D'you want power, corruption and fries with that? No ta., 16 Nov 2008
Machiavelli's Il Principe is a slim volume, but it's jam-packed with aperçu of political scenarios that are completely beyond the grasp of many so-called philosophers hundreds of years later. I'm not naming any names, but some of the political tomes I've read come across like the writer has spent too much time pondering and not enough time living.

The other thing that sets Machiavelli apart is that it's fun to read. If you admire the work of Marcus Aurelius, Sun Tzu, or The KLF, then this book is a must.

The most basic lesson of Machiavelli is simple common sense - namely that common sense isn't common, and has nothing to do with sense.

Chapters XIX "The need to avoid contempt and hatred" and XXIII "How flatterers must be shunned" - both of these need to be read and understood by anyone with an interest in management. You'd be surprised (or maybe you wouldn't) how many of your middle managers are just clockwatchers, ***********, and suit-wearing robots.

Full marks for this translation - it captures the energy and impetus, and most importantly the concise nature of the original text.



One of THE most important works ever written, 25 Aug 2007
This masterpiece of reasoning and good practical handbook on how to get ahead in real life if you happen to be already a man of some means, was a work of great humanity in an age when humanity was still considered disgusting and subserviant to the Lord above and his chosen servants on Earth. What a shot across the bows to all those religious hypocrites and Bible following automatons this must have been, then. Two elements surrounding this work's brave publication are crucial, I feel: One being that this was Italy, (as it became) and at its advanced stage of the great Renaissance, as we now know it, and the second being that it was written at a time which was just right to be publishing order challenging controversial works. After seeing the liberal benefits to man that the use of the printing press had brought, and the world of possibilities it offered, Machiavelli struck the first blow against the stifling and corrupt order of the age.

His publication of political thought and theory which was refreshingly devoid of religious dogma or even quotations, preceded the publication of that other world changing document by three or four years: Luther's pinning of the ninety five thesis to a Church door a few hundred miles north in an area still ruled by edicts pumped out by prelates living closer to Machiavelli. This was exactly the right time to be reaching the learned men of the world with anything revolutionary in tone, and well presented and researched contradictions of established thought were very lible to strike a chord with many. In other words, many people by this time had clearly had all they could stomach of the seething hypocrisy they witnessed being displayed by the Lord's own servants, in the church and consequently in the monarchy led governments of the age. To be spouting their harsh godfearing edicts out to the uneducated masses when the vast majority of them enjoyed the sins they were loudly proscribing the common populace from having, was all a bit rich for certain educated but strong minded men like Machiavelli and Luther. The time was very ripe for a wind of change, and even the corrupt but mighty church of Rome knew it, and feared it.

Machievelli simply took a different line to Luther, perhaps not least because he was far more used to living with these ruler's inconsistencies than the more morally outraged teutonic man of God was. Where Luther got all spiritual and quoted the many edicts from scripture that the church of Rome was blatantly abusing, Machiavelli simply plotted the practical lines for a prostective leader of state to follow, quoting the works of historians and statesmen who had written about both the world's most successful leaders and its least successful leaders, as a practical handbook on how to be a successful head of state. Both of their actions though were brave, and both of them catastrophic to the cosy order of things and to the power of the once mighty Catholic Church. Humanity owes both of these great men an enormous debt, for their brave and insightful works helped breathe a real wind of change to the way the human race had been living.

The virtues of Machiavelli, 03 Feb 2005
In the course of my political science training, I studied at great length the modern idea of realpolitik. In that study I came to realise that it was somewhat incomplete, without the companionship of The Prince, by Niccolo Machiavelli, a Florentine governmental official in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. The Prince is an oft quoted, oft mis-quoted work, used as the philosophical underpinning for much of what is considered both pragmatic and wrong in politics today. To describe someone as being Machiavellian is to attribute to the person ruthless ambition, craftiness and merciless political tactics. Being believed to be Machiavellian is generally politically incorrect. Being Machiavellian, alas, can often be politically expedient.

Machiavelli based his work in The Prince upon his basic understanding of human nature. He held that people are motivated by fear and envy, by novelty, by desire for wealth, power and security, and by a hatred of restriction. In the Italy in which he was writing, democracy was an un-implemented Greek philosophical idea, not a political structure with a history of success; thus, one person's power usually involved the limitation of another person's power in an autocratic way.

Machiavelli did not see this as a permanent or natural state of being -- in fact, he felt that, during his age, human nature had been corrupted and reduced from a loftier nobility achieved during the golden ages of Greece and Rome. He decided that it was the corrupting influence of Christianity that had reduced human nature, by its exaltation of meekness, humility, and otherworldliness.

Machiavelli has a great admiration for the possible and potential, but finds himself inexorably drawn to the practical, dealing with situations as they are, thus becoming an early champion of realpolitik carried forward into this century by the likes of Kissinger, Thatcher, Nixon, and countless others. One of the innovations of Machiavelli's thought was the recognition that the prince, the leader of the city/state/empire/etc., was nonetheless a human being, and subject to all the human limitations and desires with which all contend.

Because the average prince (like the average person) is likely to be focussed upon his own interests, a prince's private interests are generally in opposition to those of his subjects. Fortunate is the kingdom ruled by a virtuous prince, virtue here not defined by Christian or religious tenets, but rather the civic virtue of being able to pursue his own interests without conflicting those of his subjects.

Virtue is that which increases power; vice is that which decreases power. These follow Machiavelli's assumptions about human nature. Machiavelli rejected the Platonic idea of a division between what a prince does and what a prince ought to do. The two principle instruments of the prince are force and propaganda, and the prince, in order to increase power (virtue) ought to employ force completely and ruthlessly, and propaganda wisely, backed up by force. Of course, for Machiavelli, the chief propaganda vehicle is that of religion.

Whoever reads Roman history attentively will see in how great a degree religion served in the command of the armies, in uniting the people and keeping them well conducted, and in covering the wicked with shame.

Machiavelli has been credited with giving ruthless strategies (the example of a new political ruler killing the deposed ruler and the ruler's family to prevent usurpation and plotting is well known) -- it is hard to enact many in current politics in a literal way, but many of his strategies can still be seen in electioneering at every level, in national and international relations, and even in corporate and family internal 'politics'. In fact, I have found fewer more Machiavellian types than in church politics!

Of course, these people would be considered 'virtuous' in Machiavellian terms -- doing what is necessary to increase power and authority.

The title of this piece -- the virtues of Machiavelli, must be considered in this frame; certainly in no way virtuous by current standards, but then, it shows, not all have the same standards. Be careful of the words you use -- they may have differing definitions.

Perhaps if Machiavelli had lived a bit later, and been informed by the general rise of science as a rational underpinning to the world, he might have been able to accept less of a degree of randomness in the universe. Perhaps he would have modified his views. Perhaps not -- after all, the realpolitikers of this age are aware of the scientific framework of the universe, and still pursue their courses.

This is an important work, intriguing in many respects. Far shorter than the average classical or medieval philosophical tome, and more accessible by current readers because of a greater familiarity with politics than, say, metaphysics or epistemology, this work yields benefits and insights to all who read, mark, inwardly digest, and critically examine the precepts.

Ruthless, 28 Oct 2004
The Prince... well its difficult to describe exactly what it entails. I think to start with all who consider going into politics or any kind of management role should be handed a copy of this book at the same time as they recieve their application forms. It is ruthless but efficient also and so its central premises should always be remembered, particularly by our governing bodies.
Machiavelli writes with a self assurance which is refreshing in an age of hesitation and self correction.
I'm not convinced that this was a life changing book for me to read, it certainly affected my attitudes and values but is not a inspirational self help book (not that its supposed to be).
I recommend this to anyone who has an interest in history or in politics.

A prince among men., 14 Oct 2003
Machiavelli's realisation of the true nature of men as "...fickle,lying,cowards..." leads him in his brilliantly astute work to illuminate the realities of government and life in general.
Disregarding all political theorie's and ideaoligies machiavelli refreshingly deals with how things are and not how they should.
While on first glance machiavellis work would seem almost evil in its implications as it has been labeled countless times, a deeper look would show it to be more humane and considerate of human wellbeing then any half baked political ideology (communism, Republicanism,democracy etc). His assertion that the ends justifies the means is a good demonstration of this as Machiavelli demonstrates through historical analogies the truth of life in general: for people to prosper others have to suffer. In truthfully explaining this and insisting it be done quickly and totaly for it to be over and done with machiavelli shows a level of compasion far greater than any bleeding hearted liberal vegaterian (the most likely to be opposed to his assertions)
His work while being what many would labels as deeply cinical is niether cinical nor idealogical but an honest assesment of life in general as well as politics, which cannot help but uplift those of the same frame of mind with the comfort of nowing that the realisation that the world is a very unhappy place is not theres alone.
But if you truly believe in the hollywood view of the world in which love is blind and happy endings happen for every one than don't read this book (ignorance is bliss).

