El Príncipe

Escrito por Nicolas Maquiavelo

Narrado por Staff Audiolibros Colección

El príncipe constituye un capítulo fundacional del pensamiento y la literatura occidental, y, sin embargo, el lector tiene que sortear la inercia de tópicos seculares al intentar aventurarse por sus páginas. Pero, en última instancia, Maquiavelo fue sobre todo un esforzado patriota florentino, y gran parte de su vida estuvo dedicada al servicio de la República. De esa dilatada actividad surge su doctrina política, su visión del hombre y de la Historia. El presente ensayo es una renovada invitación a recorrer ese camino que nos lleva desde los altibajos de la peripecia biográfica hasta el andamiaje conceptual de lo que es, en realidad, una de las principales expresiones del humanismo europeo, poniendo el acento en aspectos poco frecuentados, como el gran interés ideológico y estilístico de El príncipe para el mundo intelectual del siglo XVII y la España de la época.

• Idioma: Español
• Editorial: Audiolibros Colección
• Fecha de lanzamiento: 1 ene 2023
• ISBN: 9798889440123

Comentarios para El Príncipe

[zoes_human · Calificación: 2 de 5 estrellas]

Historically significant but miserable to read. Doubtless it's incredibly brilliant. Unfortunately just in a way that reminds me of everything I hate about humanity.

[david_fosco · Calificación: 4 de 5 estrellas]

The actual content of the prince I found to be useful and engaging. However, this specific publication has a foreward and afterward that provide little in the way of additional value. The afterward especially was written much like a college essay.

[chris.wolak · Calificación: 4 de 5 estrellas]

Read for college history class. Remember thinking it seemed very "modern."

[ghost_boy-691444 · Calificación: 5 de 5 estrellas]

For gay erotic fiction, this book was amazing. Inspired me to find my whips and leather gear. I think there was a strong chemistry with two main characters Niccolò and Cesare. Niccolò was the weak nerd and Cesare was the powerful jock; a cliché couple in gay porn that worked well for this book. I wasn't a fan of the 50 Shades story telling, but something about the author's writing told me this wasn't meant to be taken seriously. I recommend this to anyone looking for a sexy romance beach read. I couldn't put it down at any point.

Real Review:

All jokes aside, I actually was more interested in the Prince than I thought I would be originally. Let's face it, I get really bored with politics unless I can mock it some how or if I find an interesting story. Why did I read this damn book? THE BORGIAS! I do enjoy history and the Borgia family is one of my favorite historical families. After reading and watching things about them you start hearing the name Machiavelli appear, thus I decided to check out this little book. Thankfully this book is short and does talk a bit about Cesare Borgia. Unlike most people, I didn't read his book for a philosophical or political reason. I came here for history and a good laugh. If you do take this book seriously (which is perfectly fine) chances are I'll find our conversations boring.

Should people read this book? Yes and no. It's an important book and a classic, but it gets kind of boring if your not into the topic. I really step out of my comfort reading zone for this book. I'm going to give this some crazy star review, but honestly, I think it fits every star level here. Maybe I don't fully get what I just read? Whatever. I'm gad I had the balls to read Machiavelli.

Vote for Cthulhu!

Note: If you want a good copy that includes good background information, find the Penguin Deluxe edition translated by Tim Parks. If I didn't read that introduction before the book, I think I would be lost. Not sure how you can read this book as a virgin not knowing anything about the time and the Borgias. Crazy kids think they know everything.

[xofelf · Calificación: 3 de 5 estrellas]

It only gets three stars because it was a school assigned reading, and i've read better books that were school assigned.

[maowangvater · Calificación: 3 de 5 estrellas]

This is a short (37 pages in this edition), practical, and amoral treatise on statecraft."A prince must not have any other object nor any other thought ... but war, its institutions, and its discipline; because that is the only art befitting one who commands."

[adrianmb-916642 · Calificación: 4 de 5 estrellas]

Another book which most people have not read but love to talk about. Interesting thoughts. Some of them foreign to me as I do not have a good background in medieval history.

