The Prince
Ratings292
Average rating3.7
Bellissimo ragionamento su come gestire rapporti, persone, e la sorte come un fiume in piena. 8
Given its reputation - they named a personality trait after the guy - I expected this essay to be more cold, calculated and manipulative. In reality, while it is cold in places, I think it is more of a schemer's guide than strongman's guide. Worth the read/listen. It was interesting, the translation seemed excellent (would I know if it wasn't?).
Finally I got down to reading the overquoted book. I read it in a day and I wasn't disappointed. The best summary of the book is to always be ruthless. Ruthless leaders succeed while benevolent ones struggle to maintain control of their territories.
Pretty good book. It has a nice mix between political advice, classical history and medieval history.
As a history buff I enjoyed it and it was a really short read so I'd recommend anyone to read it.
Es un libro que cuesta entenderle por las muchas referencias a sucesos de la historia de las que uno no esta familiarizado, tiene muchos consejos que se van encontrando en los que uno tiene que ser habil en abstraerlos y conceptualizarlos a su epoca.
I was expecting something different from what I'd heard in school. I thought this book was all about being a an oppressive dictator. I think it would have been very helpful to have recently done a world history class as many of the references were not familiar to me. I agree with the assessment that this book is more about being pragmatic. Sure it's not a book about being a benevolent ruler but it's more about how to realistically rule successfully. I actually learned a lot from it about politics and found it very interesting.
I feel everyone needs to read it, cause unlike what i expected (some set of rule book for Princes à la Art of War) it's more of a History analysis on how powers came to be, and why they succeeded or failed. It's eye opening, realizing that the political strategies are still the same, and how we're all still being played in the Machiavellian machinations of nations.
Well, for starters, this book goes well beyond the sentence “Do whatever it takes to win.” Detractors, chiefly those who want morality to rule all dealings, paint this book as advocating stabbing everyone else in the back at the earliest possible convenience. They take the whole book as being the line “It is better to be feared than loved.” In reality, the book is so much more than this.
As has been stated ad nauseum by others, this book is ultimately about realpolitik. Bottom line, others will stab you in the back, so you need to be prepared for it and be willing to stab others in the back yourself. It doesn't advocate breaking alliances but says that there will be times that doing so is necessary, as will be breaking one's word. Anyone who thinks honesty is the best policy at all times is living a fantasy. Anyone who lets their hated boss know what they really think of them is likely to find themselves not working for this boss sooner than they had planned.
Finally, surprisingly, he is a big fan of the people. He states in several sections that it is more important to have the people on one's side than the nobility, if for no other reason that the nobles have more means to depose the prince, while the people outnumber the nobles. Whoa, betide the aristocracy of today if the masses were ever to remember this seemingly obvious fact.
Some criticisms, the thoughts do seem a little swingy in places. He seems to be a fan of republics, but then in portions of the Discourses, included in this edition, he says that republics oppress their people, while claiming that princes do not. In the meantime, in the Prince, he is a fan of republics. When he claims that multitudes are more constant than masses, he seems to jump through quite a few hoops and does quite a bit of cherry picking to “prove” this. and I'll grant that he did this because both of these works had intended audiences and purposes, but one should be aware of this fact as they're reading either one. I also wonder how one would take modern nationalism and mass media into account. Obviously, we can't fault him for not knowing that newspapers, and then radio, and then television, and finally the internet right on portable viewing devices, but these technologies make it very different how the people are impacted. In his view, the people won't care who the ruler is so long as they can prosper, but we see how proud modern people are to be American, or French, or Japanese, or whatever. I think these change the reality from anything he could have discerned from his time.
All in all, this is a must-read. The only thing, I would suggest a different edition. Daniel Donno, the translator of this edition, says he omitted some chapters that related to the military. Presumably, this is because they discuss military tactics and technology, which have obviously both moved on since Machiavelli's day, but I can't tell because they're not in this edition. Donno stated that he felt those chapters would be of little interest to modern (1966) readers, however, I would prefer to make that choice myself. I would also prefer to read the Discourses in their entirety rather than the piecemeal selections included here.
Evil for sure, but nonetheless brilliant, almost shocking in its pragmatism.
O Príncipe de Maquiavel é considerado como o primeiro tratado político, ou pelo menos o tratado mais antigo que se aproxima ao que hoje reconhecemos como tratado político, e tal é patente ao longo de toda a obra que disserta vários pontos interessantes mas muito específicos ao objetivo da obra.