The thesis of the provocative and potentially important Clash of Civilizations is that the increasing threat of violence arising from renewed conflicts between countries and cultures that base their traditions on religious faith and dogma. This argument moves past the notion of ethnicity to examine the growing influence of a handful of major cultures--Western, Eastern Orthodox, Latin American, Islamic, Japanese, Chinese, Hindu and African--in current struggles across the globe. Samuel P Huntington, a political scientist at Harvard University and foreign policy aide to President Clinton, argues that policymakers should be mindful of this development when they interfere in other nations' affairs. --Christine Buttery

D'you want power, corruption and fries with that? No ta., 16 Nov 2008
Machiavelli's Il Principe is a slim volume, but it's jam-packed with aperçu of political scenarios that are completely beyond the grasp of many so-called philosophers hundreds of years later. I'm not naming any names, but some of the political tomes I've read come across like the writer has spent too much time pondering and not enough time living.

The other thing that sets Machiavelli apart is that it's fun to read. If you admire the work of Marcus Aurelius, Sun Tzu, or The KLF, then this book is a must.

The most basic lesson of Machiavelli is simple common sense - namely that common sense isn't common, and has nothing to do with sense.

Chapters XIX "The need to avoid contempt and hatred" and XXIII "How flatterers must be shunned" - both of these need to be read and understood by anyone with an interest in management. You'd be surprised (or maybe you wouldn't) how many of your middle managers are just clockwatchers, ***********, and suit-wearing robots.

Full marks for this translation - it captures the energy and impetus, and most importantly the concise nature of the original text.



One of THE most important works ever written, 25 Aug 2007
This masterpiece of reasoning and good practical handbook on how to get ahead in real life if you happen to be already a man of some means, was a work of great humanity in an age when humanity was still considered disgusting and subserviant to the Lord above and his chosen servants on Earth. What a shot across the bows to all those religious hypocrites and Bible following automatons this must have been, then. Two elements surrounding this work's brave publication are crucial, I feel: One being that this was Italy, (as it became) and at its advanced stage of the great Renaissance, as we now know it, and the second being that it was written at a time which was just right to be publishing order challenging controversial works. After seeing the liberal benefits to man that the use of the printing press had brought, and the world of possibilities it offered, Machiavelli struck the first blow against the stifling and corrupt order of the age.

His publication of political thought and theory which was refreshingly devoid of religious dogma or even quotations, preceded the publication of that other world changing document by three or four years: Luther's pinning of the ninety five thesis to a Church door a few hundred miles north in an area still ruled by edicts pumped out by prelates living closer to Machiavelli. This was exactly the right time to be reaching the learned men of the world with anything revolutionary in tone, and well presented and researched contradictions of established thought were very lible to strike a chord with many. In other words, many people by this time had clearly had all they could stomach of the seething hypocrisy they witnessed being displayed by the Lord's own servants, in the church and consequently in the monarchy led governments of the age. To be spouting their harsh godfearing edicts out to the uneducated masses when the vast majority of them enjoyed the sins they were loudly proscribing the common populace from having, was all a bit rich for certain educated but strong minded men like Machiavelli and Luther. The time was very ripe for a wind of change, and even the corrupt but mighty church of Rome knew it, and feared it.

Machievelli simply took a different line to Luther, perhaps not least because he was far more used to living with these ruler's inconsistencies than the more morally outraged teutonic man of God was. Where Luther got all spiritual and quoted the many edicts from scripture that the church of Rome was blatantly abusing, Machiavelli simply plotted the practical lines for a prostective leader of state to follow, quoting the works of historians and statesmen who had written about both the world's most successful leaders and its least successful leaders, as a practical handbook on how to be a successful head of state. Both of their actions though were brave, and both of them catastrophic to the cosy order of things and to the power of the once mighty Catholic Church. Humanity owes both of these great men an enormous debt, for their brave and insightful works helped breathe a real wind of change to the way the human race had been living.

The virtues of Machiavelli, 03 Feb 2005
In the course of my political science training, I studied at great length the modern idea of realpolitik. In that study I came to realise that it was somewhat incomplete, without the companionship of The Prince, by Niccolo Machiavelli, a Florentine governmental official in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. The Prince is an oft quoted, oft mis-quoted work, used as the philosophical underpinning for much of what is considered both pragmatic and wrong in politics today. To describe someone as being Machiavellian is to attribute to the person ruthless ambition, craftiness and merciless political tactics. Being believed to be Machiavellian is generally politically incorrect. Being Machiavellian, alas, can often be politically expedient.

Machiavelli based his work in The Prince upon his basic understanding of human nature. He held that people are motivated by fear and envy, by novelty, by desire for wealth, power and security, and by a hatred of restriction. In the Italy in which he was writing, democracy was an un-implemented Greek philosophical idea, not a political structure with a history of success; thus, one person's power usually involved the limitation of another person's power in an autocratic way.

Machiavelli did not see this as a permanent or natural state of being -- in fact, he felt that, during his age, human nature had been corrupted and reduced from a loftier nobility achieved during the golden ages of Greece and Rome. He decided that it was the corrupting influence of Christianity that had reduced human nature, by its exaltation of meekness, humility, and otherworldliness.

Machiavelli has a great admiration for the possible and potential, but finds himself inexorably drawn to the practical, dealing with situations as they are, thus becoming an early champion of realpolitik carried forward into this century by the likes of Kissinger, Thatcher, Nixon, and countless others. One of the innovations of Machiavelli's thought was the recognition that the prince, the leader of the city/state/empire/etc., was nonetheless a human being, and subject to all the human limitations and desires with which all contend.

Because the average prince (like the average person) is likely to be focussed upon his own interests, a prince's private interests are generally in opposition to those of his subjects. Fortunate is the kingdom ruled by a virtuous prince, virtue here not defined by Christian or religious tenets, but rather the civic virtue of being able to pursue his own interests without conflicting those of his subjects.

Virtue is that which increases power; vice is that which decreases power. These follow Machiavelli's assumptions about human nature. Machiavelli rejected the Platonic idea of a division between what a prince does and what a prince ought to do. The two principle instruments of the prince are force and propaganda, and the prince, in order to increase power (virtue) ought to employ force completely and ruthlessly, and propaganda wisely, backed up by force. Of course, for Machiavelli, the chief propaganda vehicle is that of religion.

Whoever reads Roman history attentively will see in how great a degree religion served in the command of the armies, in uniting the people and keeping them well conducted, and in covering the wicked with shame.

Machiavelli has been credited with giving ruthless strategies (the example of a new political ruler killing the deposed ruler and the ruler's family to prevent usurpation and plotting is well known) -- it is hard to enact many in current politics in a literal way, but many of his strategies can still be seen in electioneering at every level, in national and international relations, and even in corporate and family internal 'politics'. In fact, I have found fewer more Machiavellian types than in church politics!

Of course, these people would be considered 'virtuous' in Machiavellian terms -- doing what is necessary to increase power and authority.

The title of this piece -- the virtues of Machiavelli, must be considered in this frame; certainly in no way virtuous by current standards, but then, it shows, not all have the same standards. Be careful of the words you use -- they may have differing definitions.

Perhaps if Machiavelli had lived a bit later, and been informed by the general rise of science as a rational underpinning to the world, he might have been able to accept less of a degree of randomness in the universe. Perhaps he would have modified his views. Perhaps not -- after all, the realpolitikers of this age are aware of the scientific framework of the universe, and still pursue their courses.

This is an important work, intriguing in many respects. Far shorter than the average classical or medieval philosophical tome, and more accessible by current readers because of a greater familiarity with politics than, say, metaphysics or epistemology, this work yields benefits and insights to all who read, mark, inwardly digest, and critically examine the precepts.

Ruthless, 28 Oct 2004
The Prince... well its difficult to describe exactly what it entails. I think to start with all who consider going into politics or any kind of management role should be handed a copy of this book at the same time as they recieve their application forms. It is ruthless but efficient also and so its central premises should always be remembered, particularly by our governing bodies.
Machiavelli writes with a self assurance which is refreshing in an age of hesitation and self correction.
I'm not convinced that this was a life changing book for me to read, it certainly affected my attitudes and values but is not a inspirational self help book (not that its supposed to be).
I recommend this to anyone who has an interest in history or in politics.

