First, so you'll know what everyone is referring to when you come across the adjective "machiavellian" in news stories or other media. This adjective has become so commonplace (and overused) it is almost a cliche. Also, most who use it have never read this letter from Machiavelli, a Rennaisance courtier to his Prince (written from prison), but they insist on peppering writings with this noun turned adjective so much that as a matter of clearly understanding what is meant by the term, famiality with this brief treatise is helpful.

Second, this book does describe most (not all) power situations very well. From politics to corporations to most settings where advancement, influence and control exist, Machiavelli's observations and rules apply.

You will also discover that Machiavelli was not as evil as he is understood to be in popular thought. What he was doing was describing the rules of the game that have existed and always will exist for many situations involving selfish humans in competition. Machiavelli's rules are neither good nor bad in themselves -- they describe a process. What is good or bad is how those who master Machiavelli's rules use their power and position, in a society that tempers actions according to law and basic Judeo-Christian principals. When those principals do not exist (as in Nazi Germany, the Middle Ages or under Communism, or by those who refuse to live by these constraints), Machiavelli's rules take on their demonic and evil cloak; usually because they serve demonic and evil ends. In societies where positive constraints exist, for example the U.S. political system, Machiavellian behavior can produce excellent results. A good example involves Abraham Lincoln, whose ambition led him to use every legitimate trick and stragety to master (and remove) political opponents. His mastery of Machiavellian behavior constrained by the US political system allowed him to save the Union and end slavery.

To fully appreciate the modern lessons that can be taken from this writing, one must translate Medieval sensibilites to their contemporary counterparts. The casual way in which Machiavelli discusses the need to kill opponents was necessary to those who wished to be princes 500 years ago. Today, of course, "killing" is translated as rendering less powerful, or taking an opponent out of the game.

What does one get from this book? It is a roadmap with insights and lessons about how to 1) get ahead of others to attain power; and 2) maintain and expand one's power in the face of others who would usurp one who is in a desirable position.

This book is about ruthlessness and putting the attainment of goals ahead of any other consideration. Plenty of maxims that are also tossed about frequently in media are to be found in Machiavelli's book: "the end justifies the means," "it is better to be feared than loved," "if you fight the prince, kill the prince" to name a few.

It is essential reading to anyone who would be in a competitive environment and hope to advance, if for no other reason than many of one's competitors operate by Machiavelli's dictums (which arise out of human instinct and selfishness). One does not have to operate according to Machaivelli's code -- many examples of alturism and "pluck and luck" exist to defeat any claim that Machiavelli's road map is essential for success. However, human nature and human history deliver far more examples of ruthless self-interest (Machiavellianism) behind success in power situations.

Is Machiavellianism bad? Not in and of itself. Remember, one must translate the Middle Age ethos to current practices -- there usually isn't blood spilled as a result of today's Machiavellian duels, just power and positon. Most political and business leaders are at least partly Machiavellian. The trick is using one's power to good ends. Thus, even though Lincoln and all of our presidents were Machiavellian in their climb to the White House, some of them did darn good work there. The same is true for business leaders. Jack Welch (GE), Bill Gates (Microsoft), anyone who advances past the first few rungs of the corporate ladder or dominates markets at the expense of competitors is using Machiavelli's dictums. The trick of a just and good society is to set the bounds by which power can be attained and exercised so that good and benefits will flow from those who are able to "claw their way to the top."

To summarize, read this book if you want to 1) truly understand when the adjective "Machiavelli" is used to describe people and 2) understand the rules by which most people navigate their way to power.


Power Politics and Diplomacy   October 5, 2001
 161 out of 182 found this review helpful

Based upon Michiavelli's first hand experience as an emissary of the Florentine Republic to the courts of Europe The Prince analyzes the often violent means by which political power is seized and retained, and the circumstance in which it is lost. Because The Prince is a political commentary, and not a work of fiction, Michiavelli does not use "characters" in the sense of a novel or a short story. Instead he draws his examples from the current political and social events, as well as from history. His characters are the political leaders of his time. The book is a declaration in plain language the conduct of great men and the principles of princely governments. The book can be divided into four sections.

1. The types of principalities. Michiavelli lists four types of principalities.

* Hereditary principalities, which are inherited by the ruler.

* Mixed principalities, territories that are annexed to the rulers existing territories.

* New principalities which may be acquired by several methods: by own power, by the power of others by criminal acts or extreme cruelty, or by the will of the people

* Ecclesiastical principalities, namely the papal states belonging to the catholic churches.

2. The character and behavior of the prince. Michiavelli recommends the following character and behavior for princes:

* It is better to be miserly than generous.

* It is better to be cruel than merciful.

* It is better to break promises if keeping than would be against ones interest.

* Princes must avoid making them hated and despised; the goodwill of the people is a better defense than any fortress.

* Princes should undertake great projects to enhance their reputation.

