Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince stands as one of the most impactful political treatises of the Renaissance, challenging conventional thought about governance and power.
Born on May 3, 1469, in Florence, Machiavelli lived through the turbulent political landscape of Italy during the late 15th and early 16th centuries. This was an era of incessant warfare among Italian city-states, monarchs, and foreign powers like France and Spain.
Florence, where Machiavelli held various governmental positions, was often at the center of this turmoil. These conditions shaped Machiavelli’s perspectives on statecraft, which he distilled into The Prince, a guide on pragmatic governance, devoid of moral idealism.
Introduction
In his treatise, The Prince, Niccolò Machiavelli offers advice to politicians on how to gain, and hold on to, power. It is arguably the most popular book about politics ever written, and its observations about human behaviour are as true today as they were 500 years ago.
Although modern readers might assume that a “prince” is someone who is destined to inherit control of his country, the princes of Machiavelli’s time were by no means that secure: the prince had to be careful to retain the support of his citizens if he wanted to remain in power. The methods that Machiavelli suggests for leaders to maintain public support are just as relevant for today’s elected officials as they were for leaders of the 16th century.
The advice that Machiavelli offers is meant not to serve society in general, but rather the prince’s selfish interests, and the term Machiavellian is now commonly used to describe the method of being cunning and ruthless in the pursuit of power.
Previous political writers, from Plato and Aristotle to the 16th-century humanists, treated politics as a branch of the area of philosophy that dealt with morals. Machiavelli’s chief innovation was to break with this long tradition and present the study of politics as political science.
Context and Background
Florence, Machiavelli’s home city, was a significant political and cultural hub during the Italian Renaissance, a period in Italian history between the 14th -16th centuries. It experienced frequent shifts in power, oscillating between the rule of the powerful Medici family and short-lived republican governments.
Machiavelli’s early career aligned with Florence’s Republican government from 1494 to 1512, during which he held the position of Secretary to the Second Chancery. In this role, he undertook diplomatic missions across Europe, interacting with figures like Cesare Borgia, who became central to his political theories.
After the return of the Medici to power in 1512, Machiavelli’s fortunes reversed. He was dismissed, imprisoned, and even tortured under suspicion of conspiring against the Medici regime.
After his release, he retired to his estate at San Casciano, where he wrote The Prince. The political instability of his time—marked by foreign invasions, corrupt leaders, and failed republics—provided the backdrop for his work. He dedicated The Prince to Lorenzo de’ Medici, hoping it would earn him favor and a return to political life, although this never materialized.
Florence’s role in the Renaissance was complicated by external forces and internal divisions. The Medici family had been both patrons of the arts and manipulative rulers, often caught in power struggles with foreign rulers.
The Renaissance began in Italy in the 14th century and spread to the rest of Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries. During the Renaissance, the agricultural economy and religious domination of the Middle Ages virtually disappeared and was replaced by a society governed by centralized political institutions and urban-centred, commercial economies.
The Renaissance is also characterized by great strides in the fields of mathematics, philosophy, medicine, and astronomy. Yet the greatest legacy of the Renaissance period is found in the field of art—and the greatest Renaissance artists lived in Florence.
The shifting alliances and betrayals between city-states like Venice, Milan, and the Papal States led Machiavelli to distrust human nature and embrace political realism. His diplomatic career exposed him to leaders like Louis XII of France and Cesare Borgia, whose ruthless tactics influenced his views on power.
Purpose of The Prince
The Prince serves as a manual for rulers, emphasizing political realism and pragmatism over idealistic morality.
Unlike traditional medieval texts, which promoted the moral and religious duties of kings, Machiavelli argues that rulers must prioritize the preservation of power, even at the cost of moral righteousness. For Machiavelli, the success of a ruler is measured not by virtue but by the stability and security of their state.
Machiavelli’s The Prince addresses new princes, especially those who have gained power through fortune or cunning rather than heredity.
He presents The Prince as a response to a turbulent time in Italian history, where war and shifting alliances constantly threatened the political landscape. He claims that rulers cannot afford to be bound by traditional ethical norms but must instead be willing to use deception, cruelty, and manipulation when necessary to maintain control. For instance, Machiavelli discusses Cesare Borgia as a model of ruthlessness and cunning, praising his ability to consolidate power despite numerous obstacles.
In The Prince, he states, “if an injury is to be done to a man, it should be so severe that the prince is not in fear of revenge”. This quote encapsulates Machiavelli’s insistence on decisive, unflinching action to secure a ruler’s authority.