[sgtcat · Calificación: 4 de 5 estrellas]

I remember trying to read this book about 15 years ago when I was still in high school and not being able to get through it. It had a great infamous reputation, but it was just too dense. Having done a lot of studying of history and the history of empires (at the BA and MA level) what this guy says makes a lot more sense. It's a good book to read and think about, in terms of methods of governing and controlling land. It may not have as much applicability today, but in terms of thinking about historical dynasties and empires, it's a useful tool, I think.

[zeborah · Calificación: 3 de 5 estrellas]

Sometimes Niccolò is very very right ("there is nothing more difficult to take in hand ... than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things"), and sometimes he is very very wrong ("as there cannot be good laws where the state is not well armed, it follows that where they are well armed they have good laws" no, dude, not only is your premise wrong but your logic could be dissected by a five-year-old), but he does point out more than once that things that work in other times and places won't necessarily work in renaissance Italy, by which it follows (through real logic this time) that things that may have been good advice in renaissance Italy aren't necessarily appropriate to, say, the 21st century corporate world.

[sarahebear · Calificación: 4 de 5 estrellas]

This is a difficult book to rate as it isn't exactly something that one enjoys reading. It is, however, well research and well written (or translated). "The Prince" reflects the political machinations of the day and is a guide to maintaining power over the people. It has been described as an "evil" book but I don't agree. Any 'evil' related to the book would be the result of how the advice (and which advice) is applied to a certain situation, by certain individuals. It is very matter-of-fact and is based on astute observations of human behaviour. It is mercifully short and makes for an interesting read.

[damiella-533991 · Calificación: 4 de 5 estrellas]

Having watched 'House of Cards' I found Ian Richardson's voice perfect for this reading.

This book has been on my 'must read' list for a fair while so it's good to get it marked off

[fdholt · Calificación: 4 de 5 estrellas]

This is the ultimate “how-to” book for anyone who wants to rule a country and stay in power for a long time. He states that good arms and good laws make for success, whether one inherits or conquers an area. His examples are drawn from antiquity as well as the Italy of his day. Niccolò Machiavelli wrote this book to get back into favor with the Medici’s who ruled vast parts of Italy at this time; however the book was not widely read until after his death.My copy includes an excellent introduction by translator Thomas Bergin, along with footnotes and a bibliography. There is also a map, necessary to those of us unfamiliar with the political divisions of the time.I had always assumed that Machiavelli was sneaky, cunning and evil (think the word “machiavellian”) but I don’t think this is really the character of the man. He may have written this to curry favor with the current rulers. That doesn’t make him a bad person.Even though The prince doesn’t have examples of a democratic republic, the book is still pertinent today in that good arms and good laws are necessary for peace. The country who does not heed this advice is in trouble! Perhaps this should be required reading for all lawmakers in the world.

[etxgardener · Calificación: 3 de 5 estrellas]

The classic “how to” book for Princes who want to rule the world

[velmeran · Calificación: 4 de 5 estrellas]

While I understand that his take is controversial, I have to tell you, it makes sense. It's not nice, but it is practical.

[gottfried_leibniz-1 · Calificación: 3 de 5 estrellas]

This is an interesting book on Political Philosophy, I think it falls under Realism.
Machiavelli doesn't want to systematize but simply shares from his experience.
As I kept reading the book, I had to reflect a lot of the ideas and try to draw conclusions from this world. I think, most of what he says stands True.

I learnt about power distribution in a political system.
Machiavelli says if it is concentrated with just one person (King), and people under him are servants, then if the King is toppled, it is easier to maintain the Kingdom in the long run. This reminds me of North Korea, I do not see a long future for it anyway.

Meanwhile, if there are nobles, barons who share some influence then it will be difficult to maintain if toppled. I was thinking of China, which I used to think has a good political system.
They do not waste time in election et cetera, however, the disadvantage in Chinese political system is that, if a new political party takes over, they will maintain the whole population under control. Meanwhile, it is difficult in America because the power is distributed differently. I can see how the Founders of America were cautious and knew all systems inside out.

I was surprised to find that Machiavelli supports people who believe in God for defense (Army) are better. He goes on to say that it is easier to train them as they will be Loyal to you.
The people who depend only on money will desert you. He says ministries who only think of them are fickle minded, this reminds me of political system of Tamil Nadu. I wonder how long the Government can run? Based on Machiavelli's writings, not long.