A prince among men., 14 Oct 2003
Machiavelli's realisation of the true nature of men as "...fickle,lying,cowards..." leads him in his brilliantly astute work to illuminate the realities of government and life in general.
Disregarding all political theorie's and ideaoligies machiavelli refreshingly deals with how things are and not how they should.
While on first glance machiavellis work would seem almost evil in its implications as it has been labeled countless times, a deeper look would show it to be more humane and considerate of human wellbeing then any half baked political ideology (communism, Republicanism,democracy etc). His assertion that the ends justifies the means is a good demonstration of this as Machiavelli demonstrates through historical analogies the truth of life in general: for people to prosper others have to suffer. In truthfully explaining this and insisting it be done quickly and totaly for it to be over and done with machiavelli shows a level of compasion far greater than any bleeding hearted liberal vegaterian (the most likely to be opposed to his assertions)
His work while being what many would labels as deeply cinical is niether cinical nor idealogical but an honest assesment of life in general as well as politics, which cannot help but uplift those of the same frame of mind with the comfort of nowing that the realisation that the world is a very unhappy place is not theres alone.
But if you truly believe in the hollywood view of the world in which love is blind and happy endings happen for every one than don't read this book (ignorance is bliss).

Civilizations or Cultures?, 08 Sep 2008
This is a book which has had wide currency among international opinion-formers. The egregious Tony Blair has cited it many times (typically enough, without actually crediting it as such, just using the words as if the product of his own thoughts). My problem with it rests on some inadequacies of expression and treatment. The role of race is virtually ignored for one: Islam only attracts those in or descended from certain racial or sub-racial groups, where Islam has been predominant for centuries. Yes, there are a few mavericks and cranks who take it up, but these are rare exceptions. So Islam is NOT (as Huntington claims) likely to somehow take over the "West" EXCEPT by conquest, destruction or (most crucially) by Europe and elsewhere accepting vast numbers of Muslims (who have, as he says, a far higher birth rate) into the European or European-founded societies. Unfortunately this IS the case as Europe is flooded with infiltrating millions.

Huntington's view of "The West" is very Americo-centric. Instead of seeing our Age (I.E. the 2,100 years after 1415) as a whole as Anglo-American-German, as Rudolf Steiner did (he called it the "5th Post-Atlantean"), or as "the age of the white northern European", Huntington really thinks of America as the heartland of Western Civilization (and not, as some might, one of its graveyards!) and thinks that if America ceases to be "Western" by giving up individualism, the Christian church(es) etc, then America itself will be "de-Westernized" and the West would be "reduced to Europe and a few lightly populated overseas European settler countries [and] becomes a miniscule and declining part of the world's population on a small and inconsequential peninsula at the extremity of the Eurasian land mass" (paperback edition p.307).

This above viewpoint must be seen as absurdly misconceived and "little American". For one thing, even Western Europe has a population at least equivalent to that of the United States and its Canadian appendage. And some of the overseas offshoots of the European Empires (especially the British) have large populations which are still mostly of European descent, such as Australia, which is now counted as having about 20 million. And what is the obsession with mere numbers? The British ruled most of India and Africa and elsewhere with tiny groups of British/European civil servants and officers disposing of modest numbers of European police and soldiers.

To my way of thinking, the book is important because it does raise the subject, but apart from the above criticisms, it fails to note that in advanced sections of European (or, as Huntington would put it, "Western") humanity, there is a continuing evolution of consciousness which might lead to a quantum leap in civilization, particularly if Europe joins with a fully independent Russia, that is a Russia which is run by Russians and not "rootless cosmopolitans" with Russian passports. That Europe + Russia could be at least the foundation of a a REAL New Order over time!

Prophetic and gripping, but slightly dated, 15 Apr 2007
This book was written as a prophecy about what the author felt would characterise the C21st. Now that we are nearly a decade into the C21st, we have the ability to look back and see if he was right. If yes, then this book was prophetic and its lessons should be learned. If not, then he is wrong, and the book is little more than an airport novel.

On one or two dimensions, Huntingdon has been extraordinarily accurate, predicting that Islamic extremism would become the number one security threat to the West in the C21st. Ominously, he predicted that the West would be driven to attack nations that possessed WMDs in the fear they would pass them on to terrorists. This is the Bush doctrine, written before Bush was even an elected official, never mind President. Equally ominous, he predicted that Islamic radicals would rally to the cause of any Muslim state attacked in such a way, and the influx of foreign insurgents into Iraq confirms this. Interestingly, the author predicts that the Taliban and Al Qaeda would be very prominent in the C21st, yet never actually names the organisations by name (in the case of Al Qaeda because it did not adopt its current name until several years after the book was written).

Huntingdon is slightly inaccurate in his prediction that China would become more bellicose and confrontational. At least so far, China has been warm towards the West, with trade deals and cultural exchanges flourishing. Another weakness of the book is his rather arbitrary definition of societies, and his notion that a "core state" would drive forward its respective civilisation. This is not the case, with supra-national agencies taking the place of "core states".

Overall, the book is highly recommended. However, given its relative age, it would be advisable to buy a more recent book on geopolitics as well, to top up the introduction that this book provides.


Must reading for the serious student of international affairs, 08 Nov 2006
While there is much (most) of this book I disagree with, it is nonetheless the essential, seminal work on the Clash of Civilizations theory, and thus is must reading for any serious student of international affairs.

In describing his thesis, Huntington elevates "mere" culture to the level of civilization, implying that there are unbridgable fundamental differences between different civilizations which will inevitably lead to a world where these civilizations compete or clash. I don't mean to lazily discredit the idea by association, but this is the philosophy promoted by the likes of Osama bin Laden, for example.

I am afraid reviewers who link this author to the militaristic neo-con movement in the US do not understand either Huntington's thesis or neo-cons themselves. A member of the Western civilization who was an adherent of the Clash of Civilizations worldview would NEVER attack a state of the Islamic civilization, let alone try to turn it into a democracy. Huntington's thesis would predict other nations in the Islamic civilization would rally to the defense of their co-civilizationalist, seeing the attack in terms of an attempt by one civilization to dominate another no matter how justified the attack was (or wasn't, in this case).

Before the war at least, neo-cons argued that all peoples yearn for democracy, that democracy can be delivered at the point of a sword and that it is the mission (burden?) of the West and particularly the lone superpower to liberate these peoples, who will welcome us as their saviors as we create new allies in our own image even while we destroy our enemies. Anyone who suggested that Muslims or Arabs might not be happy to be invaded and brought to democracy was cleverly dismissed as a racist or cultural imperialist. What the neo-cons see as universal civilization Huntington would say is merely Western civilization, and thus any attempt to impose this on another civilization would be doomed to failure.

While Huntington's thesis (first postulated in 1993) would seem to successfully predict the failure of neo-con policy, I think he goes too far in defining characteristics which are "merely" cultural as civilizational. Certainly, there are such things as Islamic and Sinic and Orthodox cultures which one may be wise (and respectful) to consider when dealing with people from those cultures. However, to suggest that these differences are unbridgable is in my view a very limited, deterministic world-view and really an end-game in itself. Individuals can bridge these divisions - what makes "civilizations" composed of individuals any different?

In addition, there are things like universal human rights which exist and have been ratified by nations all over the world. I can not agree with Huntington that these are just expressions of Western thought imposed on the world by the dominant civilization.

Although I find much to oppose in this book, it is very well presented and will certainly be argued about for years to come. You may as well read about the theory straight from the source!

Unconvincing, 05 Apr 2006
It's almost tempting to agree with Huntington's analysis and conclusions. Almost. Yet his premises just don't stand up.

First he argues that what matters most to people, above all else, is culture. While certainly important, he is only able to point to random evidence here and there that 'prove' this. The reader, howver, is left questioning 'why is culture so resonant with people?'. Other than the collapse of the Soviet Union, there is no obvious explanation for why people of the various civilizations now buy into culture much more readily than they did 20 years ago. Further, I am personally unconvinced that these same people would fly the flag of culture above all else - peace, prosperity, trade, etc.

His conception of identity is also troubling. It's monolithic, impermeable, and static. Just as the 'West' certainly did not act as one when various states chose to invade Iraq, nor do I believe that the Muslim world truly identifies with your average Bosnian. At least, I'd need more than Huntington's word on the matter to convince me.

Overall, it's just too deterministic. Huntington provides no insight into how his 'paradigm' might itself become obsolete. The resounding implication seems to be if enough people buy into The Clash then it will come true. There's no place like home, there's no place like home...

Philosophical problem with this book, 01 Apr 2006
This book is interesting for the influence that it is claimed to exert, especially upon the present US administration. You can see the attraction of this whole Clash of Civilizations agenda: you can walk into someone else's country, help yourself to their economic resources and describe it as social progress.

If all the Arab World produced were watermelons, would anyone be have written this book or launched the recent war?

