The Strategy of Machiavelli
Vložit
- čas přidán 26. 06. 2024
- Was Machiavelli serious or sarcastic? This video takes Machiavelli's political writings and interprets them through the lens of state strategy during the Italian Wars. Here, Machiavelli appears not as a philosopher or jokester, but as an experienced diplomat aware that Italian republicanism was losing out to the ascendant monarchies of Europe. To counter this, he proposed a dualistic strategy, where both power disruption and maintenance become important weapons in a prince's arsenal.
SCRIPT: strategosstuff.blogspot.com/2...
All errors are my own. I apologize for the bad sound quality.
▬ CHAPTERS ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
0:00 - Introduction
1:40 - Machiavelli’s Dualism: Fortuna and Virtù
4:15 - The Strategy of Virtù
9:34 - The Strategy of Fortuna
21:24 - Conclusion
▬ SOURCES ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Machiavelli N. The Essential Writings of Machiavelli. Modern Library 2007.
- 'The Prince'
- 'How Duke Valentino Killed the Generals Who Conspired Against Him'
- 'Discourse on Pisa', 'Pistoian Matters', 'On How to Treat the Populace of Valdichiana After Their Rebellion'
- Miscellaneous Letters
Machiavelli N. Art of War. University of Chicago Press 2005.
Machiavelli N. Discourses on Livy. www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/10827
Machiavelli N. Florentine Histories. www.gutenberg.org/files/2464/...
Benner E. Machiavelli's Prince. Oxford University Press 2013.
Mallet M; Shaw C. The Italian Wars 1494-1559. Routledge 2018.
Mitchell A. The Grand Strategy of the Habsburg Empire. Princeton University Press 2018.
Craig G; Alexander G. Force and Statecraft. Oxford University Press 1995.
USA. National Security Strategy. 2017.
USA. Summary of the 2018 National Defense Strategy. 2018.
▬ ATTRIBUTIONS ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Wikipedia (Maps + Basic facts)
Google Maps
Sandler T, George J. 'Military Expenditure Trends for 1960-2014 and What They Reveal' in Global Policy 7:2, Mar 2016. (Military Expenditure)
World Bank Open Data (Military Expenditure)
SIPRI Military Expenditure Database (Military Expenditure)
Made using Powerpoint 2013, WavePad and VideoPad.
"You magnificent bastard, I READ YOUR BOOK!" - Charles I, to Machiavelli's ghost hovering over conquered Italy.
Who wrote the book to achieve a strong unified Italy that could face foreign threats. Ironic.
I love the disclaimer in the description "All mistakes are my own", that level of open honesty and humility is so rare these days.
The Italian wars are so hardly covered! Well done!
Criminally under represented period of time. Its like a miniture version if how Europe plays out for the next 400+ years following it.
@ Millennium 7 * HistoryTech
There was NO ITALY back then. There were just a bunch of fairly independent provinces. Get it right.
@@kingofpendragon It was known today as the Italian wars, since those wars happened on the ITALIAN PENINSULA, that later happened to be united under the nation of ITALY.
You know what else is hardly covered? Lana Rhoades. Think about that. Think about that.
Gelphs and giberlines
So my take away is:
I should use fortuna (advantageous external circumstance I have little control of) to advance my power, ensuring that I make myself look good in the process.
And I should use virtu (stability, diligence, and recognizing dissent) to lock down my power and ensure I (and my 'state') remain in power.
If I stick to one strategy too long, my power has trouble perpetuating as I either lack the stability and support of my people (neglecting virtu) or allow threats outside of my 'order' to grow (neglecting fortuna).
allow me to explain: you think you are "the people".
but in the Bible, you are what they call "nations, ethnikos". that is, "beasts of the field".
democracy is "power of the people". But in antiquity, the slaves were not considered people, but "flocks, cattle, property, assets"
so when Machiavelli talks about "the people" he does not mean "you, Riparoo". you are cattle. so you have to chill, you can't play that game.
