So when does The Prince get good?

Most information is not relevant unless you have an interest in politics (current doesn't count, more in general). You'll never be in a situation to overtake a city state, being brought in by the lower nobles to replace the sovereign. Fuck the people, the established nobles are accepted so you'll be accepted by assiociation. Who can relate to that?
The thing most people hope to read, Machiavellian methods to maybe get that promotion or that girl they've been eyeing are (obviously) not discussed. It takes effort to draw conclusions about modern life. Maybe you could get that CEO position by faring well with middle management.

Well. u can use that info on total war series

It's a good window into the politics of the time but not good for much else
The fact that people use it as a spiritual guidebook is embarrassing

>it gets interesting at around chapter 12-14.
This is either absolute truth or an epic troll. I can't tell which.

I found it quite enjoyable. Not really useful in any way though.

>reading it for chapters that are applicable today
>not reading it for renaissance military strategy

Reddit is that way my friend, and please don't come back.

Let him, he'll probably raise mercenaries when my levies, speaking his language, besiege him.

>People who think 'Il Princepipe' is a manual for how to get your boss to give you a raise

>People who think 'Il Princepipe' is a work of serious Political Realism

>People who think 'Il Princepipe' was anything other than a parody

Read it to avoid misinterpreting Mach's philosophy (which is shown fairly clearly in chapters 15 and after).

You have to be pretty fucking stupid to think that Il Principe was a parody.

It's genuinely true. Not that guy.

Apply what it talks about on a micro level. Obviously we're not going to use the tactics to take over a city state in today's world. The points he makes about being feared rather than loved or hated is still relevant. Also taking sides to make allies can still be applied politics on a personal level. (Not talking government politics). I haven't read it completely only pick it up an read a section every now and then so I don't know everything it talks about, but it's relevant

Look OP there are some books you read, and there are some books you say you read while actually reading a summary. This book is the latter, just like Sun Tsu, Clausewitz etc.

checked

The art of warns fedora tier but has some actually insightful parables
The Prince is katana collection tier

The Prince was written primarily as an insult so subtle he hoped that it would not only fly and give him his position back, but make the Medici's look like fools for the rest of time.

To get a good grasp of The Prince you must understand the times and context in which it is written, which most of Veeky Forums cannot. This is more of a Veeky Forums question, which I happen to be qualified on.

If you think The Prince (a book that can be read in maybe two hours) is 'boring' (while he's describing how people fucked over other people in the most hilarious ways) then you need to just stop reading and kill yourself.

>using Rousseau's interpretation that it's all satire
What a pleb.

Don't listen to this faggot OP, The Prince is not even that long or boring. Keep in mind that the guy was basically creating political science with that book. It talks about power from the very begining, you just have to pay attention. Read some kind of analysis on the internet or some shit like that if you want to fully grasp it

chapter 17 i believe

I'm shocked by how high the quality of Wikipedia's summary is. Go use that if you want.

It gets good when you thoroughly understand everything he's talking about in its historical context. If you don't even know who any of the people are in it then yeah it will bore the shit out of you.

trolls. Don't listen OP.

Clausewitz is worth d reading though if you are interested in history and military strategy.

Art of war is a shitty collection of fortune cookie wisdom. At least it's short.

>At least it's short.
I've heard the same said about The Prince.

I used to agree with you OP. it took me forever to get through this little book bc I thought it was drop dead boring, and I didn't feel any better after I finished it. if you go on to read more political theory you'll figure out what all the hype is about, though. Machiavelli is actually incisive af, it's just hard to see what he's doing unless you're looking through a fairly wide lense.

So he was really more of a republican right? I heard it's more of a hypothetical/theoretical exposition of leadership but he actually leaned toward small government
One of my favourite minds said he's read The Prince multiple times so I guess I need to read it

>nothing but military strategy and advice that is far too dated to be applicable today
>far too dated
Gave yourself away there, my trollish friend.
The concepts within the Prince are timeless.

>predates America
>Republican

Niccolo Machiavelli's earlier, better, work was Discorsi. In it he analyzed the works of Titus Livy and discussed Republics, which Machiavelli seemed to approve of in general.
Or are you one of those Americans that think 'Republican' refers to a particular American political party only...?