He also talks about weakness of mercenaries, which, I think was one of the causes of downfall –– Roman and Ottoman Empire.
The Ottoman Empire's Janissaries started to decline in power due to lack of training, corruption.

The Roman empire started to bring mercenaries from Germanic tribes. There's always a tension between common people and nobles. Machiavelli says, common people are more important and the Prince ought to give them first priority.

"As the observance of religious rites is the foundation of a republic's greatness, so disrespect for them is the source of its ruin."

"Where a fear of God is lacking, the state must either fail or be sustained by a fear of the ruler which may substitute for the lack of religion."

[lydiasbooks · Calificación: 2 de 5 estrellas]

Used for classes and evil essays.

[reganrule · Calificación: 5 de 5 estrellas]

Thought rereading this might shed some light on the Trump presidency until I realized that there is a crucial difference between realpolitik and realityTVpolitiking.

[tommi180744 · Calificación: 4 de 5 estrellas]

A very sharp commentary on the art and business of politics when ruling a nation/people. As it did for previous generations this 16th Century tome has many pertinent pointers for today's would-be establishment elite: however, the pitfalls of power & being consumed by the desire for authority that it also mentions have been neglected by so many ill-equipped & haplessly inadequate Leaders of the 20th/21st centuries it would appear many of them were not concentrating when they read Machiavelli's masterpiece!

[tonifgmamtc · Calificación: 3 de 5 estrellas]

Although it is a blueprint for how to rule over the common people, it has some really great points that carry over into many of life's situations.

[judithrs · Calificación: 3 de 5 estrellas]

The Prince. Niccolo Machiavelli. 2008. Our book club chose this classic of how to get and keep political power because it was an election year. What surprised several of us was how mild it seemed. We decided we were no longer idealistic and had lived too long to be shocked at what lengths a man in power will go to maintain that power

[datrappert · Calificación: 5 de 5 estrellas]

It's easy to be a cynic about this book, but there is some very good psychological advice here. Such as, after a victory, make friends with your enemies, and you'll be able to trust them more than your allies, who now that you have won, will be looking to take advantage of you or overthrow you. Your enemies, on the other hand, will be grateful for your mercy.

[expatscot-1 · Calificación: 3 de 5 estrellas]

The introduction to Italy at the beginning of the book is almost worth more than the book itself. However it is a decent read and one that can happily be chalked off the "must read that one day" list without feeling one has completed a chore.The core of the book is somewhat repetitive in that the advice given seems to boil down to a relatively few nuggets, but in some ways that was maybe his point, that no matter the situation the best course of action doesn't vary all that much.The biggest surprise to me was how much Italy was a real concept even when the city states and provinces were the methods of governance, I guess I'd always thought it was only when the state was brought together that it really existed, but it was obviously in people minds and, indeed, Machiavelli's dreams.

[timoroso · Calificación: 5 de 5 estrellas]

It would be absurd to "review" the most important book on politics ever written. Go read it if you haven't already. It is very funny too.

[jgcorrea-1 · Calificación: 3 de 5 estrellas]

The reasons why The Prince endures the ages while the rest of Macchiavelli's philosophy gathers dust in the back of an old library warehouse are chiefly 1) it's a really short treatise, and 2) it angries up the blood. The best way by far to get a best-seller is to write anything that pisses everyone off. The drawback is, it confounds the messages of any works that were only meant to be understood in context.

[dandelionroots · Calificación: 4 de 5 estrellas]

Am now a Machiavelli groupie. Need to read his alluded to work(s) on Republics STAT. Ah, my first historical crush."Since it is my object to write what shall be useful to whosoever understands it, it seems to me better to follow the real truth of things than an imaginary view of them. For many Republics and Princedoms have been imagined that were never seen or known to exist in reality. And the manner in which we live, and that in which we ought to live, are things so wide asunder, that he who quits the one to betake himself to the other is more likely to destroy than to save himself; since any one who would act up to a perfect standard of goodness in everything, must be ruined among so many who are not good."