@@criztu completely false both about the bible and about Machiavelli
@@criztu Imagine saying that not knowing that Machiavel actually live in an age where mere commoners could very much rise to power, like the Medici and Sforza did
@@TheAtmosfear7 I donno where you get your information from, but google says the founder of the Sforza was born into a rich noble family
@@criztu Fair enough, the Sforza family does originate from nobility, but it was a very minor noble family, far from the Dukedom that was eventually attained.
This is great stuff! Just two remarks:
1. to read all the text I need to press pause quite often.
2. explain the abbreviations.
Thanks for the great work and keep it up!
How do you choose your topics?
Pressing pause, I think, is a good thing because it means the information is being steadily delivered and can then be absorbed at any pace, by anyone at the rate they're able to comprehend, rather than dragging things out at the pace of the lowest common denominator. It is more efficient and practical. I like this method...
pressig pause often seems fine
i@@RU-zm7wj it's literally against the purpose of watching a video if you want to read then read a book or article and you can read it at your own pace
Lorenzo de Medici is completely insane.
"Italy might be going to war sir, what do we do?"
"We?"
"Yes don't we have to prepare for wa-"
" 'we' don't need to do anything. I'll just talk to them one by one and change their mind."
Dude even managed it. No wonder Machiavelli dedicated the Prince to his grandchild who had power, if he had half the charisma of his grandfather you couldn't do without his skills. (He was close to a hopeless fool, Machiavelli almost made the book into a tutorial to ruling just for him. Although the inspiration for the ideal Prince was Cesare Borgia, AC fans will know him.)
EDIT: I overlooked the fact that since he died in 1492, Piero (the one who Machiavelli dedicated the book to), of course can't be his son. I even know his bloodline enough to remember his daughter, literally named Contessina (little countess, transliterated), was named after Lorenzo's grandma. I don't understand how I overlooked, like, 21 years.
Wait what I need context
@@Iarlen Basically, in 1454 the peace treaty of Lodi was signed. Subsequently, an alliance between Naples, Florence and Sicily was formed. In part this was needed, because Venice alone was almost more powerful than the three of them combined (if anything happened, Venice could attack 90% of italian territories, and their merchants had a stranglehold on commerce, needless to say, this is incredibly dangerous). The other part is due to the pope being a greedy asshole. He was boxed in to keep him check.
But he didn't give up. First of all, he tried to assassinate the whole Medici family, with the with the help of the Pazzi. He only got Lorenzo's brother. In response, the lord of Florence had everyone publicly executed and a clergyman who helped the Pazzi organize the attack was hanged from the walls of Palazzo della Signoria (a popular tourist spot today). The stupidest thing the pope did was excommunicating Lorenzo, who was the personification of Humanism at the time, because of this, it had 0 effect.
The pope had to back off, only to immediately go to the king of Naples, and have him attack Florence, promising him land.
Now, Lorenzo, completely insane if you ask most people, just sort of spoke to the king of Naples, and convinced him that the war was going to be all in the pope's favour, that is, he was tricking him. He managed it, and the pope had to stop. He refused to speak with Lorenzo after his loss, but that's too bad for him. (This same pope, tried to attack Venice, you can guess how it went, Lorenzo came back to stop him again)
He was one of the, if not the most influential person in Europe excluding maybe the Charles VIII who was crowned by Giovanni, one of his children.
Just the fact that Lorenzo existed thwarted France's expansion, he opened the first ever art school "Giardino di San Marco", where a young Michelangelo studied, Leonardo da Vinci spent some time there, and many, many more personalities took part in his peerless political manoeuvres. He's the closest thing to an ideal ruler. He would nurture art, and use it as a political tool, participate and start urban construction WHILE advancing his net of connections.
He's also the one who referred Da Vinci to the Duke of Milan, where Leonardo would complete his most impressive work. If you don't know, this man built a robot for the Duke's engagement. You read it right. He built a mechanical robot that could walk, salute, and lastly bow and take his hat off. (Don't believe me? Look it up. NASA has a rendition of said robot in their museum)
@@BygoneT He sounds like the fucking rennaissance Bismarck holy shit that's fantastic.
@@Iarlen He really was. Of course he's not the only notable figure, England had Elizabeth I after he died in 1492. He's still impressive as a person. He was the political equivalent of Leonardo in the Arts and Science.
