{"id":74910,"date":"2022-07-30T20:44:00","date_gmt":"2022-07-31T00:44:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.shortform.com\/blog\/?p=74910"},"modified":"2022-08-11T10:21:07","modified_gmt":"2022-08-11T14:21:07","slug":"the-prince-niccolo","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.shortform.com\/blog\/the-prince-niccolo\/","title":{"rendered":"The Prince: Niccol\u00f2 Machiavelli’s Instruction Manual"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

What does The Prince<\/em> instruct national leaders to do? Is it an accurate depiction of Renaissance political life?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In The Prince<\/em>, Niccol\u00f2 Machiavelli instructs the reader on how princes may seize, maintain, and defend their power, encouraging them to embrace cruelty and deception as necessary tools in their arsenal. He does this through simple maxims and historical examples.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here’s our overview of the lessons that Machiavelli teaches in The Prince<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Synopsis of The Prince<\/em><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The Prince<\/em> is a 16th-century work of political theory and (possibly) an educational resource aimed at fledging authoritarian leaders<\/a>, or \u201cnew princes.\u201d In The Prince<\/em>, Niccol\u00f2 Machiavelli argues that no action is unjustifiable if it contributes to the overall strength and stability of the government. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Machiavelli was a Florentine author, diplomat, and historian who lived through a period of great social and political upheaval in Renaissance Italy. The Prince<\/em> was the sum of all his experiences in politics as well as a gift offered to Florence\u2019s newly ascended authoritarian leaders in the 1510s, in the hope, or so he claimed, that it would help them lead Italy to greatness. His true intentions have been debated for centuries, and The Prince<\/em> is both the work for which he is best known and his most controversial.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the modern day, Machiavellian<\/em> is used mainly as an insult, describing a treacherous or cutthroat approach to politics. At the same time, many political analysts and scholars invoke Machiavelli\u2019s lessons as a guide to a pragmatic or clear-eyed view of politics, in which other leaders and nations are understood not as idealized symbols but as fundamentally self-interested political actors. The Prince <\/em>doesn\u2019t argue for tyranny but rather that the reader should understand themselves and all other leaders as imperfect people working towards a noble vision\u2014a great state, the unification of disparate territories, the liberation of a people, and so on\u2014and willing to undertake whatever is necessary to achieve it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We’ve consolidated Machiavelli\u2019s 26 lessons into four main sections. The first two provide an explanation of Machiavelli\u2019s core ideas about politics and government organization. The latter two lay out his advice for how a prince should conduct themselves, both generally and when attempting to establish a new state.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Defining Types of Government<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Machiavelli uses the first few chapters of The Prince<\/em> to describe different types of government. Though he begins by stating that all states are either republics or principalities, the book focuses almost exclusively on principalities, discussing how they\u2019re formed and how a prince can keep them stable against both internal and external threats.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Republics vs. Principalities<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Machiavelli does not offer a formal definition of his terms, but, from his descriptions, we can gather that republics are ruled by a group of people<\/strong>, chosen for their positions because of their abilities and that citizens under a republic have some freedom to influence politics<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In contrast, principalities are ruled by a single individual who holds exclusive or near-exclusive power<\/strong>. The position may be hereditary, elected by a council of advisors, or with successors being hand-picked by previous princes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Luck vs. Ability<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Throughout the book, Machiavelli sets up a dichotomy between fortuna<\/em>, meaning fortune or fate, and a prince\u2019s innate skill or ability<\/strong>. According to him, everyone is subject to the whims of luck to some extent. What sets successful princes apart from their peers is that they act decisively against the odds and don\u2019t let bad luck defeat them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Machiavelli contends that up to half of all human events are subject to chance, implying that half are subject to our own will. He argues that what makes a prince truly great is their refusal to let their life be dictated by fortuna<\/em>, either through their adaptability <\/em>or their caution and foresight<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Adaptability<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

A successful prince must be prepared to act differently according to the particular needs or threats that their state faces. Two princes could behave exactly the same way, but because one rules Rome in the third century and the other rules France in the 12th, one will fail where the other succeeds. Machiavelli advises that, when a principality is prosperous and at peace, the prince can be lenient. However, when the principality is at war or suffering economic hardship, the prince may need to be controlling and harsh.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Foresight<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

In Machiavelli\u2019s view, pre-planning and foresight are the most important tools a prince can wield against chance. No matter how stable a principality appears, the prince should never become complacent in times of peace or economic prosperity. They should always anticipate future threats, provide for followers, and be prepared for war at any time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

