Is it satire or not?

Yes, name some.

Off the top of my head I can recall that Machiavelli suggested dangerous things such as allowing the populace to own and possess weapons and firearms, along with saying that after conquering a city, a prince should reside in it.

I don't believe it is a complete satire since his suggestion to depend upon one's own forces from the civilian population instead of mercenaries seems to be good advise.

But other parts of the book may be satirical.

>suggested dangerous things such as allowing the populace to own and possess weapons and firearms
I don't see how this is dangerous unless the population really hates you.

I've take a few political science courses that focused on this book.

I honestly think it was just some way to impress a monarch into letting him into their inner workings, day-to-day politics kind of stuff.

said it. It's was a way to show the king that he can help his kingdom somehow via diplomacy or whatever. It's basically a how-to/guide to ruling a kingdom. Nothing more.

Not the guy you're replying to, but it's clearly inconsistent in conjunction with a residing in a city he's just conquered.

*with a prince

If you put that way then that would make sense. But would it be a good idea to eventually re-arm your population after a long period of time or should they remain disarmed until they are part of the military?

Explain autism.

Having all your citizens in the military means that there are no citizens to do other jobs, so your economy struggles. Even if your economy isn't damaged(example being how women entered the workplace because of WWII) you still have to pay them, arm them, etc. In times of peace I think it would be much better to let the populace be armed, so long as you don't see any chance of them rebelling.

No, he lays forth some pretty reasonable principles and limits for rulers. The only 'sabotage' in the book is his insistence on maintaining and using militias made up of citizens rather than mercenaries. But it's been known since the days of the Greeks that tyrants love and employ foreigners more than their own people and it's not like Aristotle had fallen out of common reading by that point. And it's not like he wasn't right in terms of historical evidence, the greatest polities all had citizen soldiers rather than mercenary armies.

I think it was just a Machiavellian look at how power should be wielded if one wished to wield it and maintain it in the long run. There's no doubt that Machiavelli viewed the republic as a superior model of governance but I don't think he lets it cloud his judgment, he's not an idealist and he knows that the princes won't just make a republic because he says so.

He lays out not the recipe for a revolt but one for the slow, steady construction of a civil society. The basis of basically all organs of the state originate in the original state apparatus, the national military. As this society grows, so too will the power of the state it supports. A prince is well served by this expansion of the state's power because he stands atop the state, but as the state grows in depth or in breadth it becomes harder for the prince to maintain his grip over. Then he must either devolve power, resulting in a more Republican system, or be tossed from the cold beast and crushed beneath it, potentially paving the way for a Republic.

But honestly I think M-God would have preferred the prior to the latter. Machaivelli was generally a proponent of stability, to him the Republic wasn't a good form of governance because of some silly sentimental conception of human rights, but because it created the conditions conditions which best permitted human flourishing, the accumulation of Virtù. A population with a great deal of Virtù begot a great state, so this was sort of a positive self sustaining cycle.

If you think it's satire you haven't fucking read it. It's a dry as bones how-to manual for your very own noble kingdom-republic-democracy, and doesn't be afraid of anything

It is not humorous in any way, it's just effective advice for someone wanting to hold power.

Serious answer: don't project modern day morals onto the past. Read your Nietzsche. It doesn't matter much if its satire or not

Both ways of reading it provide some insight. I prefer to take it seriously because several historical figures did the same.

What, dry black humor too smart for old Machiavelli eh?
Maybe its possible its both serious and tongue in cheek, because thats life, isnt it?

Well, people did ended up taking it quite seriously.

>what is historical context

Machiavelli's political philosophy was essentially chauvinistic in that he was first and foremost concerned with Italian sovereignty. He foresaw that the disunited city-state structure would eventually lead to the conquest of Italy by foreign powers. He certainly didn't want the government to collapse.

This. With context this satire nonsense is thrown out the window. The only ones that say satire can't handle his realism.

No, it's information. You haven't read it if you believe Machiavelli was evil or satirically evil.
You need to read his biography and correspondences, as well as his other writings on politics.

It can be taken either way. The uneducated idiot see's the path to absolute power. The educated see a juvenalian satire

It pretty obviously isn't.
Those people are Idiots.