Moreover, Machiavelli advises rulers to embrace the concept of “virtù,” which, unlike the modern understanding of virtue, refers to a ruler’s capacity to shape events to his advantage through strength, decisiveness, and cunning.
He argues that fortune (“fortuna”) plays a role in success, but a skilled prince can mitigate its effects through strategic planning and bold action.
Innovative Aspects
Machiavelli’s The Prince is groundbreaking in its departure from the traditional “mirrors for princes” literature of the time.
Earlier works in this genre, such as those by John of Salisbury and Erasmus, focused on the ethical and religious responsibilities of kings, portraying rulers as moral exemplars who should seek to govern with justice and benevolence. In contrast, Machiavelli strips away these idealistic expectations and presents a world where rulers must be prepared to act immorally if it ensures their political survival.
Machiavelli boldly claims that immoral actions, such as deception, cruelty, and even murder, can be justified if they secure power and prevent greater instability.
In a famous passage, he argues that it is better for a ruler to be feared than loved, for fear is a more reliable means of control. “It is much safer to be feared than loved,” he writes, “because men are fickle, and while they avoid danger, they are more likely to turn against a ruler who is too kind”. This pragmatic approach to governance shocked contemporary readers, many of whom were steeped in the idealism of Christian morality.
Moreover, Machiavelli’s emphasis on the separation of politics from ethics was revolutionary.
He argues that the ethical rules governing individual behavior do not apply to rulers, who must focus on securing the stability of the state. For example, he suggests that rulers should not hesitate to break promises if keeping them would be disadvantageous: “A prudent ruler ought not to keep faith when by doing so it would be against his interest”. This rejection of conventional morality in the pursuit of political stability marked a significant shift in political thought.
Another innovative aspect of The Prince is Machiavelli’s rejection of classical political theories, such as those put forward by Aristotle, which focused on the common good and the virtues of the ruler.
Instead, Machiavelli categorizes different types of principalities and offers advice based on the practical realities of acquiring and maintaining power in each context. He distinguishes between hereditary principalities, which are easier to rule, and newly acquired states, which require more cunning and ruthlessness to control.
Machiavelli also introduced the idea of ruling through calculated cruelty. He advises new princes to commit all necessary violent acts at once, so that the people will soon forget them, allowing the ruler to consolidate power and eventually present a more benevolent image. “Injuries,” he writes, “ought to be done all at once, so that, being less tasted, they offend less”.
This strategic use of cruelty contrasts with traditional moral teachings that emphasized mercy and justice.
Finally, Machiavelli’s focus on the military as the foundation of a stable state was another innovation. In his view, a ruler’s power is inherently tied to his ability to wage war and defend his territory. He warns against reliance on mercenaries or auxiliary forces, which he considers unreliable and dangerous.
Rather, he insists that rulers must maintain their own armies, as only soldiers loyal to the prince can ensure the security of the state.
Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince continues to provoke debate centuries after its publication, largely because of its bold departure from traditional moral frameworks.
By placing pragmatism and political realism above idealistic morality, Machiavelli reshaped the way we think about power and leadership. His emphasis on ruthless pragmatism, the strategic use of cruelty, and the rejection of conventional ethical norms marked a turning point in political philosophy, one that continues to resonate in discussions of leadership and governance today.
In The Prince, Machiavelli provides not just a guide for rulers, but a stark reminder of the complex and often brutal realities of political power.
Key Themes and Concepts in The Prince
1. Virtue and Fortune/fate and chance (Virtù and Fortuna)
In The Prince, Machiavelli presents two forces that shape the destiny of rulers: virtù and fortuna. Virtù, according to Machiavelli, refers to the qualities a leader must possess to master circumstances, including strength, wisdom, decisiveness, and adaptability.
It is the proactive force by which a ruler can exert control over events. Machiavelli writes, “virtù must meet and outwit fortuna to succeed”, he states in chapter 15. This emphasizes a ruler’s responsibility to actively shape their fate, using whatever means necessary, including force and cunning.
On the other hand, fortuna represents the unpredictable aspects of life, akin to fate or luck. While virtù is within the ruler’s control, fortuna is not. It can bring both opportunities and setbacks, and rulers must prepare to face such unpredictability. Machiavelli stresses that while fortune may influence half of a person’s life, individuals have the ability to shape the other half through decisive action. He vividly compares fortuna to a river, writing, “Fortune is like a river…when it is swollen, it drowns everyone, but when the water ebbs, men must make provisions against the flood by building dams and canals”.