Too bad his school was torn down in the second half of the 1800s, all for a few more roads. I would pay so, so much money to see the spots where Michelangelo sculpted a mythological beast's face in a matter of minutes, just to impress Lorenzo. I took some time to research its appearance and it was quite large. All that remains is a plaque now, so sad.
He's a really interesting personality for sure, really, in my heart the only one that surpasses him is Leonardo da Vinci himself. Dude developed a way to divert the river going through Florence if the inhabitants of a nearby territory didn't quiet down. He also designed a city that, supposedly, would wash itself with rain (the structure of the town was uphill, but built slowly, in a circular fashion, tilted by mere millimeters towards the center of the circumference, so that water flowing down would clean the streets. He took this from the romans, you may or may not know this, but roman acqueducts have a 3mm inclination perfectly all across the structure, this means the water naturally flows due to gravity to Rome, really impressive stuff), he apparently wanted to implement something like Heron's steam engine to create cars, and so much more i can't fit enough words of praise.
By the way , here's something about Heron. He's also an insane genius. He made a steam engine in the BCE period, he made the first vending machine, and most impressive, he seemingly invented the first pseudo computer.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero_of_Alexandria
Art history comes in handy when you need to study as a writer, like me. It's also good for blowing people's minds. If you're not exhilarated over a pre-Jesus steam engine, i don't know what excites you.
@@BygoneT Now now, aren't you a fan of the Renaissance? Your comments proved that you have vast knowledge in this field.
P.S: Which is impressive.
Very good presentation, I spent over an hour watching a 24 minute video because I kept going back to rewatch a segment to understand how complex Machiavelli ideas are. I have bookmarked this video and will probably spend a lot more time watching to understand how complex his ideas are.
First video seen from this channel after reading 'The Prince.'
Thank you so much and will re-read and re-watch again as got much more understanding now of the political philosophy and context of the book!
incredible channel. keep up the great work!
seriously needs more subscribers, this stuff is great
This video description of the process of grabbing and holding power in an organization goes so far beyond international politics. It applies perfectly to organizational politics and probably personal interactions. I see a perfect example at an employer where a boss came in and must have been well schooled or a natural Machiavellian. One could almost see exact actions along with initial implementation of fortuna strategy and then virtu. It worked well for the manager, but was a disaster for others--except is well rewarded chosen ones. Great and insightful Videos!
You never want to have Machiavellian people in your organisation. They aren't interested in improving the company, only their own position.
Unfortunately once they figure out who the influential players are they can be quite difficult to get rid of.
It applies to life in general; this is how you become a multi millionaire starting from nothing. You need to put yourself in positions such that when opportunity arises, you can exploit it to maximum effect.
If you just stay around as a good little wagie, you won't advance at all. Now, my goal is to get a PhD in physics, but I will also be keeping an eye out for any and all opportunities to enhance my wealth and social position via such tactics and strategies as demonstrated here
I have seen the same happen at my organization
Thank you so much! I actually get him now instead of trying to decide if he's being satirical or serious
Deciding and even contemplating the possibility of him being satirical would be undermining his whole existence.
Where the hell does this "machiavelli is just satire" meme come from? I have a feeling it's from hipster cliques in academia that try to hard to think he's writes as a playwright instead of as a statesman. And yet, I hear the tepid notion of him being satire in almost any discussion of the prince.
I never thought it was satirical nor ever heard someone say that.
+Jericurl
Sounds about right. Hispter NPC's unable to comprehend the existence of the past.
@@Bulacanos I remember reading an essay by Isiah Berlin that went into this in great detail. Plenty of scholars felt that it was satire because it so diverged from his 'discourses'
@@mendel7575 I've never heard that either.
This really is a useful video in understanding the pitfalls regarding current world power policy and specially what one actor failed at and what another is excelling at. Will just leave it at that, though I hope you understand which is which. Fantastic video! This, the Mackinder analysis and Mahan's strategy are a fascinating watch, and specially the last comment on Mahan's applicability into the new Space-faring stage.
Excellent, keep it up!