D'you want power, corruption and fries with that? No ta., 16 Nov 2008
Machiavelli's Il Principe is a slim volume, but it's jam-packed with aperçu of political scenarios that are completely beyond the grasp of many so-called philosophers hundreds of years later. I'm not naming any names, but some of the political tomes I've read come across like the writer has spent too much time pondering and not enough time living.

The other thing that sets Machiavelli apart is that it's fun to read. If you admire the work of Marcus Aurelius, Sun Tzu, or The KLF, then this book is a must.

The most basic lesson of Machiavelli is simple common sense - namely that common sense isn't common, and has nothing to do with sense.

Chapters XIX "The need to avoid contempt and hatred" and XXIII "How flatterers must be shunned" - both of these need to be read and understood by anyone with an interest in management. You'd be surprised (or maybe you wouldn't) how many of your middle managers are just clockwatchers, ***********, and suit-wearing robots.

Full marks for this translation - it captures the energy and impetus, and most importantly the concise nature of the original text.



One of THE most important works ever written, 25 Aug 2007
This masterpiece of reasoning and good practical handbook on how to get ahead in real life if you happen to be already a man of some means, was a work of great humanity in an age when humanity was still considered disgusting and subserviant to the Lord above and his chosen servants on Earth. What a shot across the bows to all those religious hypocrites and Bible following automatons this must have been, then. Two elements surrounding this work's brave publication are crucial, I feel: One being that this was Italy, (as it became) and at its advanced stage of the great Renaissance, as we now know it, and the second being that it was written at a time which was just right to be publishing order challenging controversial works. After seeing the liberal benefits to man that the use of the printing press had brought, and the world of possibilities it offered, Machiavelli struck the first blow against the stifling and corrupt order of the age.

His publication of political thought and theory which was refreshingly devoid of religious dogma or even quotations, preceded the publication of that other world changing document by three or four years: Luther's pinning of the ninety five thesis to a Church door a few hundred miles north in an area still ruled by edicts pumped out by prelates living closer to Machiavelli. This was exactly the right time to be reaching the learned men of the world with anything revolutionary in tone, and well presented and researched contradictions of established thought were very lible to strike a chord with many. In other words, many people by this time had clearly had all they could stomach of the seething hypocrisy they witnessed being displayed by the Lord's own servants, in the church and consequently in the monarchy led governments of the age. To be spouting their harsh godfearing edicts out to the uneducated masses when the vast majority of them enjoyed the sins they were loudly proscribing the common populace from having, was all a bit rich for certain educated but strong minded men like Machiavelli and Luther. The time was very ripe for a wind of change, and even the corrupt but mighty church of Rome knew it, and feared it.

Machievelli simply took a different line to Luther, perhaps not least because he was far more used to living with these ruler's inconsistencies than the more morally outraged teutonic man of God was. Where Luther got all spiritual and quoted the many edicts from scripture that the church of Rome was blatantly abusing, Machiavelli simply plotted the practical lines for a prostective leader of state to follow, quoting the works of historians and statesmen who had written about both the world's most successful leaders and its least successful leaders, as a practical handbook on how to be a successful head of state. Both of their actions though were brave, and both of them catastrophic to the cosy order of things and to the power of the once mighty Catholic Church. Humanity owes both of these great men an enormous debt, for their brave and insightful works helped breathe a real wind of change to the way the human race had been living.

The virtues of Machiavelli, 03 Feb 2005
In the course of my political science training, I studied at great length the modern idea of realpolitik. In that study I came to realise that it was somewhat incomplete, without the companionship of The Prince, by Niccolo Machiavelli, a Florentine governmental official in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. The Prince is an oft quoted, oft mis-quoted work, used as the philosophical underpinning for much of what is considered both pragmatic and wrong in politics today. To describe someone as being Machiavellian is to attribute to the person ruthless ambition, craftiness and merciless political tactics. Being believed to be Machiavellian is generally politically incorrect. Being Machiavellian, alas, can often be politically expedient.

Machiavelli based his work in The Prince upon his basic understanding of human nature. He held that people are motivated by fear and envy, by novelty, by desire for wealth, power and security, and by a hatred of restriction. In the Italy in which he was writing, democracy was an un-implemented Greek philosophical idea, not a political structure with a history of success; thus, one person's power usually involved the limitation of another person's power in an autocratic way.

Machiavelli did not see this as a permanent or natural state of being -- in fact, he felt that, during his age, human nature had been corrupted and reduced from a loftier nobility achieved during the golden ages of Greece and Rome. He decided that it was the corrupting influence of Christianity that had reduced human nature, by its exaltation of meekness, humility, and otherworldliness.

Machiavelli has a great admiration for the possible and potential, but finds himself inexorably drawn to the practical, dealing with situations as they are, thus becoming an early champion of realpolitik carried forward into this century by the likes of Kissinger, Thatcher, Nixon, and countless others. One of the innovations of Machiavelli's thought was the recognition that the prince, the leader of the city/state/empire/etc., was nonetheless a human being, and subject to all the human limitations and desires with which all contend.

Because the average prince (like the average person) is likely to be focussed upon his own interests, a prince's private interests are generally in opposition to those of his subjects. Fortunate is the kingdom ruled by a virtuous prince, virtue here not defined by Christian or religious tenets, but rather the civic virtue of being able to pursue his own interests without conflicting those of his subjects.

Virtue is that which increases power; vice is that which decreases power. These follow Machiavelli's assumptions about human nature. Machiavelli rejected the Platonic idea of a division between what a prince does and what a prince ought to do. The two principle instruments of the prince are force and propaganda, and the prince, in order to increase power (virtue) ought to employ force completely and ruthlessly, and propaganda wisely, backed up by force. Of course, for Machiavelli, the chief propaganda vehicle is that of religion.

Whoever reads Roman history attentively will see in how great a degree religion served in the command of the armies, in uniting the people and keeping them well conducted, and in covering the wicked with shame.

Machiavelli has been credited with giving ruthless strategies (the example of a new political ruler killing the deposed ruler and the ruler's family to prevent usurpation and plotting is well known) -- it is hard to enact many in current politics in a literal way, but many of his strategies can still be seen in electioneering at every level, in national and international relations, and even in corporate and family internal 'politics'. In fact, I have found fewer more Machiavellian types than in church politics!

Of course, these people would be considered 'virtuous' in Machiavellian terms -- doing what is necessary to increase power and authority.

The title of this piece -- the virtues of Machiavelli, must be considered in this frame; certainly in no way virtuous by current standards, but then, it shows, not all have the same standards. Be careful of the words you use -- they may have differing definitions.

Perhaps if Machiavelli had lived a bit later, and been informed by the general rise of science as a rational underpinning to the world, he might have been able to accept less of a degree of randomness in the universe. Perhaps he would have modified his views. Perhaps not -- after all, the realpolitikers of this age are aware of the scientific framework of the universe, and still pursue their courses.

This is an important work, intriguing in many respects. Far shorter than the average classical or medieval philosophical tome, and more accessible by current readers because of a greater familiarity with politics than, say, metaphysics or epistemology, this work yields benefits and insights to all who read, mark, inwardly digest, and critically examine the precepts.

Ruthless, 28 Oct 2004
The Prince... well its difficult to describe exactly what it entails. I think to start with all who consider going into politics or any kind of management role should be handed a copy of this book at the same time as they recieve their application forms. It is ruthless but efficient also and so its central premises should always be remembered, particularly by our governing bodies.
Machiavelli writes with a self assurance which is refreshing in an age of hesitation and self correction.
I'm not convinced that this was a life changing book for me to read, it certainly affected my attitudes and values but is not a inspirational self help book (not that its supposed to be).
I recommend this to anyone who has an interest in history or in politics.

A prince among men., 14 Oct 2003
Machiavelli's realisation of the true nature of men as "...fickle,lying,cowards..." leads him in his brilliantly astute work to illuminate the realities of government and life in general.
Disregarding all political theorie's and ideaoligies machiavelli refreshingly deals with how things are and not how they should.
While on first glance machiavellis work would seem almost evil in its implications as it has been labeled countless times, a deeper look would show it to be more humane and considerate of human wellbeing then any half baked political ideology (communism, Republicanism,democracy etc). His assertion that the ends justifies the means is a good demonstration of this as Machiavelli demonstrates through historical analogies the truth of life in general: for people to prosper others have to suffer. In truthfully explaining this and insisting it be done quickly and totaly for it to be over and done with machiavelli shows a level of compasion far greater than any bleeding hearted liberal vegaterian (the most likely to be opposed to his assertions)
His work while being what many would labels as deeply cinical is niether cinical nor idealogical but an honest assesment of life in general as well as politics, which cannot help but uplift those of the same frame of mind with the comfort of nowing that the realisation that the world is a very unhappy place is not theres alone.
But if you truly believe in the hollywood view of the world in which love is blind and happy endings happen for every one than don't read this book (ignorance is bliss).