This metaphor shows his belief that while one cannot entirely control fate, one can anticipate and mitigate its effects with foresight and strength.
Continuing with the flood metaphor, he notes that virtue can control the flow of fortune in the same way that dykes and dams control a flood. Rather than using the idea of fate or luck as an excuse—as a great many theorists do when things do not work out as expected—Machiavelli warns princes that they must prepare themselves against fortune and be ready to change their methods in order to accept what fortune brings. Machiavelli has more admiration for rulers who are reckless than those who are cautious—the cautious ones are fooling themselves about how much they really control their fate.
The balance of virtù and fortuna is essential for a prince’s success. A ruler who is prepared, strong, and decisive can limit the effects of bad fortune, while also capitalizing on favorable circumstances. This pragmatic view of human affairs reflects Machiavelli’s belief in adaptability as a core attribute of effective rulers.
2. Power, politics and Authority
The Prince is esteemed by generations of readers because it is regarded as showing how politics really works. The book presents itself as a handbook: it offers practical advice to a new prince or leader on how to gain, consolidate, and keep political power.
Prior to Machiavelli, political theorists judged a prince’s reign on how moral the prince was: did he go to church? Did he sin? Was he a good man? Yet in The Prince, Machiavelli contended that what mattered was not how moral the prince actually was, but how he was perceived by his subjects. In other words, appearance was everything; it did not matter what a prince did in private, as long as he was upstanding, honest, and fair in public.
Machiavelli’s analysis of how rulers acquire, maintain, and lose power is central to The Prince. He categorizes principalities into two main types: hereditary and new. Hereditary principalities, where power is passed down through family lines, are easier to rule, as the ruler already has the goodwill of the people.
In these states, rulers only need to avoid major changes that might upset the people. Machiavelli notes in chapter 2, “The hereditary prince has less cause and less necessity to offend; hence it happens that he will be more loved”.
In contrast, ruling newly acquired states is far more challenging. New rulers must establish themselves in territories that are often resistant to foreign rule. Machiavelli observes that a new prince will face opposition from those who were content under the old regime and distrust from those who expected benefits from the new ruler.
He stresses that these challenges can only be overcome through force, pragmatism, and sometimes even cruelty.
For instance, Machiavelli uses Cesare Borgia as a model of how to secure new power. Borgia, through cruelty and calculated violence, consolidated his rule in Romagna by eliminating his rivals in one swift action. Machiavelli praises his decisiveness, noting that a prince must carry out necessary cruelties all at once to avoid appearing constantly harsh. As he advises in chapter 8, “injuries should be inflicted all at once, so that their ill taste lingers for the shortest time”.
Additionally, Machiavelli differentiates between rulers who rise to power through their own skills (virtù) and those who rise through fortune or external support (fortuna). The former tend to be more secure because they build their power on a foundation of strength and capability.
On the other hand, those who rely on fortune or others for their rise to power often find it difficult to maintain control, as they are dependent on the goodwill of others. This is illustrated by Machiavelli’s analysis of Cesare Borgia, who initially rose through his father, Pope Alexander VI, but secured his power through his own cunning.
3. The Ends Justify the Means
Perhaps Machiavelli’s most infamous dictum is that “the ends justify the means.” This concept is woven throughout The Prince as a guiding principle for rulers.
For Machiavelli, the ultimate goal of a prince is to secure and maintain power. Any action that serves this goal is justifiable, even if it involves cruelty, deception, or treachery. Machiavelli advises rulers to not shy away from immoral acts if they are necessary for preserving the state.
He writes in chapter 15 that, “If a ruler wants to survive, he must learn to stop being good when the occasion demands”.
Machiavelli argues that a ruler cannot always afford to act according to traditional moral values. Instead, they must be willing to use deception, manipulation, and cruelty when the situation calls for it. In one example, Machiavelli praises Borgia’s ruthlessness in pacifying Romagna, suggesting that his violent actions were necessary for establishing order in a lawless region. He also warns rulers to avoid unnecessary cruelty, which can foster rebellion.
The prince must balance cruelty with mercy, appearing merciful when possible, but never hesitating to act decisively when necessary.
Machiavelli’s rejection of conventional morality is rooted in his belief that the stability of the state is the highest good. This utilitarian view places the preservation of power above ethical considerations. He argues that while rulers should strive to be loved, it is ultimately better to be feared than loved if they cannot be both. Fear, Machiavelli argues, is a more reliable means of maintaining control because it does not depend on the fickleness of the people’s goodwill. “Men love at their convenience, but fear at the convenience of the prince” (Chapter 17).
