PDF Summary:The Prince, by Niccolò Machiavelli

In his 16th-century political treatise The Prince, Italian diplomat, poet, and historian Niccolò Machiavelli describes how authoritarian leaders, or “princes,” should rule their states—with daring, cruelty, and manipulation. At various points in history, the book has been read as both a sincere attempt to give advice to would-be tyrants and as a pro-democracy satire. Whatever its intent, The Prince has become known as an unapologetic depiction of the “real truth” of politics, where states and leaders are motivated by ambition as much as by their ideals.

This guide will give an overview of Machiavelli’s ideas and philosophy along with discussions of his historical context, various interpretations of his lessons, and analyses of how those lessons survive in modern-day politics.

(continued)...

However, their ability to hold onto power is linked to their ability to maintain this image. If it’s compromised or they fail to deliver on certain promises, the people’s faith in them is weakened and their leadership, or even the entire state, may collapse.

Being a Realist

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. According to Machiavelli, the prince who tries to act morally good at all times will inevitably be overthrown because they won’t meet the threats they face with the appropriate brutality.

Instead, princes should act according to necessity and circumstance and be prepared to do the wrong thing if it means preserving the principality. Machiavelli argues that losing the state because they’re unable to be brutal is crueler than keeping the state alive through brutality.

Moral Relativism: Do the Ends Justify the Means?

Essentially, Machiavelli is making an argument in favor of moral relativism, or the belief that right and wrong are not universal truths but are highly specific to time, place, and culture. Moral relativism is not the same as complete amorality, and Machiavelli does believe in right and wrong, condemning behavior he sees as pointlessly brutal. But he does support brutality with a purpose.

Machiavelli is often misquoted as having summarized his philosophy as: “The ends justify the means.” Though Machiavelli never says those words exactly, he does write that “in the actions of all men, and especially of princes…one judges by the result.”

His emphasis on “princes” in this context indicates he believes that what a prince does may be judged as wrong by the average person, but a prince is not the average person: Their actions don’t just speak for themselves, but for many others as well. Because a prince has greater responsibilities, they can, in Machiavelli’s view, better justify bad behavior. By how much is a question he leaves open.

The Value of Deceit

Interestingly, while Machiavelli argues that princes shouldn’t be concerned with behaving morally, he says they should be very concerned with appearing moral. Princes should strive to have a reputation of being just, loyal, kind, generous, and religious.

While Machiavelli argues that princes should always be prepared to do the wrong thing, he also acknowledges that people want to believe that their leaders are fundamentally good. A prince who is obviously cruel or dishonest or who makes promises with no intention of keeping them, will eventually lose the love of their people and the trust of their allies.

Machiavelli particularly emphasizes the need for a leader to appear religious, even if they don’t truly subscribe to religious principles. In Renaissance Italy, Christian faith was often synonymous with goodness, so a prince outright rejecting its teachings would be ostracized by every other power in the area.

(Shortform note: Though he does not say so outright, Machiavelli is warning readers that too much focus on religion could open them up to manipulation by the Church and the Papal States. As God’s representative on Earth, the Pope could argue that any truly Christian state should answer to him, while Machiavelli believed that princes should rule their principality according to the needs of their people.)

Balancing People and Peers

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.

Because these two groups tend to occupy different social classes and have different relationships to power (accepting that they will be ruled versus wanting to rule), their desires and priorities differ, so failing to satisfy either one can leave a prince vulnerable to being overthrown.

That said, Machiavelli argues that the support of the people is always more valuable and should take priority over the support of the nobility, other government officials, or the army.

This is partly due to their sheer numbers, which makes the people a more effective power base and harder to stand against; after all, it’s easier to remove a few noblemen from power than to crush a national movement. Machiavelli also argues that appeasing the people requires you to do less to curb your own power, since, rather than aspiring to gain power for themselves, most of them just wish to live safe, prosperous, and comfortable lives.

The Possibility of Democratic Revolution

Curiously, Machiavelli doesn’t discuss the possibility that the people may want power or the ability to govern for themselves. On one hand, democracies in Machiavelli’s day looked very different than they do now, and he may simply not have regarded ordinary people as political actors. On the other hand, classical Greece provided numerous examples of self-rule by the people, and Machiavelli used ancient history as the basis for many of his lessons. His admiration for republics was based on these ancient models of democracy.

There’s also the fact that Machiavelli observes early on in the book that society is a constant struggle between nobles, or the rich and powerful, and ordinary people: “The people do not wish to be ruled nor oppressed by the nobles,” while “the nobles wish to rule and oppress the people.” This philosophy is echoed by later democratic thinkers, including the French Enlightenment writer Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who described government as a kind of compromise made between the people and their rulers over who has the power, and even by Karl Marx, who conceptualized all of history as a struggle between the haves and the have-nots.

