WeBuzz
Reader discussion: The Prince
Public reader discussion about The Prince in the WeRead Catalog by Niccolò Machiavelli.
On page 64 of 'The Prince' by Niccolo Machiavelli, there's a "certain ruler" who I'd like to know.
By fuzzy_cougar
It says it came out in 1532 and talks about a bunch of rulers—Cesare Borgia, Pope Julius II, the Spanish and French kings, all that. But then on page 64, in Chapter 18, Machiavelli basically says there’s some unnamed ruler who talks a lot about peace and faith, but somehow is the biggest enemy of both, and would’ve lost power or reputation if he’d actually followed through.
I can’t figure out who that is at all. My first thought was maybe Girolamo Savonarola and what happened in Florence, but it feels off. So yeah, who is he supposed to be?
Turns out it’s Ferdinand of Aragon. That actually clicks. 🙏
For those who have read The Prince by Machiavelli, what did you think?
By ashforest3
Yeah, it’s a solid read — I’d agree the 48 Laws is kind of in the same lane. But a lot of people don’t really get what Machiavelli was doing with The Prince. The stuff in there about politics can seem to clash with a lot of his other, much longer writing in The Discourses, which basically nobody gets through because it’s so long. There’s also this Great Courses thing, Machiavelli in Context, that goes into it more and from what I remember the point was that he wasn’t giving some all-purpose strategy guide, so it’s not really a book to use for getting ahead at work, and not even really a lasting blueprint for staying in power either. It was more aimed at a new ruler trying to take over from the old government, which is a pretty different thing from just being “feared over loved.” Still worth reading though, since for its time it was pretty wild thinking, especially the idea that what’s moral for a ruler isn’t the same as what’s moral for a person. I’d just be careful about taking it too seriously, and maybe ignore the coworkers who treat it like some kind of holy book for backstabbing.
Read through The Little Prince to my children (I had never read it before)
By Eclipse_Imber
This is such a sweet little book, and somehow it’s also pretty deep. All three of my kids (ages 5 to 12) got into it right away, and I enjoyed it too.
Also, I keep coming back to this quote about taming: it basically says people don’t really make the time to understand things anymore, they just buy whatever they need, but friendship can’t be bought like that—if you want a friend, you have to tame one.
Definitely recommend it!
Was Machiavelli's The Prince serious?
By drizzle-plasma
I’ve heard people say The Prince wasn’t meant as a how-to for tyranny, but more like a way to point out what tyrants are really like. But then again, Machiavelli did write it for Lorenzo de Medici after he got exiled, so I can see the argument that he was just trying to get back in good graces and maybe didn’t mean it the way it sounds.
So I’m stuck on it—does it actually match Machiavelli’s real views, or is it more of a satire of autocracy? And if it’s one or the other, how am I supposed to read and interpret the whole thing?
The Prince - Niccolo Machiavelli- My 3rd read and I can’t get enough. Highly recommend!
By HiddenCricket
Wish I could figure out what it says.
“The little prince” moved me more in it’s 83 pages than most books have done in 500+ pages
By shelfsleepy
This book is so beautiful. I know it’s meant for kids, but it honestly feels like it has stuff adults really need to hear too. The prince goes on all these little adventures that are really about love, friendships/bonds, and how life works, and it even shows what “adult” behavior looks like when a child’s trying to understand it.
Like, he meets that guy who acts like he owns the stars, but instead of actually doing anything meaningful, he just keeps counting them so he can get richer and “buy” more stars. The prince asks a couple questions and then just moves on, like… yeah, that’s weird. I don’t want to get too deep into the plot, but I will say I finished it and I was straight up crying. I don’t cry from many books, and this one really got me.
It’s also super easy to read, and I honestly can’t recommend it enough—whether you’re 9 or 90, there’s something in it for you.
Quick note: I probably should’ve worded the title differently. I didn’t mean “only” children’s books can be moving or meaningful, because plenty of longer/more complex books do that too. I just wanted to put this one out there, since it really hit me. Sorry if I made it sound weird—still, call me whatever you want, I just wanted to clear that up.