Despite his endorsement of cruelty and deceit, Machiavelli is careful to emphasize that these tactics should be used strategically and not wantonly. The prince must calculate his actions, committing ruthless acts quickly and then shifting to more benevolent governance. This prevents resentment from building among the people, allowing the prince to consolidate his power and rule effectively in the long term.
4. Deception
According to Machiavelli, political leaders should be allowed to deceive their subjects. The test of a politician is not how well he keeps his word, but whether he is perceived to be honest.
It is not Machiavelli’s goal to uphold morality, but to advise political leaders on the best way to strengthen their power. For him, the best way to remain in power is to tell the people what they want to hear—whether it is true or not.
According to this theory, it would actually be detrimental for a prince to tell the truth all the time. In fact, he explains that a “prudent” ruler “cannot observe faith, nor should he, when such observance turns against him, and the causes that make him promise have been eliminated”. Later in the same paragraph, he adds, “Nor does a prince ever lack legitimate cause to colour his failure to observe faith.”
“Observing faith”, like “keeping faith”, means to remain true and honest.
With these lines Machiavelli is telling readers that the prince should break his promises when circumstances change and then lie about why he broke his promise. This sort of moral relativism—changing one’s ethical code from one situation to the next—is effective for retaining the prince’s hold on power, even though it violates most systems of ethics.
5. War and Peace
In Machiavelli’s time, countries were constantly at war with one another. Therefore, the ability to lead effectively during wartime was a much more important measurement of a politician than it is today. Much of the political theory in The Prince is centred on a principality’s ability to defend itself against attacks.
Machiavelli approves of a strong army, but he cautions a prince to create such a force from his own subjects and not to rely on mercenaries or soldiers borrowed from other lands. He does approve of taking control of other countries through military aggression, however.
His central message to princes is to keep their subjects happy; in that way, they will best ensure that their subjects stay loyal and fight off any invasion by a new ruler.
Machiavelli views war and peace as means to popularity, noting that the failure to stir up conflict in a relatively peaceful time will make rulers look weak.
The Renaissance began in Italy in the 14th century and spread to the rest of Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries. During the Renaissance, the agricultural economy and religious domination of the Middle Ages virtually disappeared and was replaced by a society governed by centralized political institutions and urban-centred, commercial economies.
The Renaissance is also characterized by great strides in the fields of mathematics, philosophy, medicine, and astronomy. Yet the greatest legacy of the Renaissance period is found in the field of art—and the greatest Renaissance artists lived in Florence.
His analysis of power acquisition and retention highlights the challenges faced by rulers, particularly those in newly acquired states. Finally, his assertion that “the ends justify the means” underlines his belief that political success is the ultimate goal, and that conventional morality may need to be set aside in the pursuit of stability and power.
Key Lessons for Modern Leadership
1. Leadership and Pragmatism
In today’s complex political and business landscapes, pragmatic leadership is crucial for success.
Machiavelli, in The Prince, outlines leadership approaches that highlight the importance of flexibility, decisiveness, and strategic planning. Machiavelli argues that leaders must be ready to shift strategies based on changing circumstances: “A prince, therefore, should have no other object… than war and its organization and discipline, for that is the only art that is necessary for one who commands”.
This focus on adaptability in leadership translates well to modern scenarios, where external market shifts, political environments, or crises demand leaders to recalibrate strategies swiftly.
Pragmatism also involves making tough decisions that are rooted in realpolitik, a term often associated with Machiavelli’s views.
For example, today’s business leaders may encounter situations where competing interests require a careful balance between innovation and maintaining tradition, similar to how Machiavelli advises princes to maintain their power while ensuring the stability of their state.
In essence, modern leadership demands a balance of flexibility with a clear focus on long-term objectives. Just as Machiavelli champions this in governance, so too must today’s leaders embrace change while remaining committed to their larger vision.
2. Managing Power Dynamics
Machiavelli’s insights into power dynamics are remarkably relevant to the modern corporate world. He writes about the need for leaders to balance the interests of the powerful nobles and the common people, illustrating the complex web of alliances, oppositions, and favors.
In modern business, these dynamics could represent managing internal teams and external stakeholders, ensuring that no faction becomes too powerful at the expense of another. Machiavelli states in chapter 3, “He who is the cause of another becoming powerful is ruined himself; because that predominancy has been brought about by astuteness or else by force, and both are distrusted by him who has been raised to power”.