I did my honors research in college on commonalities between the political philosophies of Machiavelli and Martin Luther and I must say this is an excellent analysis of Machiavelli's intentions in his work!
Can you tell me about what you find out about Martin Luther's political philosophy? Since he's mostly known as a religious figure during the German Reformation. Though the time in Germany at the time was quite a mess (Hapsburg supremacy challenged in France and Italy, revolts of the Germans princes embracing Protestantism, peasants revolts, and the Ottoman threat to Vienna, that's a few I could mention).
Yes, please share!
@@robertortiz-wilson1588 Luther had a rather firm separation of sacred and secular when it came to politics. This wasn't the sort of separation that we expect today where the government is irreligious or religiously neutral. Rather, the ruler has responsibilities that are not the same as that of a pastor. So unlike Catholic thought of the time, Luther had no problem with a ruler who was acting privately in a way that was guaranteeing them a place in hell after they died (see his relationship with Philip of Hesse for a good example). A ruler who tolerated the "true church" (i.e. Lutheranism) while putting down disorders like the peasant's rebellion would be a better ruler than a devout Protestant who failed to maintain order. You can in fact see Luther as coming to the same conclusions as Machiavelli at about the same time, but in a very unsystematic way, and with many caveats over the years. Luther was not a political thinker, unlike Machiavelli, and by the end of my research that had become painfully obvious to me.
@@mensch1066The point is that the growth of Luther’s reformation wasn’t even for religious reasons or for the truth. It was political and that’s why the German princes embraced Protestantism. It was entirely for political reasons. They wanted to undermine the Catholic Hapsburgs and the Church while taking power for themselves. After that, they wanted stability against other Protestant dissenters like the Anabaptists. It’s ironic though because the Anabaptists wouldn’t even be a thing or influential if it wasn’t for Luther’s “reformation.”
@@alexanderchristopher6237German princes and nobles at the time wanted political power. They used the reformation to get it.
This is really good stuff- you should have a lot more videos.
The most I've understood the prince since reading it the first time.
I almost klicked away becuase of the audio quality, but the information is wonderfully synthesized and presented.
spectacularly good -- thank you
Fantastic breakdown of machiavelli! I just got lost concerning which of the dualist aspects was in play.
Yeah!
If there was like a colourful thing at the side saying fortuna/virtu/general that would have been great!
Very insightful, thank you
Nice vid. Extremely detailed I def didn't read all the info
The tragedy of Ancient Greece!! Competing states inviting Ancient Rome to intervene on their behalf.
all good things come to an end. eventually.
You’ve done one hell of a job :)
In my opinion, all of life is about strategy, because every conceivable resource in life is finite. This channel has the capacity to teach you all you need to know
Great overview of Machiavelli ideas and strategy. I particularly liked the examples which really drive home each point. Sometimes I had to stop the video to absorb the background examples, but this video is long by CZcams standards so not discussing the examples was probably a good idea.
7:36 "A Stable Order that does NOT serve Prince's Interests(?)"! - what an excellent example.
Excellent lesson
Judging by the comments you made in his section, I’m surprised you (actually Machiavelli) called Francesco Sforza one over reliant on Virtú. Judging by the excerpts themselves, it seems F.S. seems like another ideal Prince: starting from non-nobility, he advanced his position via Fortuna to gain the Duchy of Milan, and then embraced peace to maintain his position via Virtú. If anything, it was his successors that failed to maintain the position F.S. gained much like Hiero failed.
Love your channel, it's precisely the type of content I'm interested in. Could you do a video on how to form such an internally resilient order? Some examples that I'm very interested in would be the founding(s) of the EU, US and how the UK became a parliamentary democracy
It depends on what you mean by 'internally resilient', of course, and that depends on what you think holds a group together. I'm working on the strategies of Eurasianism + Dugin now and their idea of 'internal resilience' is very different from those of a liberal democracy. It will be interesting to do a video on EU and off the top of my head, doing videos on the strategic aspects of Tocqueville/Alexander Hamilton (who both have a significant domestic order component) will also be in this channels future.
Great video
breautiful video.
Funny how mention Charles V at the end and that's who I was thinking was the ultimate Prince.