Civilizations or Cultures?, 08 Sep 2008
This is a book which has had wide currency among international opinion-formers. The egregious Tony Blair has cited it many times (typically enough, without actually crediting it as such, just using the words as if the product of his own thoughts). My problem with it rests on some inadequacies of expression and treatment. The role of race is virtually ignored for one: Islam only attracts those in or descended from certain racial or sub-racial groups, where Islam has been predominant for centuries. Yes, there are a few mavericks and cranks who take it up, but these are rare exceptions. So Islam is NOT (as Huntington claims) likely to somehow take over the "West" EXCEPT by conquest, destruction or (most crucially) by Europe and elsewhere accepting vast numbers of Muslims (who have, as he says, a far higher birth rate) into the European or European-founded societies. Unfortunately this IS the case as Europe is flooded with infiltrating millions.

Huntington's view of "The West" is very Americo-centric. Instead of seeing our Age (I.E. the 2,100 years after 1415) as a whole as Anglo-American-German, as Rudolf Steiner did (he called it the "5th Post-Atlantean"), or as "the age of the white northern European", Huntington really thinks of America as the heartland of Western Civilization (and not, as some might, one of its graveyards!) and thinks that if America ceases to be "Western" by giving up individualism, the Christian church(es) etc, then America itself will be "de-Westernized" and the West would be "reduced to Europe and a few lightly populated overseas European settler countries [and] becomes a miniscule and declining part of the world's population on a small and inconsequential peninsula at the extremity of the Eurasian land mass" (paperback edition p.307).

This above viewpoint must be seen as absurdly misconceived and "little American". For one thing, even Western Europe has a population at least equivalent to that of the United States and its Canadian appendage. And some of the overseas offshoots of the European Empires (especially the British) have large populations which are still mostly of European descent, such as Australia, which is now counted as having about 20 million. And what is the obsession with mere numbers? The British ruled most of India and Africa and elsewhere with tiny groups of British/European civil servants and officers disposing of modest numbers of European police and soldiers.

To my way of thinking, the book is important because it does raise the subject, but apart from the above criticisms, it fails to note that in advanced sections of European (or, as Huntington would put it, "Western") humanity, there is a continuing evolution of consciousness which might lead to a quantum leap in civilization, particularly if Europe joins with a fully independent Russia, that is a Russia which is run by Russians and not "rootless cosmopolitans" with Russian passports. That Europe + Russia could be at least the foundation of a a REAL New Order over time!

Prophetic and gripping, but slightly dated, 15 Apr 2007
This book was written as a prophecy about what the author felt would characterise the C21st. Now that we are nearly a decade into the C21st, we have the ability to look back and see if he was right. If yes, then this book was prophetic and its lessons should be learned. If not, then he is wrong, and the book is little more than an airport novel.

On one or two dimensions, Huntingdon has been extraordinarily accurate, predicting that Islamic extremism would become the number one security threat to the West in the C21st. Ominously, he predicted that the West would be driven to attack nations that possessed WMDs in the fear they would pass them on to terrorists. This is the Bush doctrine, written before Bush was even an elected official, never mind President. Equally ominous, he predicted that Islamic radicals would rally to the cause of any Muslim state attacked in such a way, and the influx of foreign insurgents into Iraq confirms this. Interestingly, the author predicts that the Taliban and Al Qaeda would be very prominent in the C21st, yet never actually names the organisations by name (in the case of Al Qaeda because it did not adopt its current name until several years after the book was written).

Huntingdon is slightly inaccurate in his prediction that China would become more bellicose and confrontational. At least so far, China has been warm towards the West, with trade deals and cultural exchanges flourishing. Another weakness of the book is his rather arbitrary definition of societies, and his notion that a "core state" would drive forward its respective civilisation. This is not the case, with supra-national agencies taking the place of "core states".

Overall, the book is highly recommended. However, given its relative age, it would be advisable to buy a more recent book on geopolitics as well, to top up the introduction that this book provides.


Must reading for the serious student of international affairs, 08 Nov 2006
While there is much (most) of this book I disagree with, it is nonetheless the essential, seminal work on the Clash of Civilizations theory, and thus is must reading for any serious student of international affairs.

In describing his thesis, Huntington elevates "mere" culture to the level of civilization, implying that there are unbridgable fundamental differences between different civilizations which will inevitably lead to a world where these civilizations compete or clash. I don't mean to lazily discredit the idea by association, but this is the philosophy promoted by the likes of Osama bin Laden, for example.

I am afraid reviewers who link this author to the militaristic neo-con movement in the US do not understand either Huntington's thesis or neo-cons themselves. A member of the Western civilization who was an adherent of the Clash of Civilizations worldview would NEVER attack a state of the Islamic civilization, let alone try to turn it into a democracy. Huntington's thesis would predict other nations in the Islamic civilization would rally to the defense of their co-civilizationalist, seeing the attack in terms of an attempt by one civilization to dominate another no matter how justified the attack was (or wasn't, in this case).

Before the war at least, neo-cons argued that all peoples yearn for democracy, that democracy can be delivered at the point of a sword and that it is the mission (burden?) of the West and particularly the lone superpower to liberate these peoples, who will welcome us as their saviors as we create new allies in our own image even while we destroy our enemies. Anyone who suggested that Muslims or Arabs might not be happy to be invaded and brought to democracy was cleverly dismissed as a racist or cultural imperialist. What the neo-cons see as universal civilization Huntington would say is merely Western civilization, and thus any attempt to impose this on another civilization would be doomed to failure.

While Huntington's thesis (first postulated in 1993) would seem to successfully predict the failure of neo-con policy, I think he goes too far in defining characteristics which are "merely" cultural as civilizational. Certainly, there are such things as Islamic and Sinic and Orthodox cultures which one may be wise (and respectful) to consider when dealing with people from those cultures. However, to suggest that these differences are unbridgable is in my view a very limited, deterministic world-view and really an end-game in itself. Individuals can bridge these divisions - what makes "civilizations" composed of individuals any different?

In addition, there are things like universal human rights which exist and have been ratified by nations all over the world. I can not agree with Huntington that these are just expressions of Western thought imposed on the world by the dominant civilization.

Although I find much to oppose in this book, it is very well presented and will certainly be argued about for years to come. You may as well read about the theory straight from the source!

Unconvincing, 05 Apr 2006
It's almost tempting to agree with Huntington's analysis and conclusions. Almost. Yet his premises just don't stand up.

First he argues that what matters most to people, above all else, is culture. While certainly important, he is only able to point to random evidence here and there that 'prove' this. The reader, howver, is left questioning 'why is culture so resonant with people?'. Other than the collapse of the Soviet Union, there is no obvious explanation for why people of the various civilizations now buy into culture much more readily than they did 20 years ago. Further, I am personally unconvinced that these same people would fly the flag of culture above all else - peace, prosperity, trade, etc.

His conception of identity is also troubling. It's monolithic, impermeable, and static. Just as the 'West' certainly did not act as one when various states chose to invade Iraq, nor do I believe that the Muslim world truly identifies with your average Bosnian. At least, I'd need more than Huntington's word on the matter to convince me.

Overall, it's just too deterministic. Huntington provides no insight into how his 'paradigm' might itself become obsolete. The resounding implication seems to be if enough people buy into The Clash then it will come true. There's no place like home, there's no place like home...

Philosophical problem with this book, 01 Apr 2006
This book is interesting for the influence that it is claimed to exert, especially upon the present US administration. You can see the attraction of this whole Clash of Civilizations agenda: you can walk into someone else's country, help yourself to their economic resources and describe it as social progress.

If all the Arab World produced were watermelons, would anyone be have written this book or launched the recent war?

Open University A200 Set Books, 06 Dec 2008
This is a set book for the Open University course A200 (1400 to 1900 - From Medieval to Modern), so if you're signed up for the course, then you need it. If you're not signed up for the course, then it's difficult to assess whether it will deliver what you need, as the examples presented are chosen to complement the course itself. There is a wide range of primary source material here from a very wide date range, and while some articles are very dry, some are able to really bring the events they're describing to life. Personally, the sections detailing the trial of Charles I will live with me for many years, and were some of the most moving and inspiring pieces I have read, although I should state that I was reading the book as part of the OU course mentioned above.

