Be machiavelli

No it's a bullshit theory because he was tortured and out of a political position and so he wanted to gain favor with it so he could be in politics again after the Medici came back. Here's a letter he wrote to Francesco Vettori in 1513.

>I have discussed this little study of mine with Filippo and whether or not it would be a good idea to present it [to Giuliano], and if it were a good idea, whether I should take it myself or should send it to you. Against presenting it would be my suspicion that he might not even read it and that that person Ardinghelli might take the credit for this most recent of my endeavors. In favor of presenting it would be the necessity that hounds me, because I am wasting away and cannot continue on like this much longer without becoming contemptible because of my poverty. Besides, there is my desire that these Medici princes should begin to engage my services, even if they should start out by having me roll along a stone. For then, if I could not win them over, I should have only myself to blame. And through this study of mine, were it to be read, it would be evident that during the fifteen years I have been studying the art of the state I have neither slept nor fooled around, and anybody ought to be happy to utilize someone who has had so much experience at the expense of others. There should be no doubt about my word; for, since I have always kept it, I should not start learning how to break it now. Whoever has been honest and faithful for forty-three years, as I have, is unable to change his nature; my poverty is a witness to my loyalty and honesty.

Also from his letters the ideas used in The Prince were originally intended to be a part of the Discourses.

Except The Prince was satire.

I've literally never heard of this. That it was directed to the citizens and how they should watch out for a "prince", sure, but satire?

t. People who get their history from cracked.com

that portrait of machiavelli always makes me laugh, something about his expression is so memeworthy

did a thing on him in highschool and picked that exact portrait

The book was controversial 500 years ago

Does this mean Han Fei's book was satire too? Did 2 million people just because of a book that was meant for satire?(Even more if you count the successor dynasties that adopted his ideology)

You moron. He promotes the use of a national army as a mercenary army is motivated primarily by coin and is unlikely to risk their lives too hard for their benefactor. Renaissance Italy was infamous for its condottieri switching side all the time, refusing to fight or even staging mock battles to not have to risk their lives too hard. Machievelli bore witness to this practice throughout his very lifetime.
>He also claims that the Prince needs to live in the city that he rules
Wrong again. He says that if a prince CONQUERS a once free city then he must either destroy it completely or dwell within it himself to cut off any rebellion attempt before it rears its head. He likens this to the Suleiman the Magnificent setting Constantinople as his capital upon conquering it.
>He claims that the Prince must never show liberality toward the people
Wrong again. He says that gestures of liberality are fine but that a prince is better off being miserly. The first reason for this is so as to not engage in frivolous expenditure of funds and the second is that it makes the few frivolous gestures a mostly miserly prince makes all the more meaningful.

One can tell when someone has actually taken his time to study Machiavelli's work, like this poster.

I think that if you only read The Prince you only get half of the picture that Machiavelli is painting. The Discorsi are just as (if not more) important and analyze politics from the perspective of the state as an institution/society in general, whereas The Prince takes a rather individual angle (How do I gain power? etc.)

Politics isn't a one-size-fits-all endeavor and one needs to be able to adapt to different situations (like every good general did in terms of warfare; insert Von Clausewitz quote here). One can call it immoral if they so wish but to everyone with some grasp of reality the topics he explores are just self-evident.

I've never read "The Prince" is it worth actually reading or will it just give me an over-inflated ego?

>He likens this to the Suleiman the Magnificent setting Constantinople as his capital upon conquering it.
Mehmet II, user.

It's an intresting read although I found many of the military examples Machievalli employs to be tedious.

The word Machiavellian still has extreme negative connotation.

It's well worth a read, if for nothing else then for the realization how medieval politics are not so different than modern ones in their cores.

During that time it was controversial to clame there's hills on the moon.

During that time it was controversial to claim there's hills on the moon.

But the hills are easily visible from Earth even without a telescope?????

The Prince isn't even his greatest work. If you want real Machiavelli read Discourses on Livy. You have to understand that he was a Roman Republican idealist and The Prince should mostly be read in such fashion.

By people who haven't actually never read the Prince

Wasn't The Prince just a ruse? Didn't he really espouse Republicanism?

>Be Machiavelli
>Write about a bunch of governments
>Your bro the prince wants you to tell him how to rule
> Write him a paper about how to keep power
>Everyone shits on you for the rest of human history as a scumbag who thought doing edgy shit for your own purpose was right.

>"criminals make the best leaders"
Which is not a statement he said

Thank you for correcting me