Machiavelli's The Prince

[Cheezy the Wiz]

That would be shaving with the butt of Ockham's razor.

Sometimes things are complicated. Occam's Razor isn't an infallible tool.

 

[Traitorfish]

That would be shaving with the butt of Ockham's razor.

I would say that "taking the piss" makes rather less assumptions than "converted overnight from republicanism to monarchistic absolutism, then almost immediately back to a republicanism identical to that which he had previously occupied".

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

I suspect you read the same introduction to the book as I did.

Il Principe itself includes a dedication by Machiavelli to Lorenzo de Medici. There's no ambiguity there, and you don't need an introduction.

I think Machiavelli could have had multiple intentions when writing it. Perhaps he was of two minds himself with regards to what he wanted to achieve during that period in his life. I have as hard a time believing that Il Principe was merely a piece of satire as I do about the notion that he was simply trying to ingratiate himself with the new prince. People can be and are ambivalent at times.

It was published only after his death, so it's clear he never intended it for public consumption. Maybe he did support republicanism personally, but he believed that this was a way of furthering it.

I would say that "taking the piss" makes rather less assumptions than "converted overnight from republicanism to monarchistic absolutism, then almost immediately back to a republicanism identical to that which he had previously occupied".

Who's claiming conversion?

 

[BuckyRea]

.

Every time I see one of your posts, I assume you're a girl cause I see the user name "Nancy Borgasm." I don't know why. I further assume that "Borgasm" is a last name is of Armenian extraction.

 

[Dachs]

Nah, Armenian names usually end in -ian

so it'd be Borgasmian

 

[Traitorfish]

Who's claiming conversion?

Well, it's either that, satire, or a world-class example of literary brown-nosing.

Of course, as Aelf said, it could be both. A clever enough man could probably manage to flatter the emperor's new clothes while drawing attention to the fact that he was bare-arsed, and Machiavelli was most certainly a very clever man...

 

[Plotinus]

I've not read the entire corpus of Plato, and so Plotinus can doubtlessly give a more informed opinion than I, but from what I've read so far, Plato seemed to be rather uninterested in matters of the state except in how they pertained to the soul.

Everyone always bangs on about Plato's Republic and overlooks the existence of the Laws, a later and quite different book (and much duller, which may be why no-one mentions it). It existence certainly suggests that Plato was interested in politics. And in antiquity, at least, the Laws was taken as Plato's definitive statement on politics. For example, when the real Plotinus planned to found a city run according to Plato's principles, called Platonopolis, it was to be run according to the Laws, not the Republic.

Whether Plato himself actually intended the Republic to be no more than an allegory for the soul, or whether it was political but he intended the Laws to supercede the Republic as a statement of his political views, is of course unknown, and I am not a Plato scholar so I don't know what the scholarly view of the matter is. As is always the case with Plato, we have only the texts, and they must speak for themselves.

Sometimes things are complicated. Occam's Razor isn't an infallible tool.

Quite right - but then, contrary to popular belief, Ockham's Razor isn't about preferring simpler hypotheses anyway. It's about avoiding positing the existence of things that you don't need to posit in order to explain other things, and that's not the same thing.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Well, it's either that, satire, or a world-class example of literary brown-nosing.

Of course, as Aelf said, it could be both. A clever enough man could probably manage to flatter the emperor's new clothes while drawing attention to the fact that he was bare-arsed, and Machiavelli was most certainly a very clever man...

I am doubtful of that, because the book was addressed specifically to one man, and wasn't published until the author had died. That Machiavelli's attempt to use The Prince to regain entry into the center of government failed more suggests that his patron was offended by the book, not the public. Perhaps he hit far too close a nerve.

 

[Lord Baal]

I am doubtful of that, because the book was addressed specifically to one man, and wasn't published until the author had died. That Machiavelli's attempt to use The Prince to regain entry into the center of government failed more suggests that his patron was offended by the book, not the public. Perhaps he hit far too close a nerve.

There is no evidence to suggest that Machiavelli ever actually gave a copy to any of the Medicis.

 

[Louis XXIV]

^ Is there any evidence either way? It was dedicated to Lorenzo de' Medici. Shouldn't one presume that, in the fairly close world of Italy, that the man managed to get a copy of it?

Socrates' hypothetical city in the Republic is an allegory for a well-ordered soul. The citizens are happy if there is justice, i.e. if they fulfill their purpose in the polis, just as individual humans have to balance their passions, instincts and rationality. Hence, the "totalitarianism" of the city is supposed to be the dominance of the intellect over the other parts of the soul. Whether you can derive any political ideals from this at all is extremely controversial amongst classicists.

I've not read the entire corpus of Plato, and so Plotinus can doubtlessly give a more informed opinion than I, but from what I've read so far, Plato seemed to be rather uninterested in matters of the state except in how they pertained to the soul.

One little caveat. He tried to create his Republic with a Philosopher King in the real world (although closer to an Enlightened Monarch, since he was trying it with an existing tyrant). So he wasn't being entirely metaphorical and removed from politics.

Anyway, the traditional explanation of Machiavelli's Prince was he wanted to ingratiate himself. The satire approach is interesting to me. The man's praise of Cesare Borgia and Hannibal Barca could easily have been sarcasm. It's tough to say overall. I think he had hopes for a unified Italy to protect from outside influences (and Borgia came the closest). I also think he loved his native city and might have wanted to return.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

There is no evidence to suggest that Machiavelli ever actually gave a copy to any of the Medicis.