D'you want power, corruption and fries with that? No ta., 16 Nov 2008
Machiavelli's Il Principe is a slim volume, but it's jam-packed with aperçu of political scenarios that are completely beyond the grasp of many so-called philosophers hundreds of years later. I'm not naming any names, but some of the political tomes I've read come across like the writer has spent too much time pondering and not enough time living.

The other thing that sets Machiavelli apart is that it's fun to read. If you admire the work of Marcus Aurelius, Sun Tzu, or The KLF, then this book is a must.

The most basic lesson of Machiavelli is simple common sense - namely that common sense isn't common, and has nothing to do with sense.

Chapters XIX "The need to avoid contempt and hatred" and XXIII "How flatterers must be shunned" - both of these need to be read and understood by anyone with an interest in management. You'd be surprised (or maybe you wouldn't) how many of your middle managers are just clockwatchers, ***********, and suit-wearing robots.

Full marks for this translation - it captures the energy and impetus, and most importantly the concise nature of the original text.



One of THE most important works ever written, 25 Aug 2007
This masterpiece of reasoning and good practical handbook on how to get ahead in real life if you happen to be already a man of some means, was a work of great humanity in an age when humanity was still considered disgusting and subserviant to the Lord above and his chosen servants on Earth. What a shot across the bows to all those religious hypocrites and Bible following automatons this must have been, then. Two elements surrounding this work's brave publication are crucial, I feel: One being that this was Italy, (as it became) and at its advanced stage of the great Renaissance, as we now know it, and the second being that it was written at a time which was just right to be publishing order challenging controversial works. After seeing the liberal benefits to man that the use of the printing press had brought, and the world of possibilities it offered, Machiavelli struck the first blow against the stifling and corrupt order of the age.

His publication of political thought and theory which was refreshingly devoid of religious dogma or even quotations, preceded the publication of that other world changing document by three or four years: Luther's pinning of the ninety five thesis to a Church door a few hundred miles north in an area still ruled by edicts pumped out by prelates living closer to Machiavelli. This was exactly the right time to be reaching the learned men of the world with anything revolutionary in tone, and well presented and researched contradictions of established thought were very lible to strike a chord with many. In other words, many people by this time had clearly had all they could stomach of the seething hypocrisy they witnessed being displayed by the Lord's own servants, in the church and consequently in the monarchy led governments of the age. To be spouting their harsh godfearing edicts out to the uneducated masses when the vast majority of them enjoyed the sins they were loudly proscribing the common populace from having, was all a bit rich for certain educated but strong minded men like Machiavelli and Luther. The time was very ripe for a wind of change, and even the corrupt but mighty church of Rome knew it, and feared it.

Machievelli simply took a different line to Luther, perhaps not least because he was far more used to living with these ruler's inconsistencies than the more morally outraged teutonic man of God was. Where Luther got all spiritual and quoted the many edicts from scripture that the church of Rome was blatantly abusing, Machiavelli simply plotted the practical lines for a prostective leader of state to follow, quoting the works of historians and statesmen who had written about both the world's most successful leaders and its least successful leaders, as a practical handbook on how to be a successful head of state. Both of their actions though were brave, and both of them catastrophic to the cosy order of things and to the power of the once mighty Catholic Church. Humanity owes both of these great men an enormous debt, for their brave and insightful works helped breathe a real wind of change to the way the human race had been living.

The virtues of Machiavelli, 03 Feb 2005
In the course of my political science training, I studied at great length the modern idea of realpolitik. In that study I came to realise that it was somewhat incomplete, without the companionship of The Prince, by Niccolo Machiavelli, a Florentine governmental official in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. The Prince is an oft quoted, oft mis-quoted work, used as the philosophical underpinning for much of what is considered both pragmatic and wrong in politics today. To describe someone as being Machiavellian is to attribute to the person ruthless ambition, craftiness and merciless political tactics. Being believed to be Machiavellian is generally politically incorrect. Being Machiavellian, alas, can often be politically expedient.

Machiavelli based his work in The Prince upon his basic understanding of human nature. He held that people are motivated by fear and envy, by novelty, by desire for wealth, power and security, and by a hatred of restriction. In the Italy in which he was writing, democracy was an un-implemented Greek philosophical idea, not a political structure with a history of success; thus, one person's power usually involved the limitation of another person's power in an autocratic way.

Machiavelli did not see this as a permanent or natural state of being -- in fact, he felt that, during his age, human nature had been corrupted and reduced from a loftier nobility achieved during the golden ages of Greece and Rome. He decided that it was the corrupting influence of Christianity that had reduced human nature, by its exaltation of meekness, humility, and otherworldliness.

Machiavelli has a great admiration for the possible and potential, but finds himself inexorably drawn to the practical, dealing with situations as they are, thus becoming an early champion of realpolitik carried forward into this century by the likes of Kissinger, Thatcher, Nixon, and countless others. One of the innovations of Machiavelli's thought was the recognition that the prince, the leader of the city/state/empire/etc., was nonetheless a human being, and subject to all the human limitations and desires with which all contend.

Because the average prince (like the average person) is likely to be focussed upon his own interests, a prince's private interests are generally in opposition to those of his subjects. Fortunate is the kingdom ruled by a virtuous prince, virtue here not defined by Christian or religious tenets, but rather the civic virtue of being able to pursue his own interests without conflicting those of his subjects.

Virtue is that which increases power; vice is that which decreases power. These follow Machiavelli's assumptions about human nature. Machiavelli rejected the Platonic idea of a division between what a prince does and what a prince ought to do. The two principle instruments of the prince are force and propaganda, and the prince, in order to increase power (virtue) ought to employ force completely and ruthlessly, and propaganda wisely, backed up by force. Of course, for Machiavelli, the chief propaganda vehicle is that of religion.

Whoever reads Roman history attentively will see in how great a degree religion served in the command of the armies, in uniting the people and keeping them well conducted, and in covering the wicked with shame.

Machiavelli has been credited with giving ruthless strategies (the example of a new political ruler killing the deposed ruler and the ruler's family to prevent usurpation and plotting is well known) -- it is hard to enact many in current politics in a literal way, but many of his strategies can still be seen in electioneering at every level, in national and international relations, and even in corporate and family internal 'politics'. In fact, I have found fewer more Machiavellian types than in church politics!

Of course, these people would be considered 'virtuous' in Machiavellian terms -- doing what is necessary to increase power and authority.

The title of this piece -- the virtues of Machiavelli, must be considered in this frame; certainly in no way virtuous by current standards, but then, it shows, not all have the same standards. Be careful of the words you use -- they may have differing definitions.

Perhaps if Machiavelli had lived a bit later, and been informed by the general rise of science as a rational underpinning to the world, he might have been able to accept less of a degree of randomness in the universe. Perhaps he would have modified his views. Perhaps not -- after all, the realpolitikers of this age are aware of the scientific framework of the universe, and still pursue their courses.

This is an important work, intriguing in many respects. Far shorter than the average classical or medieval philosophical tome, and more accessible by current readers because of a greater familiarity with politics than, say, metaphysics or epistemology, this work yields benefits and insights to all who read, mark, inwardly digest, and critically examine the precepts.

Ruthless, 28 Oct 2004
The Prince... well its difficult to describe exactly what it entails. I think to start with all who consider going into politics or any kind of management role should be handed a copy of this book at the same time as they recieve their application forms. It is ruthless but efficient also and so its central premises should always be remembered, particularly by our governing bodies.
Machiavelli writes with a self assurance which is refreshing in an age of hesitation and self correction.
I'm not convinced that this was a life changing book for me to read, it certainly affected my attitudes and values but is not a inspirational self help book (not that its supposed to be).
I recommend this to anyone who has an interest in history or in politics.

A prince among men., 14 Oct 2003
Machiavelli's realisation of the true nature of men as "...fickle,lying,cowards..." leads him in his brilliantly astute work to illuminate the realities of government and life in general.
Disregarding all political theorie's and ideaoligies machiavelli refreshingly deals with how things are and not how they should.
While on first glance machiavellis work would seem almost evil in its implications as it has been labeled countless times, a deeper look would show it to be more humane and considerate of human wellbeing then any half baked political ideology (communism, Republicanism,democracy etc). His assertion that the ends justifies the means is a good demonstration of this as Machiavelli demonstrates through historical analogies the truth of life in general: for people to prosper others have to suffer. In truthfully explaining this and insisting it be done quickly and totaly for it to be over and done with machiavelli shows a level of compasion far greater than any bleeding hearted liberal vegaterian (the most likely to be opposed to his assertions)
His work while being what many would labels as deeply cinical is niether cinical nor idealogical but an honest assesment of life in general as well as politics, which cannot help but uplift those of the same frame of mind with the comfort of nowing that the realisation that the world is a very unhappy place is not theres alone.
But if you truly believe in the hollywood view of the world in which love is blind and happy endings happen for every one than don't read this book (ignorance is bliss).