In leadership roles today, managing such power dynamics requires recognizing that elevating certain employees or stakeholders can lead to imbalances. Executives must ensure that their team members feel equally valued, preventing the kind of internal competition that can undermine an organization’s cohesion.
Additionally, in Machiavelli’s analysis, balancing these interests involves clear communication and the ability to shift loyalties when necessary. This is particularly resonant in modern politics, where elected leaders often find themselves navigating between the demands of powerful interest groups and the general public.
Understanding the delicate balance between appeasing one’s base of power and fostering broader appeal remains key to long-term success.
3. Control through Fear or Love?
One of Machiavelli’s most famous teachings is his discussion on whether it is better for a leader to be feared or loved. His conclusion, that “it is much safer to be feared than loved, if one has to lack one of the two”, has provoked debate for centuries.
Machiavelli reasons that fear is more reliable because love is fickle—subject to change based on people’s emotions, whereas fear is maintained through the consistent exercise of power.
For today’s leaders, the question of whether to lead with an iron fist or a soft touch remains pertinent. In business or political environments, leaders who rely on fear may enforce strict compliance, which can be effective in the short term, but this approach can also breed resentment and lack of loyalty.
On the other hand, those who lead through empathy and respect may foster loyalty, but they risk being seen as weak if they do not demonstrate firmness when necessary.
What can be gleaned from Machiavelli’s guidance is that leadership needs both love and fear, but in measured doses. Fear ensures compliance and order, while love, or at least respect, helps build loyalty and morale.
Machiavelli’s argument that fear should outweigh love provides a nuanced view: “Men love at their own free will, but fear at the will of the prince, and a wise prince should rely on what is within his power”. Modern leaders should similarly balance empathy with decisiveness to maintain authority without alienating their followers.
4. The Ends Justify the Means
Perhaps the most controversial aspect of Machiavelli’s philosophy is his famous assertion that the ends justify the means. He advises that, in matters of governance, cruelty, deception, and manipulation may be necessary evils to preserve the state “In the actions of all men, and especially of princes, which it is not prudent to challenge, one judges by the result”, he argues. This pragmatic, results-oriented approach has shaped leadership thinking for centuries.
In modern leadership, this dictum plays out when difficult decisions must be made, such as layoffs during economic downturns or cutthroat tactics in competitive markets. The moral dilemma is whether the success of the company or political state justifies actions that may harm individuals or contravene ethical norms.
While many leaders today strive for transparency and ethical practices, Machiavelli’s insight serves as a reminder that leadership often requires difficult, and sometimes morally ambiguous, decisions. His philosophy reflects a world where success, in many cases, is not achieved through purely virtuous actions, but rather through strategic ones that sometimes require bending or even breaking rules.
For example, in the modern business world, companies may engage in aggressive competition to maintain market share or implement unpopular decisions for the long-term benefit of the company.
The challenge for leaders is to ensure that these decisions, though tough, are executed in such a way that the benefits outweigh the harms, in the end justifying the means.
Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince is one of the most famous volumes of political philosophy ever written, exploring the ways in which a prince might gain and retain power.
The Prince, whose thesis is derived from Machiavelli’s own observations as well as his understanding of history, is now regarded as an amoral treatise on despotism, and the word “machiavellian” is frequently used as a synonym for unscrupulous plotting and manipulation. In this excerpt about what behaviour a ruler might follow to achieve censure or praise, this apparent cynicism (or realism) is clearly evident.
Controversial Elements in The Prince
Moral Criticism
Machiavelli’s The Prince has long been a focal point of moral criticism, particularly for its endorsement of ruthless political tactics, which has contributed to the pejorative connotation of the term “Machiavellian.”
From the very outset, the treatise presents political power not as a vehicle for virtue but as a pursuit in which the ends—particularly the preservation of power—often justify any means, no matter how unethical.
Machiavelli’s depiction of effective rulership often involves deception, cruelty, and manipulation, which he argues are necessary tools in the often brutal world of politics.
One of the most notable aspects that draws ethical critique is Machiavelli’s insistence that a ruler should not be constrained by traditional Christian virtues like compassion or honesty if they conflict with political necessity. He claims, “a prince, especially a new one, cannot observe all those things for which men are considered good,” advising that a ruler should be “feared rather than loved” to maintain control. For critics, this approach seems to advocate for political amorality, where the only morality is that which furthers the ruler’s power.
Machiavelli is perhaps most notorious for his assertion that rulers need not be bound by their promises. He writes, “A prince never lacks legitimate reasons to break his promises,” suggesting that the ruler’s word is subject to convenience rather than integrity.