Rousseau was an admirer of Machiavelli, believing him to be a republican icon and The Prince a brilliant satire. Indeed, while Machiavelli predated the Age of Revolutions by around 250 years, his writings had a great impact on the fundamental beliefs underlying it—that politics had little to do with religion, that princes ruled through a combination of manipulation and cruelty, and that a government could not survive without the support of the people. Even if Machiavelli didn’t consider the possibility of a democratic revolution, his readers certainly did.

In contrast, meeting the needs of a prince’s peers means keeping them loyal despite their aspirations for power. Machiavelli argues that a prince should allow the nobility, government, and army to compete amongst themselves for influence and wealth but should violently crush any move made against the prince. In turn, he advises princes to honor and reward those who remain loyal and to be extremely wary of anyone whose loyalty is uncertain, no matter how little power they might appear to have.

Machiavelli also suggests that keeping the love and support of the people can discourage conspiracy or assassination attempts originating from your peers. No matter how unhappy the members of a prince’s inner circle are, if they suspect that the people would refuse to accept their government after the overthrow of a beloved prince, they will continue to support the prince.

Populism

Machiavelli’s advice about prioritizing the love of the people resembles modern-day populism, or an approach to politics that emphasizes the needs and interests of ordinary people over those of so-called elites. Populist movements argue that ordinary people are oppressed, exploited, or otherwise harmed by the rich and powerful, and want to bring this unbalanced relationship to an end. The question of how varies widely across right-wing and left-wing populist movements, as does the conception of who counts as ‘ordinary people’ versus ‘elites.’

Examples of populist leaders and movements from the 21st century include Occupy Wall Street, the Tea Party movement, Evo Morales, Hugo Chavez, Brexit, and Donald Trump. As Machiavelli suggested, many of these leaders were able to achieve great success in politics despite being complete outsiders to the establishment or even openly disliked by their peers. The support of the people, in the form of votes or even physical force, gave them the tools to enact change. To keep power long-term, however, these leaders would eventually need to either win over their peers or replace them with loyal supporters.

Being Feared, Rather Than Loved

Machiavelli’s adage that it’s better to be feared by people than loved by them is one of The Prince’s 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. People are inherently disloyal, and no matter how much love they have for a prince, they may betray him if they believe it’s in their best interest, or even in the best interest of the state.

(Shortform note: This is essentially the conflict faced by Brutus in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar. Brutus loves his friend Caesar but conspires to kill him out of his belief that doing so will preserve the republican government of Rome. This plan backfires, and Rome is embroiled in a civil war that ends with the establishment of the Roman Empire under the first emperor, Octavian. For his part, Brutus is remembered by various writers as either a tragic hero (as in Shakespeare’s telling) or the ultimate betrayer, as in Dante’s The Divine Comedy, which places him in the lowest circle of Hell. How Machiavelli would have seen him is unclear.)

That said, Machiavelli warns that fear can easily turn to hatred and advises princes to never act against someone without good reason. Cruelty might be necessary for the running of the state, but just as a prince should not appear to be a liar, they should not appear to be cruel for cruelty’s sake. People should fear the state’s power without resenting it.

He also suggests, as much as possible, getting all necessary brutality out of the way at the beginning, so a prince’s rule can become more lenient over time. This allows the prince to relax their rule without compromising their safety or the principality’s stability since any threats will have been crushed out of existence early. It also helps to win the loyalty of the people, now living relatively free lives in peacetime.

Fascism

Machiavelli’s ideas about princes were co-opted in the 19th and 20th centuries by Italian fascists, who believed that government should be run as an authoritarian, ultra-nationalist project where the most important concern was the security and prosperity of the state. One of the most famous fascists, Benito Mussolini, was an outspoken admirer of The Prince. He shared Machiavelli’s hope that Italy would one day be restored to the glory of ancient Rome—though he admired the Empire, while Machiavelli admired the Republic.

Fascist leaders frequently rule through fear and enact repressive politics that restrict human rights in the interest of the state. They also, as Machiavelli suggests, institutionalize their violence so that it becomes a “new normal,” and people then interpret an end to some but not all of the brutality as leniency. Fascist leaders often risk being hated but can avoid this by directing the people’s hatred outward at some foreign “other” and insisting that all brutality is necessary to protect the people.

How to Form a State

Because Machiavelli wrote The Prince 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. He breaks his advice on this subject into three main categories: how to build up armed forces, choose trustworthy advisors to support you, and win over a newly conquered people.

Building Up Armed Forces

Machiavelli distinguishes between three types of armies: hired forces, borrowed forces, and personal forces. He cautions princes to avoid hired forces, to be wary of borrowed forces, and to opt for personal forces when possible.

