Greetings my friend. After completing Sun Tzu’s Art of War series (ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-NPpJbOVIUGc.html), I took a short break. Now, over the coming weeks and months I am going to take an indepth look at the classic book on power, Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince. Each video will look at a particular idea or theme from the book with historical examples given by Machiavelli himself as well as modern implementations of his principles. To whet your appetite, here’s a *very* condensed version of the book to give you a hint of what’s to come. Thank you for your appreciation and help in actively promoting the work on this channel. Enjoy the upcoming videos on Machiavelli’s views of how the game is *really* played. Finally, I've packed almost everything I know about Machiavelli, into a short digital book: eudaimoniayoutube.gumroad.com/l/master-machiavelli - Adam
Eudaimonia Thank you so much for the videos! I like your style, the background music and the way you paraphrase the stories, really interesting. Keep it up, your videos are great.
Eudaimonia what would your take be on the idea that taken in the context of his body of work and the circumstances of his life, The Prince is to be taken as a work of satire and and indictment of the leadership practices of the day? Do you agree? Does this change how we should view the work, particularly in respect to efficacy?
Niccolò Machiavelli pondered that timeless conundrum 500 years ago and hedged his bets. “It may be answered that one should wish to be both,” he acknowledged, “but because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it is much safer to be feared than loved. It is much safer to be feared than loved because ... love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails.”
@@cancelled_user Because the ones trying to make a good impression usually have alterior motives (something in return, earning trust, leading you to believe that they are trustworthy to then hold it over you when you least expect it/suits them)
I had a death in my family this week and during all of the grief I was assigned to read Machiavellis “The Prince”. Thank you for helping me out with this, because despite who you lose the world never stops turning.
Too many people look at this as a way to live a life. This was not Machiavelli's intention, I think rather clearly. He himself did not live in extravagant life, he spent his time studying and writing, he was extremely intelligent and worked on many projects to benefit Florence. He was for the Republic and was a very devout Christian. Not everybody is meant to be a leader of a city-state.
I had heard of Machiavelli before, but this video really brought his ideas to life. I never realized how much of an impact his writings have had on our understanding of power and leadership
@@thegxdfxther3010 Because Tupac's entire plan was to become a medieval leader of a state in Europe, and to conduct geopolitical campaigns against the rival barbarians, and to conquer and hold power over / administer other states (either Republics or Principalities). He rapped extensively about this.
Ezio, after defeating Rodrigo, was hated not only by Borgia Family but also by their allies, subordinates, and relatives as a whole. This hatred leads to the fall of his Monterrigioni Castle, the capture of Caterina Sforza, and ended with the death of his uncle, Mario. But as he returned, his journey against the Borgia family made the commoners love and admire him, just like how he was prior to the Siege, and even in Roma, the capital territory of his enemies gave him hero-worship. At the same time, his actions, which turned the hatred at the hearts of his enemies into dread. His presence alone gave nightmares to his enemies. Prior to the events of Brotherhood, Ezio is an enemy to be taken care of as soon as possible, a potential threat, and a large yet poisonous thorn in their path. Now, he has become something large. A hero to their resistance and to unite against. The new Ezio is not some simple threat, but rather the Luke Skywalker who blew up the Death Star. He is their first and foremost threat who is crushing everything they had and built.
A really practical and honest take on good leadership. It is easy to misinterpret by others with superficial knowledge on politics. Love this video for it explained it for what it is meant for.
soldiers, whatever the numbers, will only be good under capable leadership. .leadership counts more in determing victory. .the 100-thousand mongol warriors globe-rampaging did it in the 12th and 13th century. .upon mcarthur's return, with only 18 divisions, he defeated 24 division of japan's imperial army. . patton mentioned years ago during WW2 that there are no tired divisions only tired commanders. .and single-handedly put the whole werhmacht into dis array. .only the capable ledearship of alexander's 40-thousand plus army that ended darius 120thousand armies and his empire. .corporal hitler's dream of a thousand year reich and his mighty wehrmacht lasted only for 12 years for incapable and erroneous leadership. . . .
I feel like a lot of people over simplify this as a means of using deception not when necessary but constantly, thus undermining themselves when Machiavelli meant to just play your enemy before he plays you in that case.
As a youth, I assumed love would be customary and treachery would be rare. Unfortunately the world is filled with gossip instead of poetry, and conspiracy instead of cooperation.
Despite loving the art style I quickly lost interest in the art of war series because of how jarring some of the historical inaccuracies were, so I'm super excited to see that you're doing The Prince as if it were a sincere how-to manual and not a political commentary written by a renaissance republican
SantomPh so you haven't read it i'm assuming. the entire history of the Medici is discussed, the last chapter implores Lorenzo Medici to take control of Italy. He most certainly was not trying to gain employment with the Borgias at this point, in part because they despised him for his book Discourses on Livy which discussed how to form a republic, The Prince is his only non-republican political text but also Cesare had died some years earlier and Machiavelli discusses why he failed as a ruler despite coming close to succeeding, as advice to Lorenzo.