Civilizations or Cultures?, 08 Sep 2008
This is a book which has had wide currency among international opinion-formers. The egregious Tony Blair has cited it many times (typically enough, without actually crediting it as such, just using the words as if the product of his own thoughts). My problem with it rests on some inadequacies of expression and treatment. The role of race is virtually ignored for one: Islam only attracts those in or descended from certain racial or sub-racial groups, where Islam has been predominant for centuries. Yes, there are a few mavericks and cranks who take it up, but these are rare exceptions. So Islam is NOT (as Huntington claims) likely to somehow take over the "West" EXCEPT by conquest, destruction or (most crucially) by Europe and elsewhere accepting vast numbers of Muslims (who have, as he says, a far higher birth rate) into the European or European-founded societies. Unfortunately this IS the case as Europe is flooded with infiltrating millions.

Huntington's view of "The West" is very Americo-centric. Instead of seeing our Age (I.E. the 2,100 years after 1415) as a whole as Anglo-American-German, as Rudolf Steiner did (he called it the "5th Post-Atlantean"), or as "the age of the white northern European", Huntington really thinks of America as the heartland of Western Civilization (and not, as some might, one of its graveyards!) and thinks that if America ceases to be "Western" by giving up individualism, the Christian church(es) etc, then America itself will be "de-Westernized" and the West would be "reduced to Europe and a few lightly populated overseas European settler countries [and] becomes a miniscule and declining part of the world's population on a small and inconsequential peninsula at the extremity of the Eurasian land mass" (paperback edition p.307).

This above viewpoint must be seen as absurdly misconceived and "little American". For one thing, even Western Europe has a population at least equivalent to that of the United States and its Canadian appendage. And some of the overseas offshoots of the European Empires (especially the British) have large populations which are still mostly of European descent, such as Australia, which is now counted as having about 20 million. And what is the obsession with mere numbers? The British ruled most of India and Africa and elsewhere with tiny groups of British/European civil servants and officers disposing of modest numbers of European police and soldiers.

To my way of thinking, the book is important because it does raise the subject, but apart from the above criticisms, it fails to note that in advanced sections of European (or, as Huntington would put it, "Western") humanity, there is a continuing evolution of consciousness which might lead to a quantum leap in civilization, particularly if Europe joins with a fully independent Russia, that is a Russia which is run by Russians and not "rootless cosmopolitans" with Russian passports. That Europe + Russia could be at least the foundation of a a REAL New Order over time!

Prophetic and gripping, but slightly dated, 15 Apr 2007
This book was written as a prophecy about what the author felt would characterise the C21st. Now that we are nearly a decade into the C21st, we have the ability to look back and see if he was right. If yes, then this book was prophetic and its lessons should be learned. If not, then he is wrong, and the book is little more than an airport novel.

On one or two dimensions, Huntingdon has been extraordinarily accurate, predicting that Islamic extremism would become the number one security threat to the West in the C21st. Ominously, he predicted that the West would be driven to attack nations that possessed WMDs in the fear they would pass them on to terrorists. This is the Bush doctrine, written before Bush was even an elected official, never mind President. Equally ominous, he predicted that Islamic radicals would rally to the cause of any Muslim state attacked in such a way, and the influx of foreign insurgents into Iraq confirms this. Interestingly, the author predicts that the Taliban and Al Qaeda would be very prominent in the C21st, yet never actually names the organisations by name (in the case of Al Qaeda because it did not adopt its current name until several years after the book was written).

Huntingdon is slightly inaccurate in his prediction that China would become more bellicose and confrontational. At least so far, China has been warm towards the West, with trade deals and cultural exchanges flourishing. Another weakness of the book is his rather arbitrary definition of societies, and his notion that a "core state" would drive forward its respective civilisation. This is not the case, with supra-national agencies taking the place of "core states".

Overall, the book is highly recommended. However, given its relative age, it would be advisable to buy a more recent book on geopolitics as well, to top up the introduction that this book provides.


Must reading for the serious student of international affairs, 08 Nov 2006
While there is much (most) of this book I disagree with, it is nonetheless the essential, seminal work on the Clash of Civilizations theory, and thus is must reading for any serious student of international affairs.

In describing his thesis, Huntington elevates "mere" culture to the level of civilization, implying that there are unbridgable fundamental differences between different civilizations which will inevitably lead to a world where these civilizations compete or clash. I don't mean to lazily discredit the idea by association, but this is the philosophy promoted by the likes of Osama bin Laden, for example.

I am afraid reviewers who link this author to the militaristic neo-con movement in the US do not understand either Huntington's thesis or neo-cons themselves. A member of the Western civilization who was an adherent of the Clash of Civilizations worldview would NEVER attack a state of the Islamic civilization, let alone try to turn it into a democracy. Huntington's thesis would predict other nations in the Islamic civilization would rally to the defense of their co-civilizationalist, seeing the attack in terms of an attempt by one civilization to dominate another no matter how justified the attack was (or wasn't, in this case).

Before the war at least, neo-cons argued that all peoples yearn for democracy, that democracy can be delivered at the point of a sword and that it is the mission (burden?) of the West and particularly the lone superpower to liberate these peoples, who will welcome us as their saviors as we create new allies in our own image even while we destroy our enemies. Anyone who suggested that Muslims or Arabs might not be happy to be invaded and brought to democracy was cleverly dismissed as a racist or cultural imperialist. What the neo-cons see as universal civilization Huntington would say is merely Western civilization, and thus any attempt to impose this on another civilization would be doomed to failure.

While Huntington's thesis (first postulated in 1993) would seem to successfully predict the failure of neo-con policy, I think he goes too far in defining characteristics which are "merely" cultural as civilizational. Certainly, there are such things as Islamic and Sinic and Orthodox cultures which one may be wise (and respectful) to consider when dealing with people from those cultures. However, to suggest that these differences are unbridgable is in my view a very limited, deterministic world-view and really an end-game in itself. Individuals can bridge these divisions - what makes "civilizations" composed of individuals any different?

In addition, there are things like universal human rights which exist and have been ratified by nations all over the world. I can not agree with Huntington that these are just expressions of Western thought imposed on the world by the dominant civilization.

Although I find much to oppose in this book, it is very well presented and will certainly be argued about for years to come. You may as well read about the theory straight from the source!

Unconvincing, 05 Apr 2006
It's almost tempting to agree with Huntington's analysis and conclusions. Almost. Yet his premises just don't stand up.

First he argues that what matters most to people, above all else, is culture. While certainly important, he is only able to point to random evidence here and there that 'prove' this. The reader, howver, is left questioning 'why is culture so resonant with people?'. Other than the collapse of the Soviet Union, there is no obvious explanation for why people of the various civilizations now buy into culture much more readily than they did 20 years ago. Further, I am personally unconvinced that these same people would fly the flag of culture above all else - peace, prosperity, trade, etc.

His conception of identity is also troubling. It's monolithic, impermeable, and static. Just as the 'West' certainly did not act as one when various states chose to invade Iraq, nor do I believe that the Muslim world truly identifies with your average Bosnian. At least, I'd need more than Huntington's word on the matter to convince me.

Overall, it's just too deterministic. Huntington provides no insight into how his 'paradigm' might itself become obsolete. The resounding implication seems to be if enough people buy into The Clash then it will come true. There's no place like home, there's no place like home...

Philosophical problem with this book, 01 Apr 2006
This book is interesting for the influence that it is claimed to exert, especially upon the present US administration. You can see the attraction of this whole Clash of Civilizations agenda: you can walk into someone else's country, help yourself to their economic resources and describe it as social progress.

If all the Arab World produced were watermelons, would anyone be have written this book or launched the recent war?

Open University A200 Set Books, 06 Dec 2008
This is a set book for the Open University course A200 (1400 to 1900 - From Medieval to Modern), so if you're signed up for the course, then you need it. If you're not signed up for the course, then it's difficult to assess whether it will deliver what you need, as the examples presented are chosen to complement the course itself. There is a wide range of primary source material here from a very wide date range, and while some articles are very dry, some are able to really bring the events they're describing to life. Personally, the sections detailing the trial of Charles I will live with me for many years, and were some of the most moving and inspiring pieces I have read, although I should state that I was reading the book as part of the OU course mentioned above.

