History Creator / NiccoloMachiavelli

----

Hegel argued that ''The Prince'' was written for a certain time and certain locale and to judge it based on contemporary morality and from the perspective of someone living in a unified nation state was unfair. Since the mid-twentieth century, the most common interpretation of ''The Prince'' is that it simply describes, as Francis Bacon said, "what men do, and not what they ought to do" and that it is the first true work to deal with politics as a branch of science and not ethics. Another misinterpretation of Machiavelli is seeing him as someone who wrote for the benefit of [insert favorite mass murdering tyrant here]. This is unfair to Machiavelli considering that someone like Hitler doesn't need a centuries dead philosopher to give him permission to go on a murderous rampage, whereas a democratic leader with a strong moral compass like Abe Lincoln or Winston Churchill might have doubts about what their duties as a leader are. And, for that matter, Machiavelli would probably have approved of pragmatic democratic statesmen like [[UsefulNotes/RichardNixon Nixon]] or [[UsefulNotes/BenjaminDisraeli Disraeli]] more than insane ideologues like Hitler or Stalin.

* ''The Golden Ass'' (1517): Not an original work, but a translation of a novel by the Roman Apuleius.

* ''Manga/CesareIlCreatoreCheHaDistrutto'' has Cesare Borgia and Machiavelli meeting much earlier than they did in real life. In the manga, Cesare is 16 and in school, and Machiavelli is a spy for Florence, infiltrating the Dominican order of monks. This manga is also unique in that it portrays Cesare as a philosopher, and shows him studying history and the political theories of Dante, trying to understand the ideal balance of power between the Church and temporal states. He comes to the conclusion that as much of Italy as possible should be unified, to protect it from invasion by other, more powerful countries. Essentially, it's saying that Cesare's motives in his later actions were something other than greed and self-glorification. And if you read the final chapter of ''The Prince'', Machiavelli says the same thing, and basically begs the new Medici duke to pick up where Cesare left off, for the sake of Italy. In 2022, a second [[SpinOff gaiden]] was announced, named after the poem by Petrarch that Machiavelli quotes in the very end of ''The Prince''.

->''"Anyone who studies present and ancient affairs will easily see how in all cities and all peoples there still exist...the same desires and passions. Thus, it is an easy matter for him who carefully examines past events to foresee future events... But since these matters are neglected... or, if understood, remain unknown to those who govern, the result is that the same problems always exist in every era."''

* ThePlan: While Machiavelli was in the government of republican Florence, Pisa was in revolt. Machiavelli concocted a ploy to divert the Arno River away from Pisa and consulted none other than Creator/LeonardoDaVinci for the purpose. The engineering of the day was not up to par for the project, however, and the plan was scrapped.

* {{Cuckold}}: The plot of his comedy ''The Mandrake'' revolves around convincing the hapless Messer Nicia to let the AntiHero Callimaco ''willingly'' sleep with his wife.

Already in the 18th Century, it was fashionable among Enlightenment philosophers to regard Machiavelli as their inspiration. Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a major admirer of his works and was among the first to suggest that ''The Prince'' need not be taken at face value and he regarded Machiavelli as a republican. The founding fathers of the United States were also familiar with his writings; UsefulNotes/JamesMadison in particular was deeply interested in Machiavelli's theories, and may have had them in mind both in his drafts for the Virginia Plan (which, ''heavily'' modified, became the [[UsefulNotes/AmericanPoliticalSystem United States Constitution]]) and in his contributions to the ''Federalist Papers''.

Hegel argued that it was written for a certain time and certain locale and to judge it based on contemporary morality and from the perspective of someone living in a unified nation state was unfair. Since the mid-twentieth century, the most common interpretation of ''The Prince'' is that it simply describes as Francis Bacon said, "what men do, and not what they ought to do" and that it is the first true work to deal with politics as a branch of science and not ethics. Another misinterpretation of Machiavelli is seeing him as someone who wrote for the benefit of [insert favorite mass murdering tyrant here]. This is unfair to Machiavelli considering that someone like Hitler doesn't need a centuries dead philosopher to give him permission to go on a murderous rampage, whereas a democratic leader with a strong moral compass like Abe Lincoln or Winston Churchill might have doubts about what their duties as a leader are. And, for that matter, Machiavelli would probably have approved of pragmatic democratic statesmen like [[UsefulNotes/RichardNixon Nixon]] or [[UsefulNotes/BenjaminDisraeli Disraeli]] more than insane ideologues like Hitler or Stalin.

