Machiavelli's The Prince

[vogtmurr]

At one point Hannibal was interested in getting to Sicily before Syracuse fell. I don't know if the Carthaginian navy could have assisted that.

 

[Lord Baal]

At one point Hannibal was interested in getting to Sicily before Syracuse fell. I don't know if the Carthaginian navy could have assisted that.

Not really. Hannibal used the overland route for a reason; it was next to impossible to move that many troops via the sea.

 

[vogtmurr]

Not really. Hannibal used the overland route for a reason; it was next to impossible to move that many troops via the sea.

Most certainly the road to Rome for Hannibal was through Gaul, but this is after his situation began to deteriorate. Once he was in s. Italy Sicily was just a hop away. He deduced that Sicily was the flashpoint for any Hellenistic support, and also a place to rebuild if things weren't going so well in Italy. Slipping across an expeditionary force would secure communication with Carthage, and perhaps draw a commitment from Philip V. Marcellus forestalled him in that, destroying Syracuse.

Carthage was a more accessible support base than Gaul was anymore. After all he eventually got there himself with his reduced army, despite the tight pocket Rome squeezed him in. (though no doubt some members of the Senate were just happy to see him go and become Scipio's problem). .

 

[Dachs]

Sicily wasn't the way to get Phil over to Italy. By that point, Phil was already enmeshed in the first Macedonian War. It's also highly debatable how much he actually intended to invade Rome in the first place.

 

[vogtmurr]

hence I said 'perhaps', but certainly the desparation of Syracuse to actually resist, was a pretty critical component in the politics of the region. Sicily was between both powers with Greek strongholds.
Hannibal's army could have been quite a nuisance in Sicily, once he gave up on taking Rome.

 

[Lord Baal]

Hannibal was sunk the second the more-powerful Italian city-states - with the obvious and notable exception of Capua - decided to stick with Rome rather than take a chance on Carthage. If his plan to gain support in southern Italy had worked, he'd likely have won, but that plan failed after Cannae, when, despite Rome's heavy losses, the Italians still bet on the Romans coming out on top.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

They weren't so much bent on the Romans coming out on top as they were dreadfully afraid of what would happen to them if the Carthaginians lost. And with good reason, see: Second Capua.

 

[Lord Baal]

They weren't so much bent on the Romans coming out on top as they were dreadfully afraid of what would happen to them if the Carthaginians lost. And with good reason, see: Second Capua.

That's why I said they "bet" on the Romans coming out on top, Cheezy. They knew that if Carthage won, they'd probably have a sweeter deal than under the Romans for the simple reason that Carthage didn't really have the capability to rule Italy. But if they backed Carthage and Rome won anyway, they would be royally screwed. As happened to Capua and the few other cities that went over.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Shut up I'm right you're wrong!

 

[nato2101]

I don't know where you get the idea that his arms were broken.

He was tortured "with the rope" which leads to the dislocation of the shoulders. Technically you are right his arms weren't broken, instead his shoulders were dislocated.
And if the Prince is not satire then it goes directly against everything he wrote, everything he stood for, and everything he resisted torture for.
Try reading this http://www.idehist.uu.se/distans/ilmh/Ren/flor-mach-mattingly.htm

Edit: and occam's razor is not "the simplest answer is the right answer", instead it means we should tend towards the simplest answer until there is "tend toward the simplest until further proof is provided". In this case the man's life points towards the Prince being satire, and only the Prince itself would suggest otherwise.

 

[SnowlyWhite]

if there'd be a contest of "stating the obvious" that book would win single handed...

 

[Sofista]

Ever heard about the egg of Columbus?

 

[BuckyRea]

I thought Occam's Razor was that the dumber the explanation, the more likely people were to vote for you. I believe my country has tested and verified this hypothesis several times.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

The Prince is the greatest piece of troll literature in the world

I think the consensus among scholars now is that it's satire.