How Fortuna<\/em> Can Destroy a Prince<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Princes often meet their downfall due to bad luck, but Machiavelli argues that a lack of skill also plays a role in their failure. If the prince had planned ahead better or anticipated threats, they could have endured whatever bad luck came their way. As an example, he cites Cesare Borgia, a notorious Italian prince of the late 1400s and early 1500s.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

How a Prince Should Behave<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

When it comes to how princes should conduct themselves, Machiavelli advises pragmatism.  For him, whether a prince is a good and just ruler or a cruel and tyrannical one<\/strong> matters only inasmuch as it helps or hurts their ability to keep power<\/strong>. However, Machiavelli still believes that princes should have and work towards certain guiding principles<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Machiavellian Virtue<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

For Machiavelli, what makes a prince great is their virt\u00fa<\/a><\/em>, which he defines as their ability to take decisive action and to stand as an individual. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

To appear \u2018virtuous,\u2019 as Machiavelli defines it, a prince shouldn\u2019t aim to appear morally good, but to appear as someone whose continued success can be relied upon. According to Machiavelli, a prince lacking in virt\u00fa<\/em> will eventually lose their state.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Being a Realist<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Machiavelli argues that too many politicians and political theorists approach questions of rule with idealism rather than a realistic sense of the problems they face. Princes should strive to rule effectively rather than to create a utopian government. Princes should act according to necessity and circumstance and be prepared to do the wrong thing if it means preserving the principality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Value of Deceit<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Interestingly, while Machiavelli argues that princes shouldn\u2019t be concerned with behaving<\/em> morally, he says they should be very concerned with appearing <\/em>moral<\/strong>. Princes should strive to have a reputation of being just, loyal, kind, generous, and religious. (Machiavelli particularly emphasizes the need for a leader to appear religious<\/em>, even if they don\u2019t truly subscribe to religious principles.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Balancing People and Peers<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Examining princes who have fallen from power, Machiavelli observes that a prince needs to strike a delicate balance between keeping the love and support of the people they rule, and keeping the love and support of those who aid them in ruling, be they nobility, a council of advisors, potential successors, military leaders, and so on. That said, Machiavelli argues that the support of the people is always more valuable and should take priority<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Being Feared, Rather Than Loved<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Machiavelli\u2019s adage that it\u2019s better to be feared by people than loved by them is one of The Prince<\/em>\u2019s most infamous lessons. His justification for this idea is simple: Obedience due to love and affection is unreliable, while obedience due to fear is not<\/strong>. People are inherently disloyal, and no matter how much love they have for a prince, they may betray him if they believe it\u2019s in their best interest, or even in the best interest of the state.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

How to Form a State<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Because Machiavelli wrote The Prince <\/em>primarily for new princes, he dedicates several chapters to the question of how a prince should approach conquering and then organizing the territory that they intend to make into their principality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Building Up Armed Forces<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Machiavelli distinguishes three types of armies: hired <\/em>forces, borrowed <\/em>forces, and personal <\/em>forces. He cautions princes to avoid hired forces, to be wary of borrowed forces, and to opt for personal forces when possible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Developing a personal army has several advantages: The prince relies solely on their own resources<\/strong>, they have full control over how their army is organized and run, and they can enforce loyalty<\/strong> within the ranks through a combination of legal structures (such as making desertion a crime) and social shaming (encouraging the populace to see military service as part of their patriotic duty).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Princes should not just be the heads of their states on the civilian side of things; they should be seen as military leaders.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Choosing Advisors<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Machiavelli advises that princes should surround themselves with reliable government officials who can assist them in ruling the state by forming a kind of advisory council. In contrast to a traditional nobility, where positions are inherited through families who have a historical claim to their position, the power of advisors should be conditional and come solely from their relationship to the prince<\/strong>. Advisors should feel confident in telling the truth, but should only do so when asked. For their part, a prince should treat their advisors with respect, but it must be understood by all that the prince makes the final decisions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Winning Over the People<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Machiavelli sees a loyal populace as one of the most valuable tools a prince can have. In turn, he warns that a prince who is hated by their people can never hold on to power for long<\/strong>. A populace will rise to overthrow a hated prince, and no amount of brutality can crush that kind of popular movement forever. Machiavelli also suggests that a prince who is resented by their subjects is more vulnerable to outside threats.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Machiavelli believes that most people aspire only to a safe, prosperous, and comfortable life. If a new prince can offer them that, then the people will fall in line. In that vein, he offers several suggestions for how a new prince can win over the populace after establishing their principality:<\/p>\n\n\n\n