Thanks 👌👍
Would it interest you to envision or just propose a possible geopolitcal strategy for the ASEAN or Southeast Asia in general? Good video btw.
Well I'm not that comfortable with 'proposing' strategy... I will look into Lee Kwan Yew at some point, but probably not in the near future.
But off the top of my head, it's difficult for ASEAN the institution to make or execute strategy with a consensus-based system that allows one country (Cambodia in the present day) to veto. There are of course good reasons for such a system: with economic links to China and political links to US being both important, you don't want an institution that forces you to take sides.
But I think the geopolitical story in the current environment will be: the need for Southeast Asia to eventually take sides. Neutralism supports the status quo, which is flowing from the US to China (if this economic downturn doesn't change things, which is a big if - see Japan 1990s), but for historical and cultural reasons I don't see Southeast Asia appreciating Chinese domination (even Cambodia apparently is seeing some anti-China sentiment). I think a possible 'out' for SEA might be to invite in Indian power (participate in the Malabar Exercises etc).
The other more immediate but short-term geopolitical thing of note may be the institutionalization of stricter forms of Islam in Southeast Asia such as Brunei's sharia law and maybe the current Indonesian elections. States are of course free to do so but we should note that historically, radical Islamic militancy has destabilized SEA states through terror or civil war (Philippines etc).
@@StrategyStuff I think your assessment is correct. As a native of this region (Indonesian), ASEAN seems to be divided into two camps: pro-China and anti-China (oftentimes alligning with US interests in the region). China had territorial ambitions in the region with their island building program in the South China Sea and also economic ambitions in the region with their Belt Road Initiative.
I'm not quite sure about the Indians entering the picture though. There's not much movement from Delhi currently to act in ASEAN. It appears like they too have their own mess of a problem at home, either domestic issues, Pakistan, or direct problems with China (an Indian intervention in ASEAN would be an indirect action).
Thought I'd watch this on the anniversary of the Treaty of Vaucelles
Excellent video and channel content! I have a question about this video, specifically. You called Machiavelli's work "The Art of War", and this is the work which is also known as "The Prince" -- is this correct? And if so, is there any relationship between this work, and the "Art of War" of Sun Tzu? I mean, I could imagine that Machiavelli may have even gotten a sparse translation of what such a work might contain, and decide to write one in another fashion.
No, M’s AoW is a separate book (the only one published during Ms lifetime), and is a treatise about Italian city state warfare. It was an influential book in its own right and is probably why SZ,s work was translated as “Art of War”. Otherwise, no real connection.
Syracuse was a weak minor state - too weak to effectively practice "Virtu" as you describe it.
Do you have examples of "Virtu" being practiced by a dominant power?
Seems to me that the US is practicing "Virtu", up to a point.
We still use our military, maybe a bit too much for "Virtu". What do you think?
A key element of dominant-power Virtu is self-limitation; i.e. not attempting to use the powers one has for maximum gain. The most common way of doing so is by establishing rule-based institutions that govern BOTH the minor AND the dominant power(s); so examples are the post-WWII US order and Metternich's Vienna system. Of course the US has broken its own order multiple times in un-Virtu-ous behavior (Vietnam, Grenada, Iraq etc). BUT remember that Machiavelli says that Virtu should not be tolerated when it starts actively harming the Prince's position... I had in mind China's (ab)use of the international economic system and Russia's strategy of undermining the US in a way that cannot trigger a counter-intervention under the current order. Russia and China are of course wise to do so; it is up to the US to assess the situation and respond appropriately.
i think Switzerland is a perfect Virtu example. They are just there cautious, stay always neutral, .. and enjoy their position in the system.
@@StrategyStuff Great comments. I would argue that Vietnam and Iraq, etc., are examples of the US upholding the international order, at its own expense. The US fought the spread of communism in Vietnam, and fought to secure the world's access to oil in the Middle East, under false pretenses. If the US was self interested, we wouldn't have pooh pooh'd the idea of empire so easily.