"What makes a good leader?" - Machiavelli's points in "The Prince" summarized in 6 minutes
By jartiny2002
When I read “The Prince,” I keep thinking about Machiavelli’s own life and the whole situation around him. Like, it was written for Lorenzo de’ Medici, and the Medici family had him locked up and tortured for a bit before all this. Not sure how much it changes how you read it, but it feels like something worth keeping in mind.
I read The Little Prince and enjoyed it but not sure why.
By Lucky_Card61
I’ve been trying to get into books that feel a bit philosophical, but in plain language and not too long because I’ve been having a rough time mentally lately and I just can’t focus for long.
I got pointed to *The Boy, the Mole, the Fox and the Horse* first. I tried, but I couldn’t really get past the beginning. It struck me as these life-ish quotes dropped into a story that felt a bit all over the place. I’m sure kids might love it, but I couldn’t really connect as an adult.
Then I read *The Alchemist*. I did finish it and I liked it, but it felt kind of too neat. Like it was aiming to be inspirational in a polished, comforting way. I wasn’t left with that “I need to come back to this” kind of depth.
Next was *The Little Prince*. I put it off forever and then finally started a couple days ago, and I’m really glad I did. I was into it right away—imagination, kids vs grown-ups, the drawings… by the end I was fully hooked. It’s one of those books that sticks with you, and I keep thinking about it. It somehow feels both alien and familiar, mysterious but still clear. Like it’s saying the thing you’ve been trying to put into words for a while, but couldn’t.
What’s weird is that with the other books, I can see issues, and that makes it easier to look at them critically. With *The Little Prince*, I honestly don’t know what I’m reacting to. I can still argue it’s basically a kids’ book, and it’s a little moralizing and simple, maybe not “deep” in a way people expect. But I don’t feel that at all. Maybe it’s just me, or maybe it somehow slipped past my brain and hit something more emotional—when the others didn’t. And that’s exactly what I don’t get.
So I guess I’m asking: if you’re one of those people who loves *The Little Prince* but you also get where I’m coming from with the others (or at least understand why someone might feel similar), can you help me figure out what it’s doing right?
Review: The Prince written by Niccolo Machiavelli and narrated by Grover Gardner
By silverPanther
I just finished listening to Machiavelli’s *The Prince*, narrated by Grover Gardner.
I feel like people bring it up a lot when they want to say “it’s all about messing with friends and enemies just to get ahead,” but that doesn’t really seem fair to Machiavelli. To me, this is more like a look at different kinds of rulers—good ones and not so good ones—to figure out what actually drives success in the messy, imperfect world people live in.
It starts with the forward and then keeps going with a pretty clear sense of the time period Machiavelli was in. He drops references to people from his era, but also leans on classical stuff and a bunch of Roman examples too. You can still follow most of it, but I think you’d get more out of it if you already know a bit of Roman history and classical literature.
Gardner is honestly great. His voice is well trained and it really gives the original text the right kind of tone, even when the material gets a bit dry. He keeps you paying attention, which doesn’t always happen with books like this.
Overall, I think it’s a solid deep dive into what makes a ruler successful. With Gardner narrating so well, the whole thing is an enjoyable listen, and I’d recommend the audiobook to anyone who’s curious about the subject.
Whose translation of Machiavelli's "The Prince"?
By restlessHeron4
I just started the Penguin Classic and I’m honestly having a bit of trouble getting into it. If anyone’s read it already, which translation did you like best? I’d love to hear any recommendations—thanks!
Review: The Prince written by Niccolo Machiavelli and narrated by Grover Gardner
By Frozen-Yard
I just finished listening to *The Prince* by Niccolò Machiavelli, narrated by Grover Gardner.
It feels like people throw this book around whenever they want to talk about manipulating friends and enemies just to get ahead, but that doesn’t really seem fair to Machiavelli. To me, it’s more like he’s looking at rulers who do well and rulers who don’t, trying to figure out what actually drives a really effective prince in a world where people are, honestly, messy.
You can tell pretty early on—starting with the forward and going from there—that it’s grounded in the politics of his era. He drops in references to people from his time, and he also leans on older Roman examples. The historical setup usually helps, but I think you’ll get more out of it if you already know a bit about classical stuff and Roman history.
