such, in my opinion, Machiavelli didn't write a guide on how to be the world's best (or worse?) next dictator, but rather, the guy was just stating facts a lot of people don't like to hear, and in return managed to put his mother as the recipient of some very nasty words.
Overall score: 3.75/5
crispbacon's review against another edition
challenging
emotional
informative
lighthearted
reflective
medium-paced
5.0
Well to say it is filled with plot basically a coin with two sides
jedwin00's review against another edition
4.0
An interesting read that give you insight into the cruel ways of royalty and nobility. It will make you think about the morality behind power.