China and US both practise some level of Virtu, but no state today is 100% committed to it because it doesn't work(at least this theory argue it doesn't). both China and US use Virtu to a certain extend, because they are "natural powers", external risk to overthrowing either state are small, the can afford a degree of inward "fixing" as they are fairly insulated (which is why I feel the trade war is stupid because China and US don't really depend on each other as much as people think, it doesn't hurt either side enough to change anything, this is why US trade rep call the policy a failure, Fortuna for the sake of Fortuna does not work). i feel it is clear that Virtu depend on condition being favorable, if it is not the state need to depend on Fortuna to make it favorable but Fortuna is not an automatic win, it can result in a lose as well if done in poor judgement.
US is in a pickle because it state as a hyperpower is unnatural, it is entire Fortuna that USSR collapse that lead to the current world order. and as time move on that window of dominance closes. the problem with US now is it is pushing too hard, which cause it to lose Virtu faster than it is gaining from Fortuna. the problem with relying on Fortuna is it depend on external forces that is outside of your control, it should be something you take advantage of if it favors you and not done simply out of theory that Virtu doesn't work now. there is a lack in finesse in the way US has been handling itself in the past decade, and I feel it has to do with the fact of short administration. US isn't facing a problem of state power, it a problem of leadership instability cause by "short reign".
we are forgetting that this theory is not written from the POV of just the state, but more importantly its leader. I do not imply however that China success is a result of solely leadership stability. but it does contribute a little and allow them to take advantage of Fortuna more effectively by not being hamstring by concern about the "nobility" reaction (in US case, we can see it as the uncooperative congress to both Trump and Biden). the theory is beyond just managing foreign reality of the state but also it internal reality.
I've read The Prince
I need to read it again.
Please make a video on Kautilya Arthashastra and Art of War of Sun Tzu
At 6:30, does it really make sense to consider Austria as "the prince"? It was Great Britain who turned out to be the greatest winner in the conflict, and while others were busy in deterring each other, they expanded their empire in Asia and Africa.
In effect, Metternich became as important as he was only because it was in Britain's best interest to use a strong Austria and Prussia as a counter balance against France and Russia (I know I am oversimplifying it a bit, but I hope you get the point).
I'd argue that the position of 'Prince' is based on perspective and applies to anyone with the ability to exercise power - that's why Machiavelli can be adapted for office politics and suchlike. I suppose from Metternich's case, UK would just be like a very strong noble whose status MUST be respected by the order.
As such, the goal of the Prince is not necessarily to end up being the strongest or having the greatest gains - it is simply to maintain and expand his current position. AUS was sidelined as a great power in EUR after 1809, and with the more obvious RUS/PRU/UK victories over Napoleon in 1815, there was a real risk of AUS' sidelining becoming permanent.
Metternich's achievement re:Vienna is therefore 2-fold: NOT just that M created a workable intl order, BUT also an order where M and AUS resumed its importance. Yes, UK needed balances in EUR, BUT nothing said that AUS 'had' to be that balance. A PRU that got GER, or a stronger Sardinia-Piedmont/ITA could have been that balance too (as they were after 1860s, instead of AUS).
First of all, I would like to thank you for giving me such a comprehensive reply. I perfectly understand your point and I do agree that Austria could be considered as "the Prince" in this example.
But at the same time I would like to point out one particular fact that would make AUS a better choice for balance over PRU, and that is a lack of Atlantic coastline. Yes GER's coastline could be blockaded by the navy, but during peacetime, UK can't really stop them from getting their own colonies and becoming a major rival to UK.
AUS on the other hand, would have a hard time colonising anything unless they could acquire lands in modern day Greece and South Italy (which is easier said than done), thus was highly unlikely to become a colonial rival.
And AUS was an existing major power unlike Italy that was not united as of yet. Thus making Austria a seemingly obvious choice for Britain for being the balance .
I think that I might be partially thinking in hindsight and I don't know what parts of my above stated points were in minds of UK diplomats at the time, but I really appreciate your analysis and would appreciate if you will respond to my comment.
Edit: I realised that nothing indicated towards German unification back then, so why would Britain had chosen AUS over PRU?
excellent presentation, but I personally understand "fortuna" not as a strategy, but as a largely exogenous factor, that might be twisted in your favour via virtuous behaviour. What you subsume under the "fortuna strategy" appears to me to be part of virtu itself.