Há que relembrar que este livro foi escrito com o intuito de ensinar as melhores técnicas para tratar um principado do século XVI em Itália, (é claro não sendo exclusivo a tal pois muitas das suas lições podem ser aplicadas em outros locais do mundo desde que sejam principados) por isso transportar estas palavras para a política moderna é complicado e falta muitos pontos, mas os pontos que estão revelam um caracter de líder autoritário mas não totalitário visto que o príncipe deve ser muito perguntador aos seus conselheiros e fundamentar a sua base no povo. Podiamos argumentar que Maquiavel se revela um autoritário populista nesta obra, mas tal seria errado. Também não podemos argumentar que se trata de um despota por completo. Por fim o melhor termo que pode ser aplicado (usando um compasso político moderno) é o de Nacional-Conservador. Ou seja nacionalista/populista pois sabe que um príncipe que se fundamenta no povo está mais seguro, mas conservador pois terá (e deverá querer) manter o seu lugar mesmo que tenha que alterar a ordem das coisas.
4.5 stars.
As I start to read classics that often get quoted or even immortalised as a synonym, I realised how warped such references can get. “Machiavellian” is another word for evil or scheming. As I read this, it shows how context matters. The state of political affairs in Italy was such that a ruler either held on to power or get killed by either enemies or the dissatisfied people. The book lays out Machiavelli's suggestions on how to retain authority over subjects and not be conquered by foreign kingdoms. It is hard not to feel sorry for this guy's bad rep - he did use many fair and fleshed-out historical examples to justify why he thought what a ruler ought to do. To be fair, he did give a disclaimer in the opening of the book that the strategies and savoir he has laid out here are applicable only to monarchies.
Tim Parks' translation for Penguin is easy to read. It is not word by word but captures the spirit in contemporary language. Some might find the language a little too contemporary, but I enjoyed the simplicity of it. This is not one of those works where individual words' translation have great bearing on the interpretation. The Penguin classic hardcover version is a perfect size to hold and the font choice and formatting were extremely comfortable to read. Highly recommend this version.
Ahora me siento preparado para cuando sea mayor y me convierta en principe de una ciudad-estado italiana.
Maquiavelo no se corta un pelo y dice lo que todos pensamos que una persona con poder piensa pero no nos lo confesamos a nosotros mismos.
Es mejor que te amen o que te teman? Maquiavelo dice: que te teman
Hay que ser religioso? Maquiavelo dice: hay que aparentar ser religioso y piadoso pero pasarse la religion por la piedra cuando la ocasion lo requiera
Cuando se conquista una ciudad? Hay que matar a toda la familia del principe anterior.
Mercenarios? Nunca. Ten tu propias fuerzas.
Etc.
No tiene perdida, sobre todo por el gran impacto en tanta gente a lo largo de la historia.
incrivel como faz sentido depois de 500 anos, mesmo sendo produto da epoca e local.
Dude was a badass.
So pragmatic, shrewd, and terrifyingly efficient was Machiavelli's advice for ruling, can see how he got his reputation. His writings here are filled with cold calculation that would make any supervillian proud. If you are looking to write about a character's rise to power and glory, you would do well to read this little gem and have the character heed Machiavelli's advice here. Or not. That would be fun as well.
Not at all what I was expecting. “Machiavellian” is used so often to describe cut-throat behaviour that you would think the book would be more relevant to general life principles. Sadly, it is really intended for princes and those in monarchies. Unless you are looking for an obscure history lesson in 15th century Italy, I would find something more relevant.
I had always heard about Machiavelli's writings but, up until now, never read them. Truth be told, I probably wouldn't have if not for my leadership degree program, but I'm glad I did. Some might consider it ruthless, degrading to women, etc., but you have to consider the time in which it was written. The basic message throughout the book is that the prince (i.e. leader) must be [b:ready for anything 2581 Ready for Anything 52 Productivity Principles for Work and Life David Allen http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1161107581s/2581.jpg 6547] and able to conform to/manipulate any situation. Pretty hefty task, but Machiavelli is on point when he claims it necessary.
This is a good read if you are interested in how one might rule over people. It has many interesting parallels with current times as well, and that makes it well worth a bit of your time. Though what people take away from it is generally the crude generalization that being strong is better than being loved, it's actually much more complicated than that.