Gardner is really standout here. His voice is trained and well suited, and it somehow makes even the drier parts easier to stick with. He kept my attention the whole time, which I don’t think is an easy thing to do with a book like this.
Overall, I’d say it’s a solid deep dive into what makes a successful ruler, and the narration makes the whole audiobook enjoyable. If the topic sounds interesting to you, I’d definitely recommend giving it a listen.
Why is Niccolò Machiavelli's The Prince, seen as controversial?
By silvervalley2006
Hugo won Best Related Work in 2017.
Take a look at the weekly recommendation thread.
Also, the “What are you reading?” thread runs every week too.
Rules, related subs, AMA info, FAQ, wiki — message the mods if you need anything.
This place is moderated, and the idea is to keep the conversation about books, writers, genres, and publishing useful and supportive. If you want a personal rec, use the Suggested Reading page or try /r/suggestmeabook.
Quick rules:
- Discussion first
Please don’t make shallow posts. Keep it tied to books and make it something people can actually talk about.
- Be decent
Stay civil and give others the benefit of the doubt.
- Not okay
No promo stuff, comments with flairs, media-only posts, “should I read this?” type requests, “what’s that book?” posts, sales links, piracy, plagiarism, weak book lists, spoiler drops without tags, clickbait, novelty accounts, or other low-effort posts. The longer rules point to better places like /r/suggestmeabook or /r/whatsthatbook.
- Welcome here
Original posts and self posts are great. We like thoughts, discussion questions, little realizations, and links about books and authors. There’s also space for talk about what’s going on in publishing, plus a flair system.
- Important
Personal recommendation posts aren’t allowed. Use the Weekly Recommendation Thread, the Suggested Reading / What to Read pages, or post in /r/suggestmeabook.
Please report comments that break the rules, and remember the mods get the last word.
Weekly thread calendar:
Monday — What Books did You Start or Finish This Week?
Tuesday — new releases
Wednesday — literature of the world / new releases
Thursday — genre discussion / new releases
Friday — weekly recommendation thread
Sunday — weekly FAQ thread about reading formats
Tues/Sat — simple questions
Upcoming AMAs, the full schedule, and related subreddits are all linked in the sidebar.
Spoiler rules matter too: spoiler titles get removed, and comments with spoilers need the proper tag or they’ll be taken down. If someone keeps spoiling books, they can get banned.
There’s also an explanation for the flairs, plus the /r/bookclub link and the usual reminder to check /new.
The Prince by Machiavelli is not Satire
By Finch93
I keep seeing people online say that Machiavelli’s *The Prince* is satire, but I don’t really buy it at all. Very few serious historians seem to take that position. I get why some folks land there, though—mainly because it feels like it doesn’t match the rest of his work, like *The Discourses*. In *The Prince* he basically lays out a kind of guide for authoritarian rulers on how to get and keep power, while in his other writing he comes off way more like a republican.
That said, I think he’s just being realistic. In Renaissance Italy, democracy wasn’t exactly some practical, “right there” option. He cared more about stability and getting things unified than about ideals. And honestly, the whole idea that he’s saying “here’s what people should do” instead of “here’s what actually happens” feels off—he’s warning you if you ignore reality.
A lot of these “it’s satire” takes also feel like they come from people wanting to deny what the book is actually getting at, or just being uncomfortable with how amoral it can sound. He doesn’t toss these ideas around without reasoning, and I’m also not convinced it was meant as a public-facing book in the first place. If he hadn’t died early, we probably wouldn’t even have it.
One other thing that bugs me: that claim that *The Prince* is only relevant in its original time period. Machiavelli makes broader points about power that seem to carry over beyond just “how to rule in that era.”
Nicolau Maquiavel - The Prince
By sunnyDreams
It’s Niccolò Machiavelli—why do they keep translating people’s names?
How was "The Prince" by Machiavelli received in its time of release?
By Epilogue_Glove
Did anyone really take it seriously and actually use the methods, or was it mostly criticized? And what were the church and the minor nobles thinking about it?
