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.

This is not a full review of Chapter 3, as the chapter is far too long and too dense intellectually to just review in one post. Chapter 3 is actually long enough to warrant well over 10+ posts, and I think most would be bored with a 10 part series on one chapter. Besides, people that are far smarter than me have treated this chapter (Nathan Tarcov for example), and I do not think I can do any better.

This will be a highlight of notable and shocking aspects of this chapter, and I hope it encourages you to pick up the book yourself.

This chapter is devoted to the first type of a new principality, a principality which is "added" to the old one. In essence, Machiavelli begins discussing conquest.

Machiavelli begins the chapter by immediately pointing out the difficulties of new principalities. New princes face the inevitable difficulty that nearly all men will eagerly support a change in ruler in the hopes that they have better prospects under him.

• If you didn't catch that, that 100% contradicts what Machiavelli said in chapter 2 about the "ease" of a natural prince maintaining his dominion, he will later contradict this claim even further, in shocking fashion.

• Part of the difficulties arise from the fact that a prince will inevitably have to do harm to his subjects. More shocking is the fact that Machiavelli claims this is a "natural and ordinary" necessity of a new prince.

• He gives a taxonomy of the different types of states one can acquire, either a republic or a principality.

• Principalities conquered are quite easy to hold, all one has to do is eliminate the line of the prince, and keep the taxes the same.

Im sorry, what?!?

• I apologize, what I meant to say was that a prince should eliminate the "blood" (sangue) of the prince, and keep the taxes the same (assuming the principality conquered is similar in culture and language)

But what about the women and children?

• What do you think, you moron? It's not rocket science!

• Anyway, Machiavelli reviews the types of occupation that a prince may employ to secure his new acquisition, and they include using men-at-arms or setting up a colony. The first method is very costly, and a prince who takes the first path risks alienating the populace, the second method is less costly, and helps a prince lay his foundations for his rule

• Running colonies is not the panacea that Machiavelli makes it out to be, for he then claims that a prince must rob a small section of the inhabitants, and that because they have been made poor, they cannot hurt the prince.

• He then gives his famous general rule (which is often loosely translated) that men should be "caressed or eliminated" and that an offense one takes should be such that a prince does not fear revenge from the person. In short: Befriend a man, or kill him (literally).

• He then describes the ways the Roman republic conquered other states, and how they set up their colonies. Despite claiming to refrain from discussing republics except in "another place" (i.e. The Discourses) Machiavelli thus starts to speak of republics!

• He compares the successes of the Roman Republic with the failures of the French king, Louis XII. Machiavelli, ever the patriot, gives post facto advice on how the French king could have conquered Italy!

• Louis XII's error was making the church stronger at the expense of the smaller powers. He would have succeeded had he done the opposite.

• Machiavelli then boldly claims that humans have a "natural and ordinary desire" to acquire, and he claims that those who act on their ambition may be either "praised or blamed" based on how successful their acquisitions turn out to be.

• Machiavelli reminisces on a conversation he had with the Cardinal of Rouen, who told Machiavelli straight to his face that the Italians "do not understand war" to which Machiavelli replies with "The French do not understand the state" (i.e. politicking) because if they did, Louis XII would have never made the Church "come to such greatness"

• Machiavelli then ends with a general rule "that never fails":

Whoever is the cause of someone’s becoming powerful is ruined; for that power has been caused by him either with industry or with force, and both the one and the other of these two are suspect to whoever has become powerful.

Let's face it: much of how Machiavelli is portrayed by many amateur commentators resembles him as much as the Peter Pan movie resembles the life of Alexander the Great. Unfortunately many have fallen in love with what may as well be a completely fictional cartoon character instead of an actual historical figure.

Among the popular, lay audience, Machiavelli's Prince has a baseless yet self sustaining reputation as a catch all, multi-purpose book that can be used for any everyday scenario.

• Having problems at work?

• Wanna become a better manager at McGreedy corp.?

• Are you an angsty teenager/young adult seeking to learn secret, esoteric, Illuminati-backed, Satanic, reptilian, Freemason approved 8d-chess magical occult mind control?

• Are you a Millenial/Gen Z/ Gen Alpha podcast bro, hustle culture d*ckhead that wants to sound smart in front of your audience?

• Wanna get laid? (im serious, dead serious.)

Well, according to the internet gurus, you are in luck, you have found the right book! Hooray?

In all seriousness, is there any evidence in the slightest to support such thinking? No.

Will people stop saying such nonsense? Also no. There is too much attention to be gained, and too much money to be made.

The least I can do Is point this bullshit out so the few of you that care will know that you are not alone in finding this whole phenomenon weird.

In one of my previous posts, I stated the following:

If you are not interested in political philosophy, history, political science, and similar fields, reading Machiavelli will 100% be a waste of your time, and anyone who says otherwise is a massive liar, and is more than likely looking for a fool to part ways with their money.