The flexibility Machiavelli grants to leaders to lie, deceive, and break alliances is another key area of moral outrage. For many, this portrays Machiavelli as a cynic who discredits the notion of political ethics entirely.
Critics of Machiavelli’s time, and many since, found these ideas deeply disturbing, aligning them with opportunistic cruelty. The Prince was immediately controversial, with figures like the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche later defending it for its pragmatism, while Christian moralists lambasted it for its unvarnished rejection of conventional ethics.
Historical Examples and “Criminal Virtue”
Machiavelli’s use of historical figures such as Cesare Borgia and Agathocles, who lived from 361 to 289 BC and came from humble origins—his father was a potter and rose up through the military ranks in Syracuse to become the praetor, as examples of “criminal virtue” adds to the disturbing tenor of The Prince and its reception.
He presents these individuals as models of political pragmatism, even as they engaged in treachery and violence. Cesare Borgia, for example, is praised for his calculated ruthlessness in consolidating power.
Machiavelli recounts how Borgia used cruelty effectively to secure his position, notably ordering the execution of his enforcer Remirro de Orco, a move designed to distance himself from the cruelty while benefiting from it politically.
Cesare Borgia’s ruthlessness serves as Machiavelli’s archetype of leadership. Borgia employed mercenaries and orchestrated the brutal murder of rivals to protect his position, an approach that Machiavelli presents not as reprehensible but as pragmatically necessary.
While Machiavelli does not deny the brutality of Borgia’s actions, he endorses them as examples of a leader’s ability to use power effectively, seeing Borgia as an example of a ruler who “acquired power through crime,” yet failed due to external factors beyond his control.
Equally unsettling is Machiavelli’s praise for Agathocles of Syracuse, who rose to power through calculated murder. In a striking passage, Machiavelli recounts how Agathocles summoned the citizens of Syracuse to an assembly and had them murdered to solidify his rule.
Machiavelli acknowledges the savagery of such actions, yet he argues that these are the kinds of drastic, violent measures that can secure political power in unstable times. His reflection that Agathocles’s actions won him a kingdom but not “glory” reflects an acknowledgment of moral failings, yet it does not seem to diminish the strategic value Machiavelli sees in such acts.
For modern readers, these examples of “criminal virtue” are deeply troubling. They highlight the ethical dilemma at the heart of Machiavelli’s advice: does the end truly justify the means if those means involve heinous crimes against humanity? We can then ask, did Adolf Hiter do anything wrong in killing 5 million plus Jews?
Machiavelli’s readiness to accept murder, deception, and betrayal as legitimate political tools was as provocative in his time as it is now, especially in light of contemporary understandings of human rights and governance.
From a human perspective, the cold pragmatism of The Prince evokes both intellectual fascination and moral discomfort.
On one hand, Machiavelli’s dispassionate analysis of power strips away the idealism that often clouds political thought, revealing the mechanisms that drive rulers to act as they do. There is something undeniably compelling about the way Machiavelli’s realism cuts through the romanticized notions of leadership found in earlier political theory.
His acknowledgment that rulers often must act immorally to maintain power is, in many ways, a refreshing departure from the moralistic advice of his predecessors.
However, this very realism is also what makes Machiavelli’s work so unsettling on a human level. By advocating for the use of cruelty, deception, and manipulation, Machiavelli appears to abandon the possibility of ethics in politics altogether. His focus on power for its own sake leads to a vision of leadership that is cold, calculating, and devoid of compassion. As a human being, one cannot help but feel a sense of unease at Machiavelli’s apparent dismissal of human dignity in favor of political expediency.
British philosopher Bertrand Russell dedicates a chapter in his A History of Western Philosophy which he begins by saying:
The Renaissance, though it produced no important theoretical philosopher, produced one man of supreme eminence in political philosophy: Niccolò Machiavelli. It is the custom to be shocked by him, and he certainly is sometimes shocking.
But many other men would be equally so if they were equally free from humbug. His political philosophy is scientific and empirical, based upon his own experience of affairs, concerned to set forth the means to assigned ends, regardless of the question whether the ends are to be considered good or bad. When, on occasion, he allows himself to mention the ends that he desires, they are such as we can all applaud. Much of the conventional obloquy that attaches to his name is due to the indignation of hypocrites who hate the frank avowal of evil-doing.
There remains, it is true, a good deal that genuinely demands criticism, but in this he is an expression of his age. Such intellectual honesty about political dishonesty would have been hardly possible at any other time or in any other country, except perhaps in Greece among men who owed their theoretical education to the sophists and their practical training to the wars of petty states which, in classical Greece as in Renaissance Italy, were the political accompaniment of individual genius.