But how would this factor in Innovation, or technology in general?
I would assume a technological advantage would be fortuna, and the prince's task would be to fold it into the order while exploiting its speed and power while it lasts. An example of this could be the A-bomb in WW2. While the U.S. had the technology(fortuna) they exploited it to quickly gain influence in Japan before the soviets could invade and influence it, but the skill was in using the A-bomb once it was no longer fortuna (USSR develops it) they pivoted it in a way to set up order in the form of the cold war. The dance then became about keeping your prestige high, while exploiting fortuna in a less-than-moral way.
@CommandoDude well said indeed. Machiavelli can still be used on the intrigues and backdoors of politics, though. Keep a strong, virtuous front while building alliances, gain trusts of key figures, and empower the opposition of your enemies.
Sure, it's harder to do than back in 16th century Italy, but it can still be done.
And then the borgia was taken down by one italian assassin
Your videos are very good but you need to clean up your audio a lot - in particular you should use a "pop shield" in front of your microphone as your "'b"'s and "p's are far too dominant :)
Thanks very much for your great clarification of Machiavelli. I've read the Prince, but it's not always easy to understand from a 21st Century mindset. I did not know about M's dualistic system, and you gave a very clear explanation of how it works. It would be interesting to know what M would change in his theories in 2020, considering universal suffrage and liberal democracy with checks and balances was not understood in 1500. The Prince seems to apply only to dictatorships/monarchies, as that was the only system around in 1500. The Roman Republic was far more military oligarchy, than democracy. I know that Switzerland has had democracy, but I don't know what it looked like M's time, or how it influenced his thinking. You listed the US as the "Prince" in your video. At present, the primary values being contested is democracy versus dictatorship, and the more visceral territorial expansion. The 2nd World War and later conflicts have been based on these two dynamics. Any war with China will be for the same reasons. Hopefully in the future, all countries will shift to a democratic republic form of government. This seems to be the only effective way to bring an end to major warfare.
I think M would consider the basic logic to be the same in the 2020s as it was in the 1500s: whether to follow a “rules-based order” that maintains BUT constrains your power, or whether to make an “appeal to power” to establish a new order. For M, the Q today is not so much Democracy vs Autocracy, but instead the recognition that the current “liberal world order” reflects the global power configuration after the last power struggles, ie dominance of Western liberal democracies after 1945 and 1991. Western victory allowed them to build an order that benefited them + reflected their values, and while there is much good in this order, Ms concern would be that the configuration of power in the 2020s is very different from that of 1945/1991, and so Western Ds MUST expect challenges from “disadvantaged” powers (RUS CHI IND etc). They should not repeat the experience of the 1500s Italian republicans, who believed that their order HAD to win due to some inherent justice/“end of history” narrative and so got totally sideswiped by the “tyrannical” monarchies whose strength had outstripped their own in the meantime.
@@StrategyStuff Thank you very much for the detailed response. I would argue that the tyrannies in Russia and China do not serve their people very well, and that they reflect the extremely ancient and standard power structure of military monarchies that M would recognize. North Korea being an example. Elected governments via universal suffrage are a very new invention, and I suspect M would not recognize them, based on his time and place. Russia is disadvantaged by historical baggage: universal alcoholism that was perpetrated by the Tsars to maintain power, and Putin's refusal to diversify the Russian economy beyond petroleum. Communism is a failed experiment, and China has been heavily supported economically by the west since Nixon. It was appeasement. Xi's only goal at this time is ideological, in that he must conquer Taiwan before he is out of power. The CCP mantra of unification with Taiwan since Mao is the primary way they see to justify their system, and destroy their historical enemy. China has been heavily advantaged by the rules-based order, and expanded their economy because of it, not in spite of it. I stand by my claim that the fundamental global conflict is between the archaic tyranny and the modern democracy. My review of history shows it is a tedious repetition of warlords in conflict with each other. I found Jane Goodall's discovery that chimpanzees engage in the same behaviour very revealing. One 'tribe' of chimps led by an Alpha male will murder every member of a neighbouring 'tribe' and take over their territory. Humans are very much still a Great Ape species, regardless of the abstractions (communism, fascism, capitalism, democracy) that we attempt to layer on top of our animal nature. Democracy (despite being an abstraction) seems to be the only move we've made as a species to get away from this ancient trap, and it is not super-successful, so far. I think M is still very relevant, because he writes about our basic violent apex-predator nature.
