The Prince and cynical Italians.

A thread relating to critiques and defenses of Niccolo Machiavelli and his works, but particularly The Prince, which has been of interest on the forums under the erosion of civil liberties thread.

Take it away folks.

The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.

If it's a parody or a satire, it royally sucks at fulfilling this function.

Before you mention the part about Scipio, explain the part about Agathocles.

Kill all math nerds

Machievelli was a smart guy, but people tend to forget that he was writing specifically about how autocracies should be run; he wrote another book about how to run republics.

Currently taking a break from the site. See my user page for more information.

Which book was that?

The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.

The Discourses on Livy. Machiavelli even mentions having written about republics in the introduction to The Prince.

Currently taking a break from the site. See my user page for more information.

Myrmidon, it may suck as a satire now, but that doesn't mean that it was a bad satire at the time, only that the political climate has changed so much that it doesn't work anymore because we've completely lost the frame of reference necessary to see the satire.

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

But it wasn't a satire to begin with.

Currently taking a break from the site. See my user page for more information.

That's under debate. See, the book was written but often shows moodswings within it that may point towards the fact that while Machiavelli believed in what he wrote when he began, he eventually began to change his view and deconstruct his previous view in favor of a republic which he then wrote about next.

Satire might not be the proper word for it, but much of what he suggests is quite questionable, such as the "When dealing with another prince, if he appears to have a malicious intent, strike first before he can." Not word for word, but the general idea was there.

edited 8th May '11 2:11:45 PM by Usht

The thing about making witty signature lines is that it first needs to actually be witty.

Isn't that common sense? Sun Tzu advocates the same thing; attack your enemies plans first, his alliances and finally his armies after.

The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.

Not quite, see, it basically advocates that if there's even a hint of suspicion, you should just out right attack. While it does mention negotiations, it's quick to say that it's always better to make relationships stronger than a flimsy deal that can be easily undone. In other words, strike down those who around you and allies? Made by conquering them.

The thing about making witty signature lines is that it first needs to actually be witty.

Machiavelli's main purpose was getting some serious unification going before the other European nations (and, of course, the Papacy) conquered the prosperous Italian city-states. As it eventually happened, by the way.

He would have preferred a republic, definitely; but he was all right with some autocrat too, as long as he got the job done. That's also at least part of the reason for the ruthlessness of his advice: he really saw the situation as near-desperate, and the city-states as much too soft, divided and militarily inept to withstand France, Spain and the Holy Roman Empire.

edited 8th May '11 2:28:59 PM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Well, at the time Machiavelli wrote (North) Italy still belonged to the HRE, officially. In the loosest possible way of "officially", but still...

Anyway, I don't buy it's satire. The advise he gives - well, I wouldn't always agree with it even leaving ethical questions aside, but it certainly looks like valid advice. Advice people might really give, and not trolling suggestions.

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

I ahve read The Prince and from what I understood, when placed against context of time it was written, Machiavellis main goal seems have been to promote unity in Italy. At the time, msot italian armies were mercenaries, which Machiavelli loathed.

Also, he does not promote shameless and useless evil like it's usualy potrayed, he promoted cunning and putting good of the state in first. He does not say "Opress poor For Evulz", but if situation demands it, go for it, "End justifies means". Altough being loved is good and all, he says that it is better to be feared, as fear is better against those who wish to remove you.

Survival of the state is the main message of The Prince. I haven't his other books, so I can't say is it truly parody or straight up "this is reuler italy needs". Remember, by the time The Prince was written, Italy was bunch of city states and Vatican.

Not 'better'. Safer. "The answer is that one would like to be both the one and the other; but because it is difficult to combine them, it is far safer to be feared than loved if you cannot be both." Wanting to be loved rather than feared is great, and idealistic, and warm-and-fuzzy, but it doesn't work.

And he's all about being practical rather than idealistic. "I have thought it is proper to represent thing as they are in a real truth, rather than as they are imagined."

edited 8th May '11 3:00:53 PM by Madrugada

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

Better wording than mine.

Also, I like how he promotes that being feared is good, but being hated is sure way to get yourself killed. Goal is to be feared, yet not hated. Which, while technically not impossible, is quite hard actualy.

Anyone read Discourses on Livy? I haven't, and I'm curious.

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.

^^ The Prince seems to me like a well written version of the evil overlord list.

That's actually a great description. Not that the list isn't well-written itself, of course.

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.

I see it as neither satirical or sincere, but rather as a suck-up to those in power at the time.