Hired and Borrowed Forces

Hired forces are a preexisting mercenary group that a prince pays for their services, while borrowed forces are soldiers loaned to a prince by another prince or government, either because they’re working towards a common goal or as a show of goodwill between nations. There are two issues with hired or borrowed forces: They’re not loyal to the prince, and using them puts the prince in debt, either literally or in terms of relying on another ruler for monetary and military support.

Both hired and borrowed forces have a commander they’re already loyal to, be it their general or captain, or the prince of another nation. The prince who makes use of them can never truly rely on their loyalty and will have no defense should they decide to betray him. Machiavelli also argues that hired forces especially tend to be unreliable, citing numerous examples of mercenaries breaking and running as soon as the battle turned against them. They are often poorly trained and disciplined and may abandon their work if they’re not being paid well enough or if they feel that the pay doesn’t justify the danger.

Princes should appear strong, bold, and independent, and in Machiavelli’s view, the prince who must rely on their allies for defense is none of those things. He even suggests that it would be better to lose with your own forces than to win with someone else's because success puts you even more in their debt. A victory that a prince cannot take full credit for has little value as a victory. More than a resource, these types of forces are a drain on resources and a potential threat.

(Shortform note: The use of hired or borrowed forces was extremely common in Machiavelli’s time, as few Italian city-states had armies of their own. Machiavelli was extremely critical of this practice, believing that this reliance on others was partly what had caused Italy to fall to so many foreign invasions: In defending itself with mercenaries or non-Italian forces, Italy had “been overrun by Charles, robbed by Louis [both of France], ravaged by Ferdinand [of Spain], and insulted by the Switzers.” Several of these cases involved the Italians being betrayed by their allies or abandoned by their mercenaries. They lost money, territory, and international respect.)

Personal Forces

Machiavelli argues that all princes should have personal forces. Developing a personal army has several advantages: The prince relies solely on their own resources, they have full control over how their army is organized and run, and they can enforce loyalty 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).

Princes should not just be the heads of their states on the civilian side of things; they should be seen as military leaders. Machiavelli writes that, for a prince, strong ‘arms’ are just as important as strong laws, and even a prince who has no direct interaction with soldiers should make an effort to be knowledgeable about military tactics and warfare. If a prince does have personal involvement with commanding the military, they’re more able to use their personal forces as a resource and are thus more secure in their position.

Machiavelli’s Militia

Under the Florentine Republic, Machiavelli proposed and then organized the city’s personal militia. This militia saw a number of military successes before it was eventually defeated and dissolved when the Medicis took over. In making this point, Machiavelli may have been defending his past actions and encouraging the Medici to follow his example—rather than relying on papal forces and therefore a continuing relationship with Rome, the rulers of Florence could train and organize their own troops, always have them on hand to defend the city, and encourage patriotism among the general population and the soldiers alike. Having a personal army would also stabilize their government against rebellion, which was a threat they had faced before.

Choosing Advisors

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. Advisors can be chosen from among powerful or wealthy families, the army, or the general populace.

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. As long as their resources and authority are conferred by the prince, rather than being something they have a natural right to, they won’t risk betraying him. In addition, whatever they accomplish will be linked to the prince in the eyes of the people.

Machiavelli advises new princes to allow advisors to feel like their role is important but to moderate how much power they actually have and how freely they can speak their minds. If a prince is willing to ask for advice and even criticism, that shows that they reward good judgment, but a prince who permits advisors to criticize them in public or with particular harshness might look weak. Allowing too much dissent can undermine a prince’s authority.

To avoid this, advisors should feel confident in telling the truth, but should only do so when asked. Advisors who exist to flatter the prince serve no purpose, but even those who offer genuine and realistic advice should never offer unprompted criticism or express doubt in the prince’s decisions. 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.

(Shortform note: Throughout history, advisors who had too much influence posed a significant threat to the prince’s image and credibility. An advisor who appeared to aspire to power or to already be the true “power behind the throne” could undermine the authority of the entire government. One famous example of this was the “Mad Monk” Grigori Rasputin of Russia, beloved by Tsar Nicholas II but widely believed to be a con artist. Rasputin was eventually murdered by resentful nobles, and the tsar overthrown in a popular revolution a few years later. The evil or manipulative advisor has even become a trope in fiction, from Iago in Shakespeare’s Othello to Gríma Wormtongue in The Lord of the Rings.)

Winning Over the People

As previously mentioned, 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. A populace will rise to overthrow a hated prince, and no amount of brutality can crush that kind of popular movement forever. In the end, a prince’s resources and the goodwill of their allies will run out.

Machiavelli also suggests that a prince who is resented by their subjects is more vulnerable to outside threats. Instead of rising up to defend their homeland in the event of an invasion, a hated prince’s people might welcome their new conquerors as a needed change.