AC 2 : wait second
"we," "it is you not we"
I'm being strategist who to share this with .... hehehe...
another great italian
Classifications
The writers after Machiavelli is that they interpret "Machiavellian" not based on Machiavellis' actual writing, but the critics of his book (like that syphilis-infected German philosopher that whined about God after breaking his leg)
His book is not some empowerment bullshit; Machiavelli is actually a politician and a military leader.
Machiavelli is actually a loser. Read his biography
Comments for the algorithm
You have nicely highlighted Machiavelli's binary analysis of political strategy, which analysis is, in my view, the clearest evidence of Machiavelli's genius. However, I think you have taken "The Prince" far too seriously as a reflection of Machiavelli's political philosophy. By that I do NOT mean that "The Prince" was a piece of satire. On the contrary, I believe it was meant to be taken seriously, not by posterity, but by the Medici, not as sound advice, but as sophisticated disinformation. That is to say, I suggest that Machiavelli wrote "The Prince" in hope of encouraging the Medici to behave despotically, thereby provoking popular antagonism and resistance to their regime. The fact that it didn't work, but rather established Machiavelli's reputation as a proponent of realpolitik for despots, is an irony of history in my sorrowfully amused opinion.
Delicious.
Sir I am not knowing english language, from India if possible machaeveli defence strategy In Hindi language plz Sir
I am learning english language but now not comprehese
XD I don' think, he knows Hindi. You better learn English.
Natural order. We still remember.
🇮🇹👢
Always remember Machiavelli couldn't get a job and that Al Capone died in prison of syphilis.
His only true strategy was write a book praising the rule of the guy who imprisoned you in hope of gaining clemency.
Someone needs to take Putin’s copy of The Prince away from him.
If Putin actually had a copy the Prince, he would do far less political and diplomatic blunders.
obama was so bad at being president lmao
Machiavelli was being sarcastic.
I care more about friendship than my self-preservation.
My political correctness is not mere acquisitiveness but a genuine appeal to higher values.
Humans are not some beasts of burden to be motivated by fear but by love.
Even though Machiavelli provided historical successful examples, these men are burning in hell and we can still learn a valuable moral from that.
Surely, Machiavelli was being derisive of such tactics as evil and ruthlessness for the wages of sin is death, no one can be condemnatory of what can crush and defeat him and call himself wise rather he is a putz.
Nemo Outis you sound like you haven’t actually read any Machiavelli lol
You do realize that this is a work of politics, right? Not a guide on "how to make friends in 30 minutes"?
Would it hurt y'all to fucking google for a second how Italy looks like. I swear to God every time there is always an island left out. If you're going to talk about Machiavelli and Italy in general, at least get the picture CORRECT IN THE THUMBNAIL?! Where did Sardegna end up? In the moon? Evaporated? God, the end doesn't always justify the means. No point in educating about literature when you suck in geography.
Stop whining, strict geography is not the point here but a geopolitical representation of the relevant fronts of the Italian Wars, for the layman too.
Sardinia is actually part of Afica, so are Calabria and Sicily but Italy was kind enough to include them in their glorious union of states
@@datboi7893 ti rispondo nella tua lingua la Sardegna non è Italia, questo è assodato, ne fa parte per una sciagura storica, , ti ricordo che quello sardo è l unico popolo di questa accozzaglia, che abbia fama di coraggio e determinazione, al contrario di pavidità e traditori. inoltre la scienza genetica moderna dice che è anche l unico ad essere omogeneo veramente europeo al contrario del vostro miscuglio che in termini non scientifici fa di voi dei b.....
I am looking for more resentment in Egypt
Ottoman Empire
We were the first slaves of the world.
We don't like christianity