If you want a serious read then I suggest the Arthashathra by Chankya.

Bingo. An even cursory reading of The Discourses will show that he had a serious hard-on for independent city-republics.

I dunno, the "satire" argument seems to be predicated on the idea that the man was incapable of changing his mind, and seeing things that honestly might not be there at all.

The satire angle isn't really a consensus and there are people (like German political scientist Herfried Münkler) who say The Prince doesn't contradict The Discourses because the context is different. He didn't even change his mind, the two works just have a different premise.
Münkler argues that Macchiavelli believed history to be cyclical and that all states go though phases of prosperity and decline, and all a good leader can do is to extend or shorten these phases. In Macchiavelli's view a republican system would be ideal for extending a golden age, while a totalitarian regime is best to reform the state and deal with serious crises that were common ins Italy durng Macchiavelli's time. Therefore The Discourses apply mostly to states where everything is swell, and The Prince to states that are in serious trouble. A republic is generally preferable, but from time to time a strong and all-powerful leader is necessary, like the temporary dictatorships in ancient Rome.

 

[LightSpectra]

There's internal evidence that the Prince was meant as satire as well. He praises Hannibal for his tyrannical-style of leadership and criticizes Scipio for his gentleness, when it was the later who was victorious in the Carthaginian Wars.

 

[Plotinus]

Edit: and occam's razor is not "the simplest answer is the right answer", instead it means we should tend towards the simplest answer until there is "tend toward the simplest until further proof is provided". In this case the man's life points towards the Prince being satire, and only the Prince itself would suggest otherwise.

I thought Occam's Razor was that the dumber the explanation, the more likely people were to vote for you. I believe my country has tested and verified this hypothesis several times.

Actually, Ockham's Razor states only that one should not postulate the existence of entities that aren't explanatorily necessary. That is not the same thing as simplicity. Moreover, neither Ockham's Razor nor the principle of parsimony (which states that, other things being equal, simpler explanations are to be preferred to more complex ones, and which is often confused with Ockham's Razor) are self-evidently reliable principles. In fact some people have argued that the principle of parsimony doesn't even hold universally within science - let alone in non-scientific matters such as the motives of a writer.

 

[BuckyRea]

...Ockham's Razor states only that one should not postulate the existence of entities that aren't explanatorily necessary. That is not the same thing as simplicity.

Ah, an argument for literal mindedness. For instance, you seem to have presumed that I didn't know what Occam's Razor was, rather than postulating the explanatorily unnecessary hypothesis that I was just goofing off. I can only counter that goofing off is far from unnecessary.

...neither Ockham's Razor nor the principle of parsimony (which states that, other things being equal, simpler explanations are to be preferred to more complex ones, and which is often confused with Ockham's Razor) are self-evidently reliable principles. In fact some people have argued that the principle of parsimony doesn't even hold universally within science - let alone in non-scientific matters such as the motives of a writer.

I don't think the point is to discover truths, however, but to avoid errors of presumption. After all, if one doesn't follow the Razor, then one is necessarily postulating entities where there is no evidence of their existence. Occam may not get you to the whole truth of a premiere causality, but it will at least preclude a scientist just making stuff up.

I'd suggest that the consensus attachment to false presumptions is a good deal more detrimental to the pursuit of truth than the occasional shrug admitting we just don't have an answer yet.

 

[punkbass2000]

For thread about book which does not mince words, there certainly seems to be a lot of it.

Read the text and consider it for itself. What difference does it make what is intentions were, Machiavellian or not.

Snide side swipes need not apply.

 

[Dachs]

For thread about book which does not mince words, there certainly seems to be a lot of it.

Read the text and consider it for itself. What difference does it make what is intentions were, Machiavellian or not.

Snide side swipes need not apply.

How anti-historical.

 

[LightSpectra]

I hope I'm not the only person here who lollerskates at the (repeatedly given) comment that motive is irrelevant to a work's meaning.