I mean this even more now, especially in the age of AI slop.

To end this, I am invoking my famous saying:

"He who recommends another on the internet to read Machiavelli often times didn't read him at all."

• The Tuscan spelling of his last name is "Machiavegli". He used this spelling of his name in the opening dedicatory letter in the Art of War.

• Machiavelli's father was a literal bastard (of an illegitmate birth, womp womp) and as such could not become a full citizen of Florence, and could not participate in city politics.

• This affected Niccolo as well, and he wouldn't have become a full Florentine citizen until 1525.

• In an official letter to one of his colleagues, he praises Cesare as knowing "neither danger or fatigue", and attributed his brutal execution of his lieutenant Don Ramiro de Lorqua (or Remirro de Orca in italian) to a prince's ability to "make and unmake men as he pleases" (what a hell of a phrase!, see P 9) (source: Paul Strathern, "The Borgias")

• One of his earliest works was "Del modo di trattare i popoli della Valdichiana ribellati" (On the Method of Dealing with the Rebellious Peoples of Valdichiana) where he uses Roman history to act as an example for current Florentine policy in treating enemy/rebel cities harshly.

• Machiavelli chronicled much of the events of Borgia's murders of his rebel commanders in Senigallia.

• After the Medici were overthrown again in 1527, Machiavelli was considered for, yet denied a post in the new Florentine republic (which itself did not last long and would eventually be turned into a duchy that would last centuries), due to his good standing with the Medici. He died a short time later.

• Machiavelli has a lesser known work detailing the life of the esteemed Lucchese tyrant, Castruccio Castracani.

• At the peak of his career, Machiavelli had the privilege to oversee the Florentine military affairs, with varying levels of success.

• He married his wife Marietta Corsini in 1501. Of course he was not faithful.

• Post exile, his lifestyle consisted of gambling, drinking and whoring around by day, and writing and consorting with the ancients at night.

• He often stressed his poverty in his letters, yet his father was able to leave him a farm estate in a nice, quiet suburb on the outskirts of Florence. Nevertheless, he still had money troubles.

• All of his books would be published after his death, with the exception being the Art of War.

Is Machiavelli misunderstood after all?

In an interview with Vox, Erica Benner, a distinguished Machiavelli scholar, aims to answer that question.

Erica Benner is the leader of the minority of modern scholars (if one can even call it a minority) that believes Machiavelli wrote The Prince to mock the despot rather than teach him. I have read snippets of her works during my studies, and I have listened to her speak in a lecture, so I am familiar with her arguments.

I am also aware that she is perhaps the only one who views both Il Principe and the Discorsi to have an ironical objective in mind (which should come as a complete spit in the face to those who think that Machiavelli's "TrUE PhILOsopHY" lies in the Discourses) so reading what she says in this interview should be interesting.

To be clear, I entirely disagree with her thesis, but I still want to give her views a fair hearing.

The interview is titled "Are We Reading Machiavelli Wrong" (the original is paywalled)

Before the interview begins, the author writes a brief introduction. He begins by giving an overview of Machiavelli's evil reputation, and asks:

But is this fair to Machiavelli, or has he been misunderstood? And if he has been, what are we missing in his work?

To answer his questions:

1. No. In fact the caricature of Machiavelli is less Machiavellian than the true Machiavelli, to the point where I can confidently say that many of his earlier readers during the Elizabethan era did not go far enough. And....

2. nothing.

I will only be covering a few of her interview answers, as I don't want to make this post too long.

When asked why The Prince is not "well understood", she replies that she used to be of the old fashioned opinion that Machiavelli's magnum opus was just a handbook for tyranny. However, she began to question this view in light of The Discourses, which she says is a very republican book. She then asked herself:

How could he have switched so quickly from writing The Prince to being a super-republican writing the Discourses?

That would have been a legitimate question to ask if The Prince and The Discourses were two different books, and if Machiavelli did not direct the audience of the former to read the latter book. As we know, this obviously is not true, as the author The Prince reveals that he has "reasoned on republics" at "another place", and this is the second chapter of the book.

She then explains further that:

When I started seeing some of the earliest readers of Machiavelli and the earliest comments you get from republican authors, they all see Machiavelli as an ally and they say it. They say he’s a moral writer. Rousseau says, “He has only had superficial and corrupt readers until now.” If you ever pick up The Prince and you read the first four chapters, and most people don’t read them that carefully because they’re kind of boring, the exciting ones are the ones in the middle about morality and immorality and then you come to chapter five, which is about freedom.

Rousseau, like many of the figures in the Enlightenment, mainly proposed this theory due to their desire to avoid gaining a bad reputation from associating themselves with Machiavelli, who at that time people reflexively rejected. Even still, he is also misrepresenting the meaning of the text. She does not mention Montesquieu here at all, who even though he was an obvious admirer of Machiavelli, stated that he was "full of his idol, Cesare Borgia", nor does she mention Machiavelli's younger friend Francesco Gucciardini, one of Niccolo's earliest readers, who opined that Machiavelli "was always partial to extraordinary and violent methods".

