Honestly, if you mentions the name Niccolò Machiavelli at a dinner party, people usually think of one thing: a mustache-twirling villain. We've turned the writer of The Prince into a shorthand for being a total sociopath. If someone is "Machiavellian," they're manipulative, cold, and probably plotting to steal your job or overthrow a small government. It’s a bit unfair. Imagine writing a satirical job application and having the entire world think that’s your actual personality for the next five hundred years. That is basically what happened to Niccolò.
He wasn't some dark lord sitting in a tower. He was a civil servant. A diplomat. A guy who really, really loved Florence and got kicked to the curb when the political winds shifted. When we look at the writer of The Prince, we aren't just looking at a manual for tyrants; we’re looking at a desperate man trying to get his job back by proving he knew how the world actually worked, not how we wish it worked.
The book wasn't even published while he was alive. Think about that for a second. The most famous political treatise in history was essentially a private "pick me" letter to the Medici family. It’s raw. It’s cynical. But more than anything, it’s honest in a way that makes people deeply uncomfortable even today.
The Florentine Bureaucrat Who Saw Too Much
Niccolò Machiavelli spent fourteen years as a high-ranking official in the Florentine Republic. He wasn't born into extreme wealth, but he had the kind of education that allowed him to rub elbows with kings and popes. He spent his days on horseback, traveling to the courts of Louis XII of France or the terrifying Cesare Borgia.
Borgia is the key here.
Most people think the writer of The Prince invented his theories out of thin air. He didn't. He watched Cesare Borgia. Borgia was ruthless, sure, but he was also effective. Machiavelli watched him take a chaotic, crime-ridden region like Romagna and turn it into a stable province through sheer, brutal competence. Did he kill people? Yes. Did he trick his enemies into a fake peace summit and then strangle them? Absolutely. But Machiavelli noticed that the ordinary people in those regions were actually safer under a strong, scary leader than they were under a "good" but weak one.
Then the Republic fell. The Medici family returned to power in 1512. Machiavelli didn't just lose his job; he was accused of conspiracy, thrown into a dungeon, and tortured with the "strappado"—where you're hoisted up by your wrists tied behind your back until your shoulders pop out of their sockets.
He didn't break.
When they finally let him go, he was exiled to his tiny farm in San Casciano. He was bored out of his mind. He spent his days arguing with local loggers and playing cards at the tavern. But at night? At night, he put on his royal robes, sat at his desk, and "communed" with the ancients. That’s where he wrote it. That’s where the writer of The Prince poured all his bitterness, observation, and genius into a slim volume that would change the world.
What the Writer of The Prince Actually Said (and What He Didn't)
We love to misquote him. "The end justifies the means" is the big one. Fun fact: he never actually wrote those exact words in Italian. The closest he got was saying that in the actions of men, and especially of princes, we look at the result.
✨ Don't miss: How to Sign Someone Up for Scientology: What Actually Happens and What You Need to Know
It’s a subtle difference, but a massive one.
The Virtue of Being Feared
Machiavelli famously asked if it’s better to be loved or feared. His answer is legendary: both would be great, but since they rarely go together, choose fear.
But wait. Read the next sentence.
He explicitly warns that a prince must avoid being hated. There is a massive chasm between a leader people are afraid to cross and a leader people want to assassinate. To avoid hatred, he told leaders to stay away from two things: the property of their subjects and their women. Basically, don't be a jerk for the sake of being a jerk. Use cruelty only when it's "well-employed"—fast, decisive, and for a clear purpose.
The Lion and the Fox
The writer of The Prince believed a leader needed to be a shapeshifter. You have to be a lion to scare away wolves, but you also have to be a fox to recognize the traps. If you’re just a lion, you’re too stupid to see the snare. If you’re just a fox, you’ll get eaten by the first wolf that comes along.
This was a radical departure from the "Mirror for Princes" literature of the time. Back then, books for rulers were full of fluff about being pious, kind, and generous. Machiavelli called BS. He argued that a man who tries to be good in all matters will surely come to ruin among so many who are not good.
It’s dark. It’s cynical. But is he wrong?
Why We Can't Stop Reading Machiavelli in 2026
You see his fingerprints everywhere. From corporate boardrooms to political campaigns, the writer of The Prince provides a framework for power that feels uncomfortably relevant in a digital age.
- Public Persona vs. Private Reality: Machiavelli argued that a leader doesn't actually need to have all the good qualities (religion, mercy, honesty), but they absolutely must appear to have them. In the era of social media personal branding, this feels less like political theory and more like a Tuesday afternoon on Instagram.
- The Problem of Fortune: He believed half of our lives are controlled by "Fortuna" (luck/fate) and the other half by "Virtù" (drive/ability). He compared fortune to a flooding river. You can't stop the flood, but you can build dikes and dams beforehand so the damage is controlled.
- Rapid Change: He wrote for an Italy that was a mess of warring city-states. We live in a world of shifting tech monopolies and geopolitical instability. The "new prince" he describes is someone who gains power in a volatile environment—exactly what we see in the startup world today.