Moreover, while Machiavelli’s focus on historical examples like Borgia and Agathocles provides a sobering reminder of the harsh realities of political life, it also raises the question of whether such figures should be emulated or condemned.
From a contemporary standpoint, the atrocities committed by these figures are indefensible, even if they were successful in achieving their immediate political goals.
Machiavelli’s willingness to accept these figures as models of effective leadership, while recognizing their moral failings, suggests a worldview in which political survival trumps moral considerations—a perspective that many modern readers find difficult to reconcile with their own ethical beliefs.
The Prince remains a deeply controversial work, not only because of its moral ambiguity but also because of its provocative portrayal of historical figures who achieved power through unspeakable acts.
Machiavelli’s endorsement of “criminal virtue” challenges readers to question the role of morality in politics, a challenge that continues to provoke debate among scholars and lay readers alike. While Machiavelli’s insights into power dynamics are undeniably valuable, they also serve as a stark reminder of the ethical compromises that often accompany political leadership.
Relevance Today
Again, to cite Bertrand Russell, “Machiavelli’s political thinking, like that of most of the ancients, is in one respect somewhat shallow. He is occupied with great lawgivers, such as Lycurgus and Solon, who are supposed to create a community all in one piece, with little regard to what has gone before. The conception of a community as an organic growth, which the statesmen can only affect to a limited extent, is in the main modern, and has been greatly strengthened by the theory of evolution. This conception is not to be found in Machiavelli any more than in Plato”.
In today’s complex political landscape, The Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli remains a cornerstone of political thought, still pertinent to discussions about power, ethics, and leadership. Despite being written over five centuries ago, the treatise offers a strikingly pragmatic view on governance, which resonates strongly within modern political discourse.
The focus on political realism, where the ends justify the means, contrasts starkly with ideals of transparency and morality—an ongoing struggle for leaders around the world.
In democratic and authoritarian states alike, political realism is evident. Machiavelli’s counsel that a leader must sometimes act against conventional morality in order to preserve their state or ensure its prosperity remains an unspoken rule in political maneuvering. For instance, he writes, “ because how one lives is so far distant from how one ought to live, that he who neglects what is done for what ought to be done, sooner effects his ruin than his preservation; for a man who wishes to act entirely up to his professions of virtue soon meets with what destroys him among so much that is evil. “.
Leaders today often walk the fine line between ethical governance and ruthless pragmatism, where choices rooted in Machiavellian thought become necessary for national security, economic stability, or diplomatic dominance.
The relevance of Machiavelli’s ideas is underscored by contemporary global challenges where a delicate balance between morality and efficacy defines political decisions.
What’s more, The Prince offers insight into the psychology of leadership. Machiavelli’s belief that it is better to be feared than loved, but never hated, is a guiding principle for many leaders today, whether consciously or not.
In an age where social media magnifies every action a leader takes, controlling public perception is paramount, and as Machiavelli warned, appearing virtuous is often more important than actually being soaders engage in performative transparency, providing just enough to maintain public trust while concealing decisions made in the pursuit of power and stability.
This pragmatic approach extends beyond politics into corporate leadership, where CEOs and business leaders are frequently compared to the rulers Machiavelli advises. The application of his principles can be seen in decisions driven by profit over ethics, often justified by the greater good of business survival.
Machiavelli’s Influence
Machiavelli’s influence on modern political thought and the development of political philosophy is far-reaching. His works marked a shift from the idealism that dominated political theory during his time, paving the way for realism in political strategy.
He did not dismiss morality entirely but argued that effective leaders cannot be bound by conventional ethical frameworks when the preservation of the state is at stake. As a result, Machiavelli’s ideas have shaped the doctrines of political realism that remain influential in modern political science.
Machiavelli’s acknowledgment that power often necessitates the use of force, deceit, and manipulation remains controversial yet applicable to modern governance. His preclassical virtues in favor of pragmatism influenced subsequent philosophers, such as Thomas Hobbes, who further explored the nature of authority and the social contract, found in Paul Anthony Rahe’s Machiavelli’s Liberal Republican Legacy.
Likewise, his pragmatic approach can be seen in the writings of philosophers like John Locke, who proposed that governments are established to protect property, even if doing so sometimes involves unsavory means.
Figures like Shakespeare explored Machiavellian themes of manipulation and ambition in characters such as Iago in Othello. The enduring appeal of Machiavelli’s observations on human nature reflects his deep understanding of the complexities of power, ambition, and leadership.