(Shortform note: This occurred in several colonial nations, where the native people had no loyalty to the foreign and often discriminatory local government. When the colonizers found themselves at war with a neighboring country or another colonial power, many of the natives chose to ally themselves with this new opponent in the hope that it would be their “liberator.” For example, in the Spanish-American War, Cuban and Filipino resistance movements aided the Americans, mistakenly believing that once the Spanish were gone they would be granted independence.)

As previously stated, Machiavelli believes that all most people aspire to is to live 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.

Live Among the People

Machiavelli argues that once a prince has conquered a territory, they should immediately establish a home there. This dissuades foreign invaders from taking advantage of the confusion of a regime change, allows the prince to become familiar with local culture, and makes the prince less faceless in the eyes of the people. Propaganda is more effective when people feel truly close to the person being praised, and can ‘put a face to a name.’

If moving to the new state is impossible, either as a matter of safety or because the prince’s government is based elsewhere, Machiavelli suggests setting up colonies instead. In that instance, government officials or citizens of the larger principality can act as stand-ins for the prince. However, the prince must carefully monitor the behavior of these officials and soldiers to ensure that they aren’t exploiting the locals and giving the principality a bad name.

Cultivating Local Appeal

Even in the modern day and in democratic nations as well as authoritarian ones, leaders will often attempt to appeal to the people on the basis of a shared home, geography, or culture. People are more attracted to politicians that they see as being “like them,” however superficially, and that emotional connection can be a powerful source of support.

For example, in the United States, both Democrats and Republicans will claim to originate from or have a personal connection to “rural America” to attract rural voters. This might involve highlighting a town they once lived in, participating in local events or traditions, or just using familiar symbols—farms, wildlife, guns, plaid and denim clothing, and so on—in their advertising. The success of these tactics varies widely, and perceived insincerity can doom a political campaign.

Avoid Changing the Existing System

When establishing a system of government, Machiavelli suggests changing the existing laws and taxation system as little as possible so that people can go about their everyday lives much as they did before. This avoids breeding resentment against the new prince, and it takes less effort than setting up an entirely new system. Machiavelli points to the success of the Roman Empire, which allowed its colonies across Europe and the Mediterranean to essentially run themselves as city-states while using them as a resource from which to draw taxes, soldiers, and slaves.

(Shortform note: While modern political campaigns tend to emphasize what a leader will do differently from their predecessors rather than what will stay the same, nostalgia and faith in the existing system still play a major role in appealing to the people. People fear change because they fear losing what they have. Political campaigns that promise “restoration” or a return to an idyllic past are attractive because they promise to calm recent upheavals and preserve what people find most comfortable and positive about the existing system. In contrast, candidates who promote the belief that the existing system needs to be overhauled tend to be polarizing.)

Let the People Keep Their Arms

While it may seem dangerous to allow potentially rebellious civilians to be armed, Machiavelli warns that people accustomed to having weapons on hand will react strongly to a government trying to take them away. Since disarmament is a protective gesture on the state’s part, Machiavelli suggests that a prince should instead encourage people to use their arms on behalf of the new state—to defend themselves against foreign invasion, to drive out members of the old regime, and so on. This begins the process of setting up a national identity under the new prince and can even help the prince begin developing personal forces.

The Risks of Arms Control

Various authoritarian governments throughout history have attempted to disarm their people to diminish popular power. How successful these attempts were varied widely—in Nazi Germany and the Ottoman Empire in the early 20th century, these efforts were focused on minority populations (Jewish people and Armenians, respectively) and worked alongside other laws to deprive the population of freedom of movement and basic human rights. On the other hand, attempts by British colonial authorities to seize American revolutionary weapons backfired violently.

The modern American gun control debate shows how controversial an issue disarmament still is, with millions of people determined to keep their arms despite government restrictions, and said restrictions being shot down in many states. Even Machiavelli’s princes, who ruled an authoritarian government rather than a democratic one, risked turning the people against them by attempting to seize their weapons.

Support Cultural Development

Machiavelli advises princes to be patrons of the arts and to publicly honor and reward those who contribute to society through successful businesses, scientific or historical discoveries, or great works of art. This patronage helps in the development of the people’s sense of identity and pride in their nation, and it shows that the prince has a personal interest in their well-being. It may also boost the national economy, which contributes to people’s happiness. For these same reasons, Machiavelli also suggests that princes make an effort to entertain the people with festivals, holidays, and sporting events.

(Shortform note: The Medici family were some of the most generous patrons of the Renaissance, financially supporting artists like Botticelli and Michelangelo. In the modern day, politicians and independently wealthy businesspeople similarly attempt to connect to the people through philanthropy. This includes organizing and financially supporting things like art installations, educational programs, and public health campaigns. Sporting events and federal holidays also provide the opportunity to give back to the people and enhance a public image.)