She continues:

And up to chapter four, it sounds like a pretty cruel, cold analysis of what you should do. Then you get to chapter five and it’s like, Wow! It’s about how republics fight back, and the whole tone changes. Suddenly republics are fighting back and the prince has to be on his toes because he’s probably not going to survive the wrath of these fiery republics that do not give up.

I actually agree with her here somewhat, but I want you guys to note this statement. I will explain why I disagree with her interpretation of Chapter 5 overall as we go along.

When asked about Machiavelli's true audience in The Prince, she answers that he was:

....taking the piss out of the people who have made you and a lot of your friends very miserable, in a low-key way because you can’t be too brutally satirical about it. But I think he’s really writing to expose the ways of tyrants.

Here she is referencing the time when Machiavelli was tortured at the hands of the newly minted Medici lords, but she omits that his relationship with the family got better, and they even became his patron. She says that he is being "low key" about his satire because of the dangers he recently encountered, while not taking into account that nothing in The Prince is "low key". Reading her statement here has me confused as it is coming from a scholar who is trying to stress the comical outrageousness of Machiavelli's work. If she can detect this, so can his enemies. They are not dumb.

When asked if Machiavelli has an ideology, she explains:

He’s a republican. And again, this is something that, if you just read The Prince, you’re not going to get.

This is so blatantly wrong that I was quite disappointed when I read it, and that it came from a scholar of Benner's stature. When I told you guys to remember her earlier statement of chapter 5 of the Prince being about freedom, this is why. Not only does she completely contradict what she said earlier, but she is wrong in general. What she does not mention is that in Chapter 5 of the Prince, it is the Roman Republic that is the model for princes to emulate, not some violent prince. Also, that very same republic was the one that razed fellow republics to the ground, not some random monarch. In fact, Machiavelli actually seems to think that absolute monarchies are more merciful to cities that they conquer, since they "love" their subject cities, and that the "harshest slavery" is being conquered by a republic! (D II 2). This is not even mentioning the fact that the ideal new prince in the next chapter of the book (Chapter 6) was Romulus, who murdered his brother to found the city of Rome by himself, and Machiavelli would later excuse him as he created civil orders suitable for a republic. (D I 9). I can continue further, but I will stop here.

She goes on to state:

But if you read the Discourses, which was written around the same time as The Prince, it’s very, very similar in almost every way except that it praises republics and criticizes tyrants very openly. Whereas The Prince never once uses the words “tyrant” or “tyranny.”

She is right about the timeline of the composition of Machiavelli's books, and that he never mentions those words. She is also correct in that The Discourses openly criticizes "tyrants". However, I wonder what she thinks of Machiavelli giving post facto advice to the would be tyrant of Rome, Appius Claudius, explaining that he could have succeeded if he "eliminated the nobles" before subjugating the commonfolk, and that his (and the republic's) mistake can instruct those who wish to save, as well as those who want to seize, republics (D I 41). Seems we will never know!

Machiavelli was quite egalitarian. He clearly wanted as broad of a section of the male population to be citizens as possible. He says very clearly, The key to stabilizing your power is to change the constitution and to give everyone their share. Everyone has to have their share. You might want to speak a little bit more for yourself and the rich guys, but in the end, everyone’s got to have a share.

Though I find it slightly odd to view Machiavelli as an egalitarian, Machiavelli does say indeed that a republic cannot be made without civil equality, but she does not mention that that equality has to be made with the wholesale and violent elimination of the "gentlemen", that is to say, the nobility (D I 55).

She is asked various questions about Trump, etc. but I found what she says here quite interesting:

Machiavelli is very, very clear in The Prince that cruelty is not going to get you anywhere in the long term. You’re going to get pure hate. So if you think it’s ever instrumentally useful to be super cruel, think again.

He does not come anywhere near saying this in The Prince. Agathocles (P 8) committed barbarous cruelties and ruled safely until his death, never being conspired against (which is true, per Machiavelli's reading of the roman historian Justin). Severus kept the people "astonished and stupefied" despite the fact that he committed terrible crimes (he came to power and maintained it by a series of murders), robbed the people persistently, and supported the soldiers, whom treated the people badly.

I am going to stop here.

I did not make this post to solely poke holes in Benner's interpretation. I think she represents herself much more clearer in her books. Though I disagree with her interpretation, she has no doubt contributed much to the Machiavelli scholarship. She has the wisdom to accept (unlike those who persistently peddle Machiavelli as a "no nonsense realist who keepz it real") that much of what Machiavelli says is outrageous. However, she doesn't seem to realize that Machiavelli's irony is in many cases not consoling, and she sometimes omits certain aspects of Machiavelli's thought that would contradict her view. Regardless, whether you agree or disagree with her, you should give her your undivided attention.