In the political realm, Machiavelli’ shape republicanism in seventeenth-century England, influencing events such as the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution. Across the Atlantic, his work resonated with the Fathers of the United States, many of whom were influenced by his writings on liberty and governance.
In Machiavelli and Republicanism, Blair Worden puts, “In the seventeenth century it was in England that Machiavelli’s ideas were most substantially developed and adapted, and that republicanism came once more to life; and out of seventeenth-century English republicanism there were to emerge in the next century not only a theme of English political and historical reflection – of the writings of the Bolingbroke circle and of Gibbon and of early parliamentary radicals – but a stimulus to the Enlightenment in Scotland, on the Continent, and in America.”
Leaders like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison incorporated Machiavellian principles into the framework of American democracy, ensuring that power was balanced and carefully checked by institutional safeguards. Even modern political figures and movements have drawn ideal from it, as his pragmatic approach to power and governance remains relevant in both democratic and authoritarian systems.
The Prince Quotes
Chapter 3
1. “Men ought either to be well treated or crushed, because they can avenge themselves of lighter injuries, of more serious ones they cannot.”
2. “War cannot be avoided; it can only be postponed to the advantage of others.”
3. “The nature of peoples is fickle; it is easy to persuade them of something, but difficult to confirm them in that persuasion.”
Chapter 6
4. “Princes who rise to power through their own skill and resources, rather than luck, have a hard time rising but remain secure once they reach the top.”
5. “There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things.”
6. “The innovator makes enemies of all those who prospered under the old order, and only lukewarm support is forthcoming from those who would prosper under the new.”
7. “He who has relied least on fortune is established the strongest.”
Chapter 7
8. “A prince should delegate unpopular duties to others, while dispensing all favors directly himself.”
Chapter 9
9. “A wise prince must devise ways by which his citizens are always and in all circumstances dependent on him and on his authority.”
10. “He who becomes a prince through the favor of the people ought to keep them friendly, and this he can easily do since they only ask not to be oppressed.”
Chapter 10
11. “A prince who relies solely on fortifications and fails to win the loyalty of his subjects will not withstand a prolonged siege.”
Chapter 12
12. “Mercenaries and auxiliaries are useless and dangerous, and if anyone supports his state by using them, he will never stand firm or secure.”
Chapter 14
13. “He who wishes to be obeyed must know how to command.”
14. “A prince must not have any other object nor any other thought, nor must he adopt anything as his art but war, its institutions, and its discipline.”
Chapter 17
15. “It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both.”
16. “Since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved.”
17. “It is much safer for a prince to be feared than loved, but he ought to avoid making himself hated.”
Chapter 18
18. “A prince must imitate the fox and the lion, for the lion cannot protect himself from traps, and the fox cannot defend himself from wolves.”
19. “Everyone sees what you appear to be, few experience what you really are.”
20. “The vulgar crowd always is taken by appearances, and the world consists chiefly of the vulgar.”
21. “A prince who wishes to maintain the state is often forced to do evil, for when the body politic is corrupt, the prince must adapt to its corruption.”
22. “Men judge generally more by the eye than by the hand, because everyone can see but few can feel. Everyone sees what you appear to be, few experience what you really are.”
23. “The ends justify the means.”
Chapter 19
24. “It is not titles that honor men, but men that honor titles.”
Chapter 20
25.”The best fortress which a prince can possess is the affection of his people.”
Chapter 21
26. “Princes should avoid being neutral and instead declare their support for one side, as neutrality leads to vulnerability.”
Chapter 22
27. “The first method for estimating the intelligence of a ruler is to look at the men he has around him.”
Chapter 23
28. “A prince who is not himself wise cannot be wisely advised.”
Chapter 25
29. “Fortune is a woman, and if you wish to keep her under, it is necessary to beat and ill-use her.”
30. “Fortune shows her power where valour has not prepared to resist her.”
Conclusion
Machiavelli’s The Prince remains a powerful exploration of the nature of leadership and political power. Its relevance today is undeniable, as political leaders and thinkers continue to grapple with the tension between moral ideals and the harsh realities of governance.
While some may view Machiavelli’s advice as cynical or ruthless, the enduring truth is that effective leadership often requires difficult decisions that cannot always be reconciled with ethical ideals. In modern politics, where transparency and morality are constantly debated, The Prince stands as a reminder that the pursuit of power is complex, and sometimes, pragmatism must triumph over idealism.