What have you learned from Machiavelli's "the prince"?
By SpruceGlove79
I’m only halfway through, and I’m not sure yet. I get the vibe that you’re supposed to be way more aware of power games and how fast things can flip. Power feels really slippery, I guess? Also, the author seems kind of cold or sociopathic, but I’m honestly not finding a ton of practical stuff in it. It also makes me wonder if it’d be more useful to some ruler back in the 1500s.
To be real, I’ve found 48 Laws of Power way more entertaining and actually more helpful to read. What did you all think about The Prince?
Machiavelli's The Prince. A satire?
By Early_Plate5379
I’m a double major in philosophy and history, and I just wrapped up a course on Renaissance Humanism that really dug into Machiavelli. I’ve heard the idea that *The Prince* is a satire got more popular in the 19th and 20th centuries, but now the main view I keep running into is that it wasn’t meant as a satire at all—more like Machiavelli laying out what he saw about how rulers should act based on the situation in 13th and 14th century Italy.
Having a hard time going through "The Prince" by Machiavelli
By tidecricket
Maybe it’s just because English isn’t my first language, even though I’d say I’m pretty good with it and have been using it for years, but I really struggle to get through The Prince. I started it at first hoping it would help with my worldbuilding hobby, but that hasn’t really gone anywhere.
Mostly, the sentence structure feels really odd to me. It just keeps going when it feels like it should stop, and there are so many clauses inside other clauses that by the time you reach the end, I’ve kind of lost track of what the sentence was even about. I get that this is pretty normal for older books, and this one is also meant to be more “formal” or whatever.
So how do I get better at reading stuff like this?
I just read Niccolo Machiavelli's infamous The Prince and it was... Cold. But also... Good?
By jartiny2002
I’m pretty sure I’ve used “Machiavellian” way too casually over the years, mostly like shorthand for “do whatever it takes, even if it’s shady.” But I ended up in a bookshop with a hangover and spotted a copy on the shelf, and I honestly had no idea it was under 100 pages. So I figured I’d just read it and get it over with.
I did go a little wild and ordered cake, then somehow managed to read the whole thing there in one sitting. I did end up buying the book too—no way I was getting away with that.
What surprised me was how readable it was for something from the 15th century. The chapters were short, and the translation I had wasn’t too heavy. Then you get this super sycophantic letter Machiavelli sent to Lorenzo de’ Medici, and after that it’s basically him laying out what an effective ruler should do and how they should think.
And wow, he doesn’t ease in. Early on he’s basically like, “pamper people or ruin them,” and if you hurt them a bit they’ll snap back. It just ramps up from there. He goes through different kinds of rule and “leadership styles,” and he throws in a ton of historical examples, from the Romans to Alexander the Great, and stuff like that.
The big theme is basically pragmatism beating morality/virtue. There’s one chapter that’s especially controversial—whether it’s better to be loved or feared—and he basically argues that fear is more reliable because people don’t forget punishment, while gratitude fades the second it’s inconvenient. He definitely feels like he’s pushing back against the whole “be kind and compassionate” mindset.
The part I think people miss (at least when they use the word like I’ve done) is that he doesn’t just say “be cruel.” He makes it sound like cruelty has to be controlled and targeted—avoid contempt and hatred, and don’t mess with people’s property or women. Also, his line about people forgetting a father’s death faster than losing their inheritance is… uncomfortable, to say the least.
He also makes the point that quick, harsh actions against a few people might be used to stop bigger cycles of violence later. Like, it’s not cruelty for fun; it’s supposed to prevent endless bloodshed by keeping dissent from spreading.
Overall, I’d say it’s worth reading, especially because you can finish it in a few hours. Just don’t treat it like a moral GPS. Still, there are definitely useful takeaways, even now—especially when office politics or social drama gets messy. Sometimes cold pragmatism really does beat generosity, and he’s not exactly shy about saying why.
The Prince by Machiavelli
By IVORYCORNER9
I’m about halfway through this one right now, and I’ve got to say, I really enjoy reading these old monarchy/politics kind of stories.
Anyone have thoughts? Just how awful does this book get?
Please no spoilers