* Princes should choose wise advisors to confide and consult with

3. The types of armies A prince must always pay close attention to military affairs if he wants to remain in power. A prince must lay good foundation and those foundations include good laws and good armies. There cannot be good laws without good armies, and where there are good laws there must be good armies. The study of war should be a prince's main goal, for war is a rulers only art.If princes become too refined to study this art they loose their state. The types of armies are:

* Mercenaries or Auxiliaries (loaned to you by another ruler) are both dangerous and unreliable, as they will maintain their interests preceding yours.

* Native troops composed of ones own citizens or subjects are by far the most desirable kind.

4. Italy's political situation Michiavelli outlines and recommends the following

* The rulers of Italy have lost their states by ignoring the political and military principles.

* Fortune controls half of human affairs, but free will controls the rest, leaving the prince free to act. However, the few princes can adopt their actions to times


Machivellian at Heart   January 11, 2001
 59 out of 70 found this review helpful

After being described as Machiavellian by some of the fellow members of my youth government group, I decided to find out what they meant. I soon discovered that to be Machiavellian, is to be " a person having ruthless ambition, craftiness, and merciless political tactics." I took this comparison as a compliment and learned more Niccolo Machiavelli by reading one of his books, The Prince. The Prince begins with an in-depth historical introduction by Christian Gauss discussing the history of Italy. This background is essential so that readers have a basic understanding of where Machiavelli was coming from with his ideas. Machiavelli, a son of a Florentine lawyer, lived back in the 16th Century. He was a humanist and grew up reading the works of the Romans and the Greeks. It was because of his studies that he was able to analyze history and formulate his own theories on ruling a nation. Following this introduction, Machiavelli essentially provides the first ever "idiots guide to ruling a country" in 26 chapters. Within these chapters he answers questions such as whether it is better to be hated by the people or loved by the aristocracy, whether one should raise armies within a nation or hirer mercenaries, and what happens when you rule as a villain. Machiavelli's philosophy on every aspect of ruling a nation is discussed within this novel. The best part of this novel is how straightforward Machiavelli was in his writing. He cuts the fluff, and is blunt with his points. He is also very original in his thoughts about power. He does not try to conceal the political motives. In one section Machiavelli clearly presents his view on the importance for a prince to have 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, pg. 78)

In this quote, Machiavelli never talks about how spirituality is important in satiating a God. Instead he talks about how a ruler can take advantage of a religion's power to be a massive propaganda machine. This is just the way Machiavelli presents his ideas. His views are often described as ruthless, but I feel they are just honest, accurate reflections of men's motives in politics. When reading the book, the only thing that bothered me was that my knowledge of European history is severely lacking. Frequently within the novel Machiavelli would make references to ancient battles such as the Venetians and France versus the Duke of Milan, or ancient people such as the Spartans, or the Medici. For this reason I would advise taking an AP or College Class in European History. A important insight is lost by a reader without this knowledge in any number of quotes such as this one:

But when one cannot avoid it, as happened in the case of the Florentines when the Pope and Spain went with their armies to attack Lombardy, the prince ought to join for the above reasons.(Machiavelli, pg. 112)

In this quote, I was completely ignorant to the fact that Spain and the Pope ever united, and furthermore that they then attacked a country, Lombardy, one that I had never heard of before. It was just frustrating to read a section and be completely bewildered afterwards, so that is why I suggest having a good knowledge of history before reading this book. By the end of the novel, my mind was racing with Machiavelli's theories on being a great ruler and I was anxious to go out and conquer my own nation. Unfortunately, Machiavelli wrote this a while ago and many of the things he described cannot be implemented today. However, a lot of his basic ideas can still be applied and this serves as an inspiration for me in my quest for power. Even though the days of Princes ruling are dead, anyone from modern day politicians to tech-company owners can appreciate Machiavelli's theories about control of power.


A 'must read' for ambitious two-faced megalomaniacs!   May 9, 1997
 52 out of 60 found this review helpful

Politicians usually read this text in the first political science class which they take. Actually, understanding Politics without understanding the principles in this text is an impossibility. A person who does not understand the principles of this text is too naive to understand why their leaders do what they do. Politics occurs in business, family life, and other settings, as well as government; Machiavelli's rules may be applied in all of these. Though living by these rules isn't necessary, a successful politician must act with mindfulness of their implications, or face failure. Considering the far reaching implications of Machiavelli's thought, one might wonder why elementary school children do not study "the Prince."

Many people don't have the guts to face what Machiavelli says. He presents the rules of 'hardball' politics; the only time that he mentions morality is when he describes the occasions in which a leader may need to fake it. Politicians have become so adept in following these rules that those whom they lead will often take offense at the suggestion that their leaders live by them. Read this book and understand the daily news.

"The Prince" is the quintessential text of Political Science. The Dover edition, though small, does not lack any of the origional text. It does lack the clutter of scholarly commentaries. It belongs on the shelf of anyone interested in the politics which impacts their life, but it will merely irritate the gullible


The virtues of Machiavelli   February 3, 2005
 43 out of 49 found this review helpful

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.