I'll get CSI on it.

One little caveat. He tried to create his Republic with a Philosopher King in the real world (although closer to an Enlightened Monarch, since he was trying it with an existing tyrant). So he wasn't being entirely metaphorical and removed from politics.

That was in Syracuse, in Sicily. He was initially invited to the court of the tyrant Dionysius I by a philosopher called Dion, but he eventually pissed off the tyrant who had him sold into slavery. He only regained his freedom later by being bought by an admirer who then released him.

Anyway, the traditional explanation of Machiavelli's Prince was he wanted to ingratiate himself. The satire approach is interesting to me. The man's praise of Cesare Borgia and Hannibal Barca could easily have been sarcasm. It's tough to say overall. I think he had hopes for a unified Italy to protect from outside influences (and Borgia came the closest). I also think he loved his native city and might have wanted to return.

I don't see why praise of Hannibal would be sarcasm. Hannibal is considered one of the greatest generals of all time, and was praised even in his own time by his own enemies, the Romans.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I don't see why praise of Hannibal would be sarcasm. Hannibal is considered one of the greatest generals of all time, and was praised even in his own time by his own enemies, the Romans.

Hannibal is regarded as a fantastic general, but a very poor statesman and politician. As his cavalry officer once famously noted, he knew "how to gain a victory, but not how to use it."

 

[skallben]

It was a while since I read the Prince now but I remember I had a different interpretation. I thought it was about uniting Italy to end foreign incursions and weaken the papal state. He refer to french and swiss in the chapter named something about barbarians. Referring to barbarians in his own time could be a hint to the times of Rome and it's struggle with "barbarians" around it. After all, there is a resemblance to the times of early Rome and Machiavelli himself was a Republican, no? I might be wrong but it was what I was thinking when I read it.

 

[LightSpectra]

Hannibal is regarded as a fantastic general, but a very poor statesman and politician. As his cavalry officer once famously noted, he knew "how to gain a victory, but not how to use it."

That quote was in reference to the fact that Hannibal refused to march on Rome after Cannae, which was a strategic decision (based on the fact that he simply did not have the supplies for a full siege), not a political one. Though I suppose you could consider that both a political and strategic decision, I myself do not know enough about Carthaginian history to say if Hannibal was a good or bad statesman.

 

[Karalysia]

His failure to gain support from the Carthaginian Senate/Assembly/Council/Whatever it was called despite the dramatics of tossing the accumulated eques rings in a large pile in front of them might have something to do with it. He went off to war with his army and paid little attention to if he had supporters at home who would back him against his enemies who feared he intended to seize power and refused to send him aid, reinforcements, or supplies.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I'll get CSI on it.
That was in Syracuse, in Sicily. He was initially invited to the court of the tyrant Dionysius I by a philosopher called Dion, but he eventually pissed off the tyrant who had him sold into slavery. He only regained his freedom later by being bought by an admirer who then released him.

Yeah, but the fact that he tried to establish it was my point. Basically, he felt The Republic could have a practical purpose, not just some kind of metaphorical one.

I don't see why praise of Hannibal would be sarcasm. Hannibal is considered one of the greatest generals of all time, and was praised even in his own time by his own enemies, the Romans.

Maybe Hannibal, but Borgia?

 

[Dachs]

His failure to gain support from the Carthaginian Senate/Assembly/Council/Whatever it was called despite the dramatics of tossing the accumulated eques rings in a large pile in front of them might have something to do with it. He went off to war with his army and paid little attention to if he had supporters at home who would back him against his enemies who feared he intended to seize power and refused to send him aid, reinforcements, or supplies.

lolwut

Almost every single shred of evidence we have says that the softim stood behind Hannibal in the war to the best of their ability. Remember, the Romans sent their confrontational-diplomacy embassy not just to Hannibal at Arsé, but to the assembly at Qarthadast, and it was there that they were rebuffed, even by Hannibal's political opponents. Livy explains Roman strategy in Iberia not in the context of a war solely against the Barqa family, but against the entire Punic state. And we know that Hannibal did, in fact, receive supplies from Africa while in southern Italy, and that a Punic fleet was even deployed to the Ionian Sea to support his operations there (!), in addition to all of the help that the Sicilian revolt got. And then there's the issue of Mago's Ligurian invasion.

 

[vogtmurr]

Initially didn't that support come rather grudgingly under Hanno the 'Great', (who wasn't very helpful to Hamilcar's efforts in Sicily either), at least until Hannibal started winning victories ? By then such help as it was, was too little too late. Carthage's basic weakness was that home base was still a city state in a vast hinterland, with indifferent vassals.

 

[Dachs]

The help, as it was, was relatively unimportant because the overwhelming majority of Hannibal's men and resources came from southern Italy and the Celtic territories. They had to. Logistically, support from Qarthadast itself was inherently almost irrelevant.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I think some have felt that there should have been more supplies from Carthage. What supplies were sent usually went to Spain (with one expedition I remember that went to Sicily). Of course, given the lack of a Carthaginian navy, it probably wasn't political opposition so much as logistical impracticality.