Machiavelli's The Prince?

Question

I read things about this and don't understand it.

What is Machiavelli's advice to political leaders?

Answer 1

The entire book is his advice to political leaders.  Read it, and you'll get the answer to your question.

Answer 2

I started reading the book. But stopped. But I think its a guide to how a prince should rule a country. Whether he be a favorable ruler or a fierce ruler. But it still relates to how people can lead to this day...

Answer 3

Divide and conquer my friend!

Answer 4

do not feelings or conscience cloud your judgement

Answer 5

Machiavelli's best known work is The Prince, in which he describes the arts by which a Prince (a ruler) can retain control of his realm. He focuses primarily on what he calls the principe nuovo or "new prince", under the assumption that a hereditary prince has an easier task since the people are accustomed to him. All a hereditary prince needs to do is carefully maintain the institutions that the people are used to; a new prince has a much more difficult task since he must stabilize his newfound power and build a structure that will endure. This task requires the Prince to be publicly above reproach but privately may require him to do things of an evil nature in order to achieve his goals.

The Prince is different from other books about creating and controlling principalities because it doesn't tell the reader what an ideal prince or principality is. Machiavelli explains through examples which princes are the most successful in obtaining and maintaining power. He draws his examples from personal observations made while he was on diplomatic missions for Florence and from his readings in ancient history. His writing has the mark of the Renaissance upon it because he sprinkles his text with Latin phrases and many examples are drawn from Classical sources.

A careless reading of The Prince could easily lead one to believe that its central argument is "the ends justify the means" - which is a teleological philosophical view ("telos" is Greek for ends) - that any evil action can be justified if it is done for a good purpose. This is a limited interpretation, however, because Machiavelli placed a number of restrictions on evil actions. First, he specified that the only acceptable end was the stabilization and health of the state; individual power for its own sake is not an acceptable end and does not justify evil actions. Second, Machiavelli does not dispense entirely with morality nor advocate wholesale selfishness or degeneracy. Instead he clearly lays out his definition of, for example, the criteria for acceptable cruel actions (it must be swift, effective, and short-lived). Notwithstanding the mitigating themes in The Prince, the Catholic Church put the work in its Index Librorum Prohibitorum and it was viewed in a negative light by many Humanists such as Erasmus.

The primary contribution of "The Prince" to the history of political thought is its fundamental break between realism and idealism. While Machiavelli emphasized the need for morality, the sole motivation of the prince ought to be the use of good and evil solely as instrumental means rather than ends in themselves. A wise prince is one who properly exercises this proper balance. Pragmatism is a guiding thread through which Machiavelli bases his philosophy. The Prince should be read strictly as a guidebook on getting to and preserving power. In contrast with Plato and Aristotle, the ideal society is not the aim. In fact, Machiavelli emphasizes the need for the exercise of brute power where necessary and rewards, patron-clientalism etc. to preserve the status quo. Machiavelli's assumption, that human nature is fundamentally flawed, is also reflected in the need for brute force to attain practical ends. Complete trust and faith in one's subjects is not sustainable. This is very similar to the ideas of the Legalist school of thought practiced during the Qin Dynasty, 16 centuries earlier.

The term "Machiavellian" was adopted by some of Machiavelli's contemporaries, often used in the introductions of political tracts of the sixteenth century that offered more 'just' reasons of state, most notably those of Jean Bodin and Giovanni Botero. The pejorative term Machiavellian as it is used today (or anti-Machiavellism as it was used from the sixteenth century) is thus a misnomer, as it describes one who deceives and manipulates others for gain; whether the gain is personal or not is of no relevance, only that any actions taken are only important insofar as they affect the results. It fails to include some of the more moderating themes found in Machiavelli's works and the name is now associated with the extreme viewpoint.[3]

Sixteen years before Machiavelli published The Prince, Desiderus Erasmus published The Institutio principis Christiani (Education of a Christian Prince) as advice to the young king Charles of Spain and later for Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor. Erasmus applied the general principles of honor and sincerity to the special functions of the Prince, whom he represented a servant of the people. A comparison between the two is worth noting because Machiavelli stated that, to maintain control by political force, it is safer for a prince to be feared than loved. Erasmus, on the other hand, preferred for the prince to be loved and suggested that the prince needed a well-rounded education in order to govern justly and benevolently and to avoid becoming a source of oppression.

Answer 6

The Prince was written to a leader in Italy, I think.  It was intended to be almost a 'How to' manual on being a powerful leader.

Answer 7

The basic thing was he advised that a strong leader should be feared, NOT loved.

But, you also have to remember, he was writing during a very turbulent time - poisoning was a common way to get "promoted"

Best of luck.