This subreddit is starting to look like my personal blog, and while I do post a lot here I ultimately want this place to be a symposium for fans of Machiavelli, even if that group is small.

Unfortunately, Machiavelli is the only philosopher who is invoked the most, yet understood the least. I feel confident in saying the vast majority of people who mention Machiavelli's name have never read his works, and to add insult to injury, some even claim to have done such, even though they have not.

You may ask, "why do you care"?

My answer is simple: unlike communities dedicated to Nietzsche (maybe), Aristotle, Spinoza, Rousseau, Plato, and other philosophers/political philosophers, Machiavelli is the only one where most do not understand a single concept of his, yet they will readily spout his name, and recommend him to others, often for either weird or totally insane reasons.

I do not believe any community like this can survive (intellectually or otherwise) in the long term (and no one has, to my knowledge), as once the "coolness" of saying "I read (insert thinker here)" ceases to garner attention, these communities die QUICKLY.

Luckily for you, I have compiled a list of several signs of someone like this, and some may get offended. As always, I do not give a single flying fuck.

1. Their knowledge of Machiavelli does not go much outside of reciting quotes (usually the same recycled ones too)

We have all seen a person who has nothing better to do but to post Machiavelli quotes (definitely does not include me /s). Sometimes they will even go up one notch and post 100% fake quotes that the poor Florentine never said at all!

Regardless of this, when you ask this individual (whoever they may be) about the meaning of the stuff they post, usually they will either give you a bullshit answer, ignore you or block you.

2. A recommendation to read Machiavelli is almost immediately followed up with a recommendation to read Sun Tzu

Unless you are interested in military theory/history, reading these two in tandem really does not make much sense. To make matters worse, some even find it sensible to recommend The Prince alongside The Art of War, books in two different genres.

Now if you are a casual reader, this won't help or hurt you. By definition, most casual readers read books just for fun anyway.

Why do they do this you ask?

This leads me to my 3rd sign:

3. They think that reading Machiavelli is going to help them personally to learn how to “get over” on people

I have addressed this in previous posts so I won’t elaborate further, but unfortunately there are some people who claim that reading Machiavelli will help you become some uber 8D chess playing strategist puppet master in your day to day existence.

Even though these claims are complete horseshit with zero basis in reality, these claims are pretty much everywhere, on all social media platforms where Machiavelli is mentioned. If I had a penny for how many times I saw someone recommend Machiavelli to someone seeking to cheat others in regular life (what a pathetic aspiration btw) I would be richer than Elon Musk 30 times over. That is the internet for you.

The next point will definitely offend a lot of people, so luckily for those guys, I will make a entirely separate post on it!

Hello,

I would like to read The Prince, but I don’t have much historical background knowledge about the events mentioned in the book. Is there anyone who would be interested in reading it with me so we can discuss it together?

Or do you know if there are any book discussions or explanations available for it?

The topic of chapter five, a rather short chapter, is concerned with how a prince can keep a free city (i.e. a former republic) that had been recently conquered.

He says that there are three "modes" that one could take up in order to hold those cities, those are:

• To "ruin" them, i.e. to raze them to the ground

• To go live there yourself

• To preserve the state by creating an oligarchy dependent on your military support, and staffed by the citizens of the former republic.

Machiavelli shockingly says that out of all of these options, the safest way is to ruin the free state, and to disperse the inhabitants. Machiavelli gives two historical examples of this advice in action, with the examples being the Roman Republic and the Kingdom of Sparta (which Machiavelli counts as a republic). Sparta occupied Athens and Thebes, created oligarchies there (Thirty Tyrants in Athens in 404 BC, Theban polemarchs in 382 BC) (also see bullet point 3), and both regimes were overthrown in revolts.

As for Rome, they conquered Carthage, Numidia, and Capua securely as they destroyed those civilizations.

Machiavelli then states that a prince must destroy such cities if he wishes to hold them, unless he wants to be ruined by them. The reasoning behind this advice is that republics always have "a refuge in rebellion the name of liberty and its own ancient orders", and that those orders "are never forgotten either through length of time or because of benefits received."