[santhony_35 · Calificación: 4 de 5 estrellas]

For Christmas, I ordered an mp3 player (Library of Classics) that was pre-loaded with 100 works of classic literature in an audio format. Each work is in the public domain and is read by amateurs, so the quality of the presentation is hit or miss. The Prince is a very well-known and controversial work of political theory written by 15th century Florentine Niccolo Machiavelli. The work is famous for advocating a very cynical, manipulative and violent form of governance, but I was somewhat surprised after hearing the work in its relative short entirety by its simplicity and reputation.Machiavelli essentially describes the various forms of government in existence at the time and throughout the then history, and comments on the strengths and weaknesses of each. He breaks down these forms by methods of attaining and maintaining power, using many examples at his disposal. He is particularly enamored of the leadership style of Cesare Borgia, the bastard son of Pope Alexander VI.In criticizing Machiavelli’s choice of the ideal Prince, one must consider the time and place of his existence. It would be hard to argue against the Renaissance Italian city and Papal states being among the most politically volatile and complicated landscapes to traverse in recorded history. In addition to the feudal Princes of Milan and Florence (among others), the Venetian Republic and the regions nominally under the control of the Vatican, the Kings of France and Spain also showed up frequently in force. Mercenary forces were rampant and alliances and power blocs shifted constantly. If you were not a cynical, crafty, even duplicitous ruler, you likely didn’t last long.The work is relatively short and largely simple in its classifications and analysis, making arguments and suggestions that at times seem glaringly obvious, but it must be remembered that this was written in the 15th century and as a collection of political thought and history, was unique for its time. Much of what is contained in the book holds true to this day, though current political constructs make much of Machiavelli’s writing appear politically extreme and his name has become synonymous with a repressive, reactionary, heavy handed and duplicitous style of leadership.My version of The Prince also included The Life of Castruccio Castracani of Lucca, also penned by Machiavelli, a very short biography of one of the most well-loved and successful princes of the era.

[justindtapp · Calificación: 5 de 5 estrellas]

I should have read this book (free for Kindle) years ago. Machiavelli's works on ancient history came up frequently in a different book I read recently, and he has been cited in several other books on my lists. Alas, I've now read this work. I find some of the oft-cited passages I hear are somewhat taken out of context.

The version I read had a brief biographical sketch of Machiavelli, which was helpful. Machiavelli is foremost a historian, so he cites examples of rulers and conflicts both from Florentine and Italian history, the current Ottoman state, Greco-Roman history, and the Bible.

He starts by looking at the failures of statecraft-- how a monarch can lose a state which he has conquered or inherited. Louis XII was one such object of failure in his aims on Italian provinces. He talks of how one holds a free Republic, you either have to destroy it or make it a tributary while encouraging development of an oligarchy there to maintain defacto control. This seems like it's played out accurately in world history.

Machiavelli's "it's better to be feared than loved" is in the context of a Prince who takes a territory who was originally not his own. There will likely be unrest, so the advice is to do some large act of cruel suppression up front to quell dissent and then do small acts of benevolence over time to keep the populace pacified. If a ruler drags out the cruelty, he will breed hatred which is the ultimate failure of a monarch. The ruler must appear to be capable of both cruelty and mercy, so that he appeals more broadly, and where possible he should have an underling be the "bad cop" enforcer. It'd be best to be both feared and loved, but you will always have to give one of those up and it's best to give up love. The great projects of history, according to Machiavelli, were done by rulers who were remembered to be mean and not kind.

It's always a bad idea to rely on foreign mercenaries for your army. Machiavelli marks the decline of Rome with the hiring of Goths to do soldiering at the cost of the Roman army. France was making the same mistake in relying on Swiss mercenaries at the time of his writing. Building fortresses are of no defense when the people hate you.

A ruler has to be "liberal" in his spending. Games and welfare for the people, benefits for the standing army. This is obviously hard to do unless you're conquering and expropriating-- otherwise you bankrupt your treasury. The Prince gains glory and reputation by accomplishing big tasks-- namely conquering territories and enriching the kingdom.

The Prince should also seem to be a man of integrity. The great rulers abandon virtue when they have to-- sometimes they have to break their word in order to protect their position or the state. This is acceptable so long as not done in such a away that the people despise him. The prince should be virtuous but also know how and when to get his hands dirty.