The writer of The Prince wasn't advocating for evil. He was advocating for effectiveness. He believed that a stable state was the highest moral good because it prevented the horror of war and anarchy. If a leader had to do some "dirty" things to keep the peace, Machiavelli thought that was a price worth paying.
🔗 Read more: Wire brush for cleaning: What most people get wrong about choosing the right bristles
The Satire Debate
There is a whole school of thought, championed by people like Jean-Jacques Rousseau and later Mary Dietz, suggesting that The Prince was actually a secret satire. The theory goes that by "advocating" for tyranny, Machiavelli was actually exposing the methods of tyrants to the common people so they could defend themselves.
Think about it. He wrote The Discourses on Livy at roughly the same time, which is a massive, glowing defense of republics and liberty. Why would the same man write a "how-to" for dictators?
Maybe he was playing a double game. Or maybe he was just a pragmatist who realized that while a Republic is the best way to live, a Prince is sometimes the only way to survive a crisis.
Real World Machiavellianism: Beyond the Stereotypes
Let’s look at how these ideas play out when they aren't just words on a page.
In the 1970s, Henry Kissinger was often called the modern writer of The Prince. His "Realpolitik" approach—focusing on national interest and power balance rather than shared ideologies—is pure Machiavelli. Whether you love him or hate him, Kissinger operated on the belief that a stable world order was more important than moral purity in individual transactions.
In the business world, you see it in "Blitzscaling." When a company moves fast and breaks things to capture a market, they are following the Machiavellian advice that it’s better to be impetuous than cautious because Fortune is a woman (his words, not mine—he was a 16th-century man) and she favors the young and bold.
Even in something as simple as office politics, the advice to "keep your friends close and your enemies closer" (often attributed to Sun Tzu or Michael Corleone, but deeply rooted in the Florentine's logic) is about information. Information is the currency of power.
The Limits of the Method
The biggest mistake people make when following the writer of The Prince is forgetting the "avoid being hated" part. History is littered with leaders who remembered the "be feared" part but forgot the "don't take their stuff" part. When you take people's dignity or their livelihood, fear turns into desperate hatred. And a desperate enemy has nothing to lose.
Machiavelli himself died relatively poor and excluded from the very government he spent his life trying to serve. There's a bit of irony there. The man who wrote the manual on power couldn't quite hold onto it himself.
💡 You might also like: Images of Thanksgiving Holiday: What Most People Get Wrong
Actionable Insights from the Master of Realism
If you want to apply the logic of the writer of The Prince without becoming a social pariah, you have to look at the nuances. It’s not about being a jerk; it’s about being awake.
1. Audit your "Virtù" vs. your "Fortuna"
Stop blaming bad luck for everything, but also stop taking 100% of the credit for your success. Look at your career or project and ask: "What dams have I built for the next flood?" If you're relying entirely on the current market staying exactly as it is, you're ignoring Machiavelli's biggest warning.
2. Focus on Outcomes, Not Optics of "Goodness"
In leadership, sometimes the "kind" thing is actually the cruelest. For example, not firing an underperformer might feel "nice," but it's cruel to the rest of the team who has to pick up the slack. The writer of The Prince would tell you to make the hard cut quickly and cleanly rather than letting the situation fester and ruin the whole "state" (your department).
3. Recognize the "Wolves" and the "Traps"
Be honest about your environment. If you work in a highly competitive industry, pretending everyone is your best friend is a "trap." You don't have to be a "wolf," but you absolutely must know what a wolf looks like so you aren't surprised when they show up.
4. The "Cruelty Well-Used" Rule
If you have to deliver bad news or make a change that people won't like, do it all at once. Machiavelli advised that injuries should be done all together so that, being tasted less, they offened less. Benefits, on the other hand, should be given little by little so they are tasted more.
5. Avoid the Flatterers
One of the best chapters in the book is about how to avoid sycophants. Machiavelli says the only way to protect yourself from flattery is to make people understand that telling you the truth does not offend you. However, if everyone can tell you the truth, you lose respect. The solution? Pick a few wise counselors and give only them the liberty to tell you the truth—and only when you ask for it.
The writer of The Prince wasn't trying to make the world a worse place. He was trying to describe the world as it actually functioned in the halls of power. By reading him, we don't necessarily become villains; we just become harder to fool. We learn to see the difference between what a leader says and what they do. And in a world full of noise, that's a survival skill.
To truly understand power, you have to stop looking at the version of the world you want to live in and start looking at the one that's right in front of you. That is the true legacy of Niccolò Machiavelli. He didn't invent the game; he just had the guts to write down the rules.
Next Steps for the Modern Reader
To get a full picture of the man beyond the "Machiavellian" label, read his Discourses on Livy. It provides the necessary balance to The Prince and shows his true passion for liberty and republicanism. Additionally, researching the life of Cesare Borgia will give you the real-world context for the "Prince" Machiavelli was actually describing. Seeing the historical reality of 16th-century Italy makes his "cruel" advice seem a lot more like common-sense survival. Finally, evaluate your own leadership style—are you being a "lion" when the situation calls for a "fox"? Being aware of your default mode is the first step in mastering the art of the possible.