You can't be 'Mr. Nice Guy' if you want to hold onto your land and gain respect for your people. If the President of the United States were to become a monarchal figure, they could take out those in the opposing party who hate them and garrison soldiers in their houses or neighborhoods. However, in a way, this aspect doesn't line up with what Machiavelli taught because he lived before the concept of president was conceived and I don't think he said anything about soldiers in houses. Also, our armed forces can't enlist the help of bounty hunters or Indian soldiers to fight our wars to gain land where our soldiers can be stationed there as if they were only peacekeepers. Hell no, if you want something done, you do it yourself. When Reagan gave the OK for the CIA to train Osama bin Laden and his forces to fight the Soviets in Central Asia for us, he turned the resources we gave him resulting in 9/11.
Yes I've finished that book 4 months ago and I think its a very clever book eventhough he's sexist in some part , but we can't help that since its a very old book
I love this, I have been to his home in St Casciano 13 miles out side of Florence , i had to sit at his desk where he wrote the Prince, I love Steve Bannon is the true Machiavelli
I would rather be a feared leader who stands for his people than a loved leader who does nothing for them. Just a layperson's thought after watching this.
@Dom TheE Queen of Queer theory about Foolride4isReal campaign @Queen z Fred's Bohemian Cowboy. StedSenScale 🎼..... OperA *_singer songwriter producer and director and Dean of students of Greater creater. Fred's upstars Queen omnipotent Fred's UPS tars now you c33. Fred's 2nd indian joke about the Fred 2nd indian... The world w3 created ._* _FredsgotwVVings codex Freddy Mercury Queen UPstars_ _Until. Karma ...?weighs deep... Psychopaths reign ..? Tyrant's..? Machiavellianism = merryVVitcheon's aka.?? Indian = merryVVitcheon'..codex .._ Not *karmaWhenItSuiesYa* Pam Whitehouse The Madonna...the white house at the top of the street...?? The kitchen n bathroom are bitchin in the wall kitchen .?WALL TALKiNG ....Madonna said kitchen are .bathrooms .endBarrressing I'm grant mark Bennett 333 in car Nate .... the first indian J oke about the merryVVitcheon's.. the first indian J oke about the merryVVitcheon's 1 alpha 1 mission is to be true to yrSelf
people say stalin fits the ideal description of the prince I dont know where he learned it but he seems to have enjoyed manipulating others ti fight for his amusement
Would you say these methods would be useful today? Imo I'd say it would be more destructive in modern times, we can't revert back to the ways of the past and fight for diplomacy and peace instead.
While I believe some of these points can be used today, remember he said he was going to talk about monarchies, not republics. In a monarchy, nobody has the right to vote on their leader, so if you are disliked people will say things about you but that will be all. However, in a republic if you were to try these methods, people would also dislike you then vote you out next election. In my opinion, you would have to, as most politicians do, act like a nice, kind president in public, while behind the scenes you do what has to be done, however if that "thing" is something a major and it gets leaked, it's not going to end well lol.
He probably wasn't. The Prince has advice that flies almost completely in opposition to previous political writings by Machiavelli. I mean, the supposed intended audience was a "Prince who came into his power and land, not by way of inheritance," which could easily refer to Guiliano de Medici, and Machiavelli dances around that specificity by all but directly calling them a tyrant, and implying it many times. The problem then arises that Guiliano would not have wanted to see that book because according to contemporary Italian Renaissance thought, it would be more appropriate to kill him than venerate him or justify his reign. If, however, the book was an open-letter to all Princes, then it would do little more than appalling them while addressing few, due to who exactly the book specifies that it applies to. The book uses classical examples primarily to sink in what he really thinks of the people to whom the book applies without having to directly call out those to whom it does. You'll notice that he'll outright call leaders in the Classical examples tyrants, while giving those Princes advice essentially on how to be a tyrant, but without calling them that directly.
It's a possibility, though I personally lean toward it being a satire. Luckily, literature, even The Prince, is open to many different interpretations. His other political works (Discorsi, et al.) don't gel with what he wrote in The Prince, but short of taking a time machine back there and asking Machiavelli himself, we'll probably never know whether it was meant to be taken as actual advice or if it was satire aimed to look like advice for jackasses. Who knows?
@@Selvyre It wasn't satire. It perhaps doesn't align with his other writings, and the views he expressed elsewhere thus which he ideally held, but it's a book on applied governing. A book on effective truth versus abstract ideal. It's for this reason it's often cited as a foundation (highly influential) work for realism IR. It really is a book on precursor realism IR-geopolitics-realpolitik philosophy / political science more than anything I would argue. It should be noted that the dominant school of thought doesn't recognise it as being satire.
yeah this guy was a product of his times and leader who runs with fear is an issue. a book labeled as a guide book for the Mafia should be a warning but it's a good book to understand the tactics of a tyrant.
Christianity is incredibly limp wristed in its use of force, preferring to fight information wars and manipulate over time through commerce. That’s what the Israelites are doing today.