However, one must be careful not to assume that Machiavelli was truly pro-democracy. In ''Discourses on Livy'', he takes the time to state that pure democracy isn't a great idea either, and the best form of government is one that combines democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy so that the different social classes can keep each other in check. On the other hand, the liberal movement which (openly or otherwise) adopted Machiavelli's philosophy more or less took the same opinion. Indeed, modern representative democracy would rather please Machiavelli, as it more or less reflects his ideals (a popularly-elected legislature is ''not'' a democracy as he understood it, but close enough to serve in the position in his three-in-one system;[[note]]To elaborate, Machiavelli considered Rome the model, and Rome was a single small republic that conquered and collected tribute from other city-states and thus could have a direct-democratic element in the city. The idea of ''representative'' government was essentially an English invention, and the idea that the territory of a republic could--indeed, ''should''--encompass thousands upon thousands of square miles was straight from the mind of UsefulNotes/JamesMadison--who, again, made no bones about his interest in Machiavelli.[[/note]] the modern investment of a great deal of power in [[UsefulNotes/AmericanPoliticalSystem directly-elected presidents]] and [[UsefulNotes/BritishPoliticalSystem indirectly-elected prime ministers]] is a pretty good approximation of his idea of "monarchy"; and both the role of less-representative upper legislative houses--like the US Senate and British Lords--and small, well-educated judicial courts are close to his concept of "aristocracy").

* MyCountryRightOrWrong: Machiavelli was a proto-{{patriot|icFervor}} who wanted a united Italy at a time when no one else particularly thought it was possible. He hated the fact that the FeudingFamilies of the various city states and their reliance on PrivateMilitaryContractors [[CrapsackWorld had left Italy open to plunder]] from neighboring kingdoms. One reason why historians feel that Machiavelli was so forgiving to Cesare Borgia was that the latter at least mounted an attempt to unify Italy under the Papal States. Hence he wrote [[Literature/ThePrince a book]] about how a dastardly, wickedly cunning, violent man would be a good ruler. Of course Machiavelli would have ideally preferred a Republic, built on a civilian army, like the one that he had built for the Florence, which succeeded in keeping the city Medici-free until 1512. The fact was that a Republic in the 1500s could not have united a large area of land, and Machiavelli knew that. It wouldn't become a possibility until UsefulNotes/TheEnlightenment and the UsefulNotes/WarsOfItalianIndependence that followed the former.

Hegel argued that it was written for a certain time and certain locale and to judge it based on contemporary morality and from the perspective of someone living in a unified nation state was unfair. Since the mid-twentieth century, the most common interpretation of ''The Prince'' is that it simply describes as Francis Bacon said, "what men do, and not what they ought to do" and that it is the first true work to deal with politics as a branch of science and not ethics. Another unfair misinterpretation of Machiavelli is seeing him as someone who wrote for the benefit of [insert favorite mass murdering tyrant here]. This is unfair to Machiavelli considering that someone like Hitler doesn't need a centuries dead philosopher to give him permission to go on a murderous rampage, whereas a democratic leader with a strong moral compass like Abe Lincoln or Winston Churchill might have doubts about what their duties as a leader are. And, for that matter, Machiavelli would probably have approved of pragmatic democratic statesmen like [[UsefulNotes/RichardNixon Nixon]] or [[UsefulNotes/BenjaminDisraeli Disraeli]] more than insane ideologues like Hitler or Stalin.

Like many of that era, Machiavelli believed that AncientRome was the peak of human civilization, particularly the Roman Republic, and he often uses its example to illustrate political points. Indeed, he can be seen as rejecting "Christian" ideas of thinkers like Augustine--politics must be understood through a higher form of knowledge, private and public morals should be consistent, history is linear and purposeful, etc.--for "pagan" ones of thinkers like Aristotle--history is cyclical, politics must be understood on its own terms, states and leaders behave differently from private citizens. Interesting enough, this is a dichotomy that is still relevant today: compare the Clash of Civilizations and the End of History with Greco-Roman and Christian political thought, respectively.

* In the AlternateHistory novel ''Pasquale's Angel'' by Paul J. McAuley (set in a ClockPunk-Rennaisance Florence) he appears as an investigative reporter helping the protagonist solve a murder.

* BornInTheWrongCentury: He shared the [[RenaissanceMan Renaissance mentality]] of being several centuries ahead of his time and of wanting to live in AncientRome, and sometimes dressed up in a toga. Interesting because he is born either after his time or ahead of it--or both. Centuries later, UsefulNotes/MaximilienRobespierre said that "The plan of the UsefulNotes/FrenchRevolution was written large in the books of Machiavelli."

* MyCountryRightOrWrong: Machiavelli was a proto-[[PatrioticFervor patriot]] who wanted a united Italy at a time when no one else particularly thought it was possible. He hated the fact that the FeudingFamilies of the various city states and their reliance on PrivateMilitaryContractors [[CrapsackWorld had left Italy open to plunder]] from neighboring kingdoms. One reason why historians feel that Machiavelli was so forgiving to Cesare Borgia was that the latter at least mounted an attempt to unify Italy under the Papal States. Hence why he wrote [[Literature/ThePrince a book]] about how a dastardly, wickedly cunning, violent man would be a good ruler. Of course Machiavelli would have ideally preferred a Republic, built on a civilian army, like the one that he had built for the Florence, which succeeded in keeping the city Medici-free until 1512. The fact was that a Republic in the 1500s could not have united a large area of land, and Machiavelli knew that. It wouldn't become a possibility until UsefulNotes/TheEnlightenment and the UsefulNotes/WarsOfItalianIndependence that followed the former.