A Prince should have a few advisors that he listens to and that he rewards for speaking honestly and openly; he should ignore all other opinion. The Prince should always make sure his advisors and viceroys know that their positions-- their wealth, authority, and very lives-- are at the whim of the Prince so that they don't go seeking their own gain or become corrupt.

A Prince is someone who believes he has the power to shape world events, that everything isn't left to "fortune" or random chance forces of history. He yields that authority and has other men follow him.

I enjoyed this book, it's obviously a 5 star classic.

[trilliams · Calificación: 4 de 5 estrellas]

Bombastic at times, though quite entertaining. Still not sure when Tupac is coming back.

[jimocracy · Calificación: 2 de 5 estrellas]

This was mediocre and boring. I was expecting great insight and all I got was my time wasted.

[eyejaybee · Calificación: 3 de 5 estrellas]

Niccolo Machiavelli may represent the epitome of a politician born in the wrong age. Nowadays anyone as politically astute and accomplished as Machiavelli undoubtedly was would make sure that they had a slick PR team in place, ready to put a positive spin on their every utterance. Even then, things can come adrift. In recent years even as experienced a political operator as Peter, now Lord, Mandleson, New Labour spin doctor extraordinaire, though having a whole team of press consultants and PR men at his behest, found his ceaseless machinations earned him a reputation for duplicity and divisiveness, rendering him a hissing and a byword within his own party, let alone among his Conservative opponents. Yet even Lord Mandelson didn't suffer the vilification and revulsion that have attached themselves to Machiavelli over the last six centuries.

The very word 'machiavellian' carries with it a heavy semantic weighting, with connotations of intricate and decidedly underhand plotting; shameful manoeuvres best left in the shadows, hidden from view. There is even a solid body of belief that ascribes the origin of the Devil's cognomen 'Old Nick' as a reference to Machiavelli's practice of the dark arts of political persuasion, and to this work in particular.

Florence in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries may have been at the centre of the Renaissance, but it was also a hub of political and military activity. Machiavelli had held public office during the brief history of the Republic of Florence before the Medici dynasty reasserted itself. As so often befalls senior in times of violent regime change, Machiavelli found himself imprisoned and even tortured in 1512. It was in the years shortly after this that he wrote this work, an observation on the practical application of political rule. He is careful not to become bogged down in moral considerations. He is, instead, principally concerned with the establishment of a strong administration that can defend and maintain its borders and protect its people. The implication is that if military security can be established, the populace will benefit in the long run. His advice is, therefore, essentially dispassionate. He has studied politics in action during disturbed time, and synthesis his experience into a handbook for the ambitious ruler.

He was clearly a scholar and shows great familiarity with the classics. His chapter on the impact of ruler who achieve their position as a consequence of crime is a distillation of Herodotus's life of Agathocles of Syracuse. Born the son of a potter, Agathocles combined courage and ambition with criminal intent, allying himself with the Carthaginians to establish himself as King of the Syracuse throne. Having stolen the throne, he established himself as a pragmatic and successful leader who protected his realm and people, and this reigned for several years in relative stability.

His taste for pragmatism does occasionally lead him into blunt and even reckless assertions. Comments of the nature of, 'I say it would be splendid if one had a reputation for generosity; nonetheless, if you do earn a reputation for generosity then you will come to grief' can never constitute a popular manifesto!

In the end, the question of whether he was evil and manipulative, or merely pragmatic, is really somewhat irrelevant. His book has survived for centuries, and offers a fascinating observation of the political life in a turbulent city state, caught between the Scylla of impending military intervention by the French and the Charybdys of an omnipresent Church that dominated everyday life.

The translation that I read (which I bought more than thirty years ago while still at school) was that by George Bull, published by the Penguin Classics series in 1961, and it did seem rather dated in parts. The introduction offered lots of fascinating information about Machiavelli's life and the prevailing context against which he wrote, though I have seldom seen a scholarly tract that was so poorly written. Bull obviously poured all his efforts into the translation and just dashed the introduction off against a too tight deadline!