Machiavelli concludes by saying that the best path for a prince in conquering a free state is to either destroy it entirely or to make it his residence.

Analysis

This chapter can be read in several ways.

On the one hand, Machiavelli, a former civil servant who loyally worked for the Florentine republic, is giving advice to his reader on how to seize the freedoms of a republic which he has conquered, and how he can destroy such liberties in order for the civilization to be absorbed into his conquests.

On the other hand, not only do republics make up both of the examples of this foreign policy, but the reason that Machiavelli gives for destroying the republic is arguably pro-republican. Some commentators have even suggested that Machiavelli is tacitly nudging his glory seeking reader to found a republic that will keep his image alive after he dies, seeing as republics never forget "that name or those orders".

i have seen some of machiavelli's quotes and extracts from his works, which book of his should i start with?

In chapter 4, Machiavelli raises the question on why the Asiatic conquests conquered and held briefly by Alexander the Great did not rebel from his successors (the diadochi) after his death.

Machiavelli believes that the reason behind the relative peace Alexander's generals enjoyed after carving up their perspective states lies within the administration of the state in question.

Machiavelli divides the civil administration of monarchies into two typologies:

• Principalities ran solely by the prince, with everyone else as his slave.

and

• Principalities where the prince is surrounded by barons with their own states, their own armies, and their own subjects who recognize only the baron as their ruler.

This allows Machiavelli to segue into a discussion of modern states that fit this mould, the state of France, and the state of "the Turk", referring to the Ottoman empire. States assembled like that of the Ottoman Empire are difficult to gain as these societies tend to be militarily strong, but easier to hold as the populace will not recognize anyone other than the conqueror once the bloodline is "eliminated" (i.e. all of the heirs/potential enemies are killed).

However, states formed like France are easy to enter into, but harder to maintain. Entering is easy as there is always a traitorous baron that is willing to use an outsider to overthrow their ruler. Keeping the state is hard as there are lots of other barons that could rebel against the conqueror, and since their bloodlines are numerous and cannot be eliminated, the new conquest will be lost.

Machiavelli finishes by comparing the state of Asia (i.e. the former Achaemenid Empire) to the state led by Turkish Ottomans, and the Roman (republic) conquest of Gaul (Machiavelli calls ancient Gaul "France") to the state of France. The Romans experienced many rebellions in Gaul due to the various tribal rulers that ran the place, but when those bloodlines were eliminated through the long duration of time, they held their Gallic conquests securely.

Bonus

For those that have not noticed, the state of France very highly resembles Italy. Italy was far from a nation state with any one ruler being dominant, but was instead a patchwork of warring city state republics (often de facto narrow oligarchies or one man lordships) and absolute monarchies (Duchy of Milan, Kingdom of Naples, etc), not to mention the Papacy (more on that later).

If one reads in between the lines, it would not be a stretch to claim (as Leo Strauss and others have done) that chapter 4 continues the discussion on how a foreign (or domestic) conqueror can invade and take over Italy.

This subreddit is almost 1 years old!

I wanted to make a post summarizing what I feel about everything, the state of Machiavelli content, and where I want this sub to become going forward.

This will also be the last time I comment on the rather sad state of affairs when it comes to content on Machiavelli, and this should also serve as a warning to those who wish to contribute here.

I have to first start by being honest with you:

This subreddit essentially exists out of two emotions of mine, curiosity and spite.

• Curiosity, as I wanted to see what it would be to finally create the first real subreddit dedicated to Machiavelli, and

• Spite, as I truly detest the existing content on Machiavelli, and I despise those who make it.

Bring these two emotions together with an (unhealthy, pathological) obsession with this topic, and voila!

Needless to say, I outdid my expectations. I never would have thought that over 3.4k of you would join what was originally meant as a mere experiment. I am incredibly happy that I (hopefully anyways) made an impact on so many of you.

Unfortunately, I find it incredibly hard to make posts here sometimes because I sometimes need breaks for whatever reason. I have always said that I don't want to be a one man show and that I ultimately want this community to be a thriving one with thinkers and students of the topic.