Ironically the most uneducated post in this thread.

>satirefags
He says NOT to arm the populace of newly conquered cities. He's only talking about a "new Prince"'s rise to power with the re-arming. Think the Bolsheviks using the Red Army.

Not quite satire, not quite serious. Basically, Machiavelli himself didn't necessarily agree with all of what he wrote, though I think his words ring true. He basically wrote the Prince to kiss Lorenzo de Medici's ass.

That is the natural state of things. I make everyone feel dumber simply by existing. I'm ever so very, very smart. I'm so very smart that even other very smart people are astonished by how clever, brilliant, intelligent, wise and wonderful I am. Even those who, in other company, would be regarded as geniuses are blinded by the sheer power of my intellect. So you should not feel bad about being slightly less intellectually empowered than me. Everyone is.

I'd say it's actually quite a serious essay on realpolitik yet with some morals. You can tell he loved his country and countrymen, and advocated for stability and sovereignty. To me he was concerned for a vision of the greater good while being realistic.
And yeah, of course he was courting Lorenzo with this book, but he did give him solid advice instead of simply flattering him and it didn't get him any position.

No, here's what satirefags really think:

>he was a republican like me, so he cannot possibly mean these mean things, because people who think like me are never mean

These are the same people that say stuff like
>Democracy is the best system we've got

I literally just wrote an essay on this, I'm convinced it was absolutely terrible. Have one of my paragraphs and roast me boys

>Machiavellianism is unfortunately used in the colloquial sense as a pejorative to determine a man or fictional character as being without moral fibre and categorically ‘evil’ or ’lawfully evil’. However it is my belief that Machiavelli’s political doctrines are tools that are beyond the scope of conventional wisdom regarding good and evil, and instead rely on a presupposition of necessity as the ultimate goal for the best possible functioning of society. Therefore, Machiavelli is not concerned with whether an action is good or bad but if it is practical or conducive to The Prince’s reign. This is affirmed by Machiavelli’s aversion to needless violence and bloodlust, or what he deems as “bad cruelty” in opposition to “good cruelty”.

Time to lay down some KNOWLEDGE

Why do people think Machiavelli was satirical? Because they look to his book, and they look to his republicanism, and think the two impossible to reconcile. They know he was intensely moral, they know he advocated for the good of the people, so how could he write The Prince?

Because his whole central belief is that *order is the greatest good*. He believes that a strong, lawful, prosperous State is the best state the people could be in. THIS IS THE ENDS HE IS TALKING ABOUT WHEN HE SAYS "the ends justifies the means"; making a strong nation does overwhelmingly more good than the bad necessary to create it. Further, he concedes that strong states exist without democracy; he merely thinks democracy is the best, easiest, and most stable method of governing a strong state.

It's not satirical. It's serious. It's also written to persuade you that Democracy Stronk, but that's only the sincere result of his own ideas of how you should govern.

It's ironically sincere.

>Veeky Forums can only manage a serious thread about a tiny book that you can read in 1-2 hours

Pathetic.

And no, it isn't satire.

The more interesting question is whether or not Machiavelli believed what he wrote. Ultimately, that comes down to whether you think he was a patriot or wanted power himself.

One can argue that if the latter is true, which is not unlikely, then he would not have codified the REAL way(s) to obtain/maintain power. He may have been someone who wanted power, and who wrote/acted under the guise of patriotism - and he certainly makes his patriotism evident towards the end where, in his cri de couer, he implores Medici to take his chance for the good of Italy (or if nothing else, their city state at that time).

It wasn't funny the first time.

From what I understand The Prince was a gift to Lorenzo de' Medici, Duke of Urbino. It was also a job application to be an advisor essentially, since I think Machiavelli wanted influence but not necessarily to be on the throne

How? The Prince reviews various models of government and how outside factors could undo a "sure thing"

semi true. one could also say that he still advocates good, because good translates to good PR and needless violence is never productive. I would say plans shown do have good and evil in them, they simply lack empathy and goes with solipsism

>Is it satire or not?
Is it a shitpost or not?