At first I didn't realize I needed all this stuff...

nightwyrm zero: Considering that at some point down the list you stop being evil, and head over to Lawful Evil.... I am not sure.
The entire downfall of the evil overlord is that he forgot to keep the plague in check and make sure the poor is not starving. At some point the evil overlord is just another king, and not a evil overlord.

A guy called dvorak is tired. Tired of humanity not wanting to change to improve itself. Quite the sad tale.

I don't see the book as a satire myself. I agree that Machiavelli's great obsession was uniting Italy from foreign domination and he thought that the ends justified the means, like a lot of people with radical objectives. Also, you have to see him in his context. A lot of the philosophy for hundreds of years before was written by Christian clerics and the political side of it was all about the relationship between Church and State and how Christian kings should behave. Machiavelli says, "Forget the religious doctrine, forget the Church, except as a powerful human institution - what matters is what people actually do to keep power, not what they should do." He's a humanist, in that sense (although he was personally conventional in his religious views).

"Well, it's a lifestyle"

@P: It didn't work, if that's the case.

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.

I actually got a copy of The Prince a while back and was planning on reading it here more for entertainment than anything else.

Oh... and here's a picture for those of you who are on the "satire/trolling" side of the fence: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/836/theprince.png/

WHAT A HORRIBLE NIGHT TO HAVE A DIALOG BOX INTERRUPT GAMEPLAY.

It's pretty obviously a satire. There's some pretty definitive quotes in it and the Discourses on Livy that I'll gather when I get back, but as a warm up:

Uniting Italy in Machiavelli's time was as much of a pipe dream as uniting the Middle East would be today. Nobody who wanted any credibility as a realist would mention it.

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1

Some quotes coming up!

---

From The Prince:

Keep in mind when you read this that Scipio Africanus was the general who beat Hannibal, and did so largely by swinging crucial parts of Hannibal's army over to his side:
Among the wonderful deeds of Hannibal this one is enumerated: that having led an enormous army, composed of many various races of men, to fight in foreign lands, no dissensions arose either among them or against the prince, whether in his bad or in his good fortune. This arose from nothing else than his inhuman cruelty, which, with his boundless valour, made him revered and terrible in the sight of his soldiers, but without that cruelty, his other virtues were not sufficient to produce this effect. And shortsighted writers admire his deeds from one point of view and from another condemn the principal cause of them. That it is true his other virtues would not have been sufficient for him may be proved by the case of Scipio, that most excellent man, not of his own times but within the memory of man, against whom, nevertheless, his army rebelled in Spain; this arose from nothing but his too great forbearance, which gave his soldiers more licence than is consistent with military discipline. For this he was upbraided in the Senate by Fabius Maximus, and called the corrupter of the Roman soldiery. The Locrians were laid waste by a legate of Scipio, yet they were not avenged by him, nor was the insolence of the legate punished, owing entirely to his easy nature. Insomuch that someone in the Senate, wishing to excuse him, said there were many men who knew much better how not to err than to correct the errors of others. This disposition, if he had been continued in the command, would have destroyed in time the fame and glory of Scipio; but, he being under the control of the Senate, this injurious characteristic not only concealed itself, but contributed to his glory.

---

From the Discourses on Livy:
Book 1, Chapter 58 is a long shpiel for republics and against princes. I want to draw particular attention to this line:
Further, we find that those cities wherein the government is in the hands of the people, in a very short space of time, make marvellous progress, far exceeding that made by cities which have been always ruled by princes; as Rome grew after the expulsion of her kings, and Athens after she freed herself from Pisistratus; and this we can ascribe to no other cause than that the rule of a people is better than the rule of a prince.

Another one. Note that this one proves he can't have wanted a prince to unify Italy in the first sentence (from book 2 chapter 2):
It is easy to understand whence this love of liberty arises among nations, for we know by experience that States have never signally increased, either as to dominion or wealth, except where they have lived under a free government. And truly it is strange to think to what a pitch of greatness Athens came during the hundred years after she had freed herself from the despotism of Pisistratus; and far stranger to contemplate the marvellous growth which Rome made after freeing herself from her kings. The cause, however, is not far to seek, since it is the well-being, not of individuals, but of the community which makes a State great; and, without question, this universal well-being is nowhere secured save in a republic. For a republic will do whatsoever makes for its interest; and though its measures prove hurtful to this man or to that, there are so many whom they benefit, that these are able to carry them out, in spite of the resistance of the few whom they injure.

But the contrary happens in the case of a prince; for, as a rule, what helps him hurts the State, and what helps the State hurts him; so that whenever a tyranny springs up in a city which has lived free, the least evil which can befall that city is to make no further progress, nor ever increase in power or wealth; but in most cases, if not in all, it will be its fate to go back.

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1