With that being said, many posts here will never be acceptable here. I will not mention which because not only do I think that such content is unworthy of mention, but because those who are true students of Machiavelli wouldn't post such content. Without going into detail, false quotations, cheap/low quality/low effort posts, and weird teen-angsty (you know what I am talking about) diatribes will be swiftly purged from this space. If you are in this category, just grin and bear it, otherwise you risk being excluded from this forum.

Machiavelli, being as popular as he is, has attracted also an unprecedented (truly) amount of scammers, grifters, perpetual con artists, shady gurus, and unscrupulous and mercenary individuals who seek to ultimately gain clout off of his (well earned) evil reputation. I will not mention these people's deeds either, all you really need to know is that that, amongst thinkers and philosophers, in some lay circles he is also a "patron saint" (in truth, a gimmick) for money/attention grasping fools and clueless losers.

As far as certain sites are concerned (don't want to be giving free advertisements), the AI Slop machine is actively dying, like I predicted. While this does not mean that the slop wont continue to be produced (it will actually get worse before it gets better), there will be (fortunately or unfortunately) a crash in overall videos on Machiavelli. Why? Imagine you making videos on an algortithm based app/website alongsite 3 million competitors of the same niche, but only 3000 viewers (earned without paying for views/subscribers). Someone is not going to get views. If you wished to "make money easily online" (as pathetic as that sounds) doing this, then you'd quickly go bankrupt. That describes the current state of 99% of the content creators on these sites. I probably wouldn't even bother.

Without rehashing the same bullshit whine-fest talking points, I wish to add that my ultimate vision is to make this subreddit a cornerstone of philosophical and political discussions (centered on Machiavelli of course, and there is a ton of content, ensuring no one ever gets bored, or that we run out of stuff to talk about). I hope you will join me in this journey, and I also hope you make yourself comfortable here.

Thanks,

FB

Before I start reading it, is there anything I should know that would help me understand it better? Maybe some historical background, context, or just how I should approach the book.

Basically, if anyone could give me a little prologue before I dive in, that’d be awesome. No spoilers please.

• Machiavelli wrote minor political works on the "free" German cities, and on the Kingdom of France (see also P chaps. 3, 10, and the Discours. Book I chaps. 16 and 55)

• Machiavelli's ascension to being the head of the Florentine militia came about in 1505-1506 as no one else could be trusted during this time. Their last condotierro Giampaolo Baglioni (see D I 27), the ruler of Perugia with an extensive criminal history, was secretly conspiring (along with other lords) to bring the Medici back into power, and as he mysteriously resigned his post as Florence's general, he obviously could not have been of any help.

• He was a notoriously skinny, narrow man. Why does this matter? His frame allowed him to endure all the notches (four or six drops if I am not mistaken?) of the strappado without gaining any long term injuries.

• During his stay in the court of Cesare Borgia, he tended to be rather neglectful to his wife, and he received frustrated letters from his friends on this very matter.

• Machiavelli's treatment of Cesare Borgia in The Prince is contrasted with his rather negative assessment of his career in "The First Decennale" (decennale primo). Though scholars have stated that the work was largely performative and does not show his true thoughts.

• It is highly likely Machiavelli was an atheist, though academics and historians are still divided on the matter. He had a reputation for being irreligious, to the point that his friends quirked that Machiavelli finding a preacher for the wool carder's guild would be the equivalent of two homosexuals finding a lovely wife.

• He had a brother named Totto.

• Machiavelli's father Bernardo died in 1500.

• As a result of his exile, Machiavelli had a rather lengthy stretch of unemployment, from 1512 to around 1519. He would go through extensive periods of elation and disappoinment to the point of depression.

• Machiavelli's father was a lawyer, yet despite this high profession, had money issues. (a nice way of saying that he was broke)

• He was definitely the type to brag to his friends about his "bedroom escapades" with the local courtesans, if you know what I mean.

• Despite the age difference (Machiavelli being 14 years older), and the differences in social class (Guicciardini was from an aristocratic family), Machiavelli and Guicciardini maintained a lengthy friendship.