What would you do if............?, 18 May 2008
What would you do if your government made a law that was completely immoral? It required you to act in an immoral way? This is not just a theoretical question, it has happened - consider Nazi Germany. So what would you do? Follow the law because it is what the law says and as citizens we are under a duty to follow the law? Refuse to follow the law because it is immoral (and risk prison/execution)? What if everybody refused to follow laws they didn't like? Wouldn't that result in anarchy? Would anarchy be so much better or maybe it would be even worse? Maybe if the law was immoral enough you would start a revoltion?
If you think about questions like this, Hobbes' Leviathan is the beginning of the modern consideration of this question. You may not like Hobbes answer (and personally I don't) but after reading Leviathan the reader is in a good position to consider the works of John Locke and S. von Pufendorf who wrote shortly after Hobbes, to a large extent in reply to the questions raised by Leviathan and came up with different answers.

A classic of its kind., 06 May 2007
Why is this book important?

Hobbes stands at the end of the intellectual life of the Middle Ages which means that for centuries philosophy, religion and science had been one unified structure under the stewardship of the Church, in a World that stood at the centre of the universe beneath a God in his heaven,who provided and blessed kings and governments.

Suddenly, all these ideas and structures and certainties were in question, or blown apart with gunpowder: Hobbes wrote this during the English Civil War which resulted in the execution of a king by his people, something that would have been unthinkable beforehand.

Hobbes is a modern man, a pioneer, in the sense that he is trying to find what are the bases of knowlege and truth, and power and statecraft-and religion, and-ultimately-what it is to be human, and what sort of institutions would best represent human beings. This book is supposed to be about everything, in one volume! Which shows great self-confidence if nothing else.

It is not an easy read. If you are not familiar with Seventeenth Century English, you may find it hard going. I would recommend you buying the Oxford Very Short Introduction to Hobbes, or something similar, and reading it first, so as to acquire the leading ideas. This might help. It might help at first to dip in, rather than plough through in some kind of tear-stained marathon!

There is something in this book to offend everyone really, notably the chapter on the Pope, referring to him as King of the Fairies.

There is an interesting short biography of Hobbes in Aubrey's 'Brief Lives' which describes him singing every day to keep fit, and travelling with a special walking stick with an ink well fitted in the top, so that he could make notes if an idea struck him when he was out walking. Aubrey knew Hobbes personally.

The idea that power can rest upon distortions of the truth seems to have contemporary resonance, weapons of mass destruction etc.

One of the most important texts., 29 May 2006
The context of this book, the time of its authorship, should not constrain the modern reader. So you might have to work at it a little. Oh, dear. How sad. Never mind. These are very very important ideas if you want to understand much of the reasoning behind what the west, the Transatlantic Anglo-Saxon alliance in particular, is doing, especially in the Middle East, NOW. You don't have to agree with Hobbes to see what he is getting at and yes the debate has shifted a lot (a wider, if more effete, literacy being a huge difference)but in order to be able to frame the right questions about soverignty in a democracy you have to have the basics. Read in tandem with Rousseau, the Wordsworth edition is far more palitable than this to the modern reader, you get some very interesting perspectives and a great start to framing those important questions.

Levelling the play field...., 23 Apr 2005
Thomas Hobbes (1588 - 1679) was born in England, a country that endured great political turmoil during his life. Having lived through that, Hobbes' main aim was to inquire into the basis of order. The question he asked himself was "What kind of political authority will prevent the return of chaos?". And the answer to that question is in this book, "Leviathan" (1651).

The Levianthan is the personification of total power, an authority without limits, created by men who realise that absolute power given to a powerfull ruler (or to an assembly) is their only way out of the dangers of the state of nature. The name that the author chose for his monarch is quite telling: the Leviathan is a sea monster that appears in the Bible and symbolizes power. This kind of monarch seems like an extreme solution for the problem of anarchy, but it is the only one that Hobbes found. Without the Leviathan, life is 'solitary, nasty, brutish, and short.'

Of course, this book includes many more things than those I have already mentioned. For instance, it explains quite well Hobbes opinion regarding human nature (man is naturally a wolf to men), the state of nature (perpetual war of all against all), the origin of political institutions and the relationship between reason and force (pacts without swords are merely words), among other things.

On the whole, I think this book is a classic of Political Philosophy, and I recommend it as such. Despite that, I think a word of caution is in order, so you will be prepared for what you will find when you tackle "Leviathan". Truth to be told, sometimes Hobbes' prose is too dry, and in some chapters you will need to plod through some rather arid pages. Moreover, this book isn't written in modern English, what makes it more difficult to understand. Those are the reasons why I give this book four stars instead of five...

Notwithstanding that, I believe that "Leviathan" is well-worth the effort of reading it, simply because it has some interesting concepts that you should be aware of, even if you don't agree with them. The only way to discuss in a level play field with someone who has totally different ideas is to understand his arguments thoroughly, even if his position seems thoroughly strange to you. I invite you to do that with Hobbes, reading "Leviathan".

Belen Alcat

A classic, 21 Sep 2004
Don't be fooled by frivellous attacks on this book as boring and outdated. You aren't meant to read all of it for goodness sake.
The chapters on human drives, the laws of nature and the social contract, for example, are as relevant as ever, not to mention Hobbes polemic on Religion.

I found that this book contained far more excellent philosophy than I had expected.

D'you want power, corruption and fries with that? No ta., 16 Nov 2008
Machiavelli's Il Principe is a slim volume, but it's jam-packed with aperçu of political scenarios that are completely beyond the grasp of many so-called philosophers hundreds of years later. I'm not naming any names, but some of the political tomes I've read come across like the writer has spent too much time pondering and not enough time living.

The other thing that sets Machiavelli apart is that it's fun to read. If you admire the work of Marcus Aurelius, Sun Tzu, or The KLF, then this book is a must.

The most basic lesson of Machiavelli is simple common sense - namely that common sense isn't common, and has nothing to do with sense.

Chapters XIX "The need to avoid contempt and hatred" and XXIII "How flatterers must be shunned" - both of these need to be read and understood by anyone with an interest in management. You'd be surprised (or maybe you wouldn't) how many of your middle managers are just clockwatchers, ***********, and suit-wearing robots.

Full marks for this translation - it captures the energy and impetus, and most importantly the concise nature of the original text.



One of THE most important works ever written, 25 Aug 2007
This masterpiece of reasoning and good practical handbook on how to get ahead in real life if you happen to be already a man of some means, was a work of great humanity in an age when humanity was still considered disgusting and subserviant to the Lord above and his chosen servants on Earth. What a shot across the bows to all those religious hypocrites and Bible following automatons this must have been, then. Two elements surrounding this work's brave publication are crucial, I feel: One being that this was Italy, (as it became) and at its advanced stage of the great Renaissance, as we now know it, and the second being that it was written at a time which was just right to be publishing order challenging controversial works. After seeing the liberal benefits to man that the use of the printing press had brought, and the world of possibilities it offered, Machiavelli struck the first blow against the stifling and corrupt order of the age.

His publication of political thought and theory which was refreshingly devoid of religious dogma or even quotations, preceded the publication of that other world changing document by three or four years: Luther's pinning of the ninety five thesis to a Church door a few hundred miles north in an area still ruled by edicts pumped out by prelates living closer to Machiavelli. This was exactly the right time to be reaching the learned men of the world with anything revolutionary in tone, and well presented and researched contradictions of established thought were very lible to strike a chord with many. In other words, many people by this time had clearly had all they could stomach of the seething hypocrisy they witnessed being displayed by the Lord's own servants, in the church and consequently in the monarchy led governments of the age. To be spouting their harsh godfearing edicts out to the uneducated masses when the vast majority of them enjoyed the sins they were loudly proscribing the common populace from having, was all a bit rich for certain educated but strong minded men like Machiavelli and Luther. The time was very ripe for a wind of change, and even the corrupt but mighty church of Rome knew it, and feared it.

Machievelli simply took a different line to Luther, perhaps not least because he was far more used to living with these ruler's inconsistencies than the more morally outraged teutonic man of God was. Where Luther got all spiritual and quoted the many edicts from scripture that the church of Rome was blatantly abusing, Machiavelli simply plotted the practical lines for a prostective leader of state to follow, quoting the works of historians and statesmen who had written about both the world's most successful leaders and its least successful leaders, as a practical handbook on how to be a successful head of state. Both of their actions though were brave, and both of them catastrophic to the cosy order of things and to the power of the once mighty Catholic Church. Humanity owes both of these great men an enormous debt, for their brave and insightful works helped breathe a real wind of change to the way the human race had been living.

The virtues of Machiavelli, 03 Feb 2005
In the course of my political science training, I studied at great length the modern idea of realpolitik. In that study I came to realise that it was somewhat incomplete, without the companionship of The Prince, by Niccolo Machiavelli, a Florentine governmental official in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. The Prince is an oft quoted, oft mis-quoted work, used as the philosophical underpinning for much of what is considered both pragmatic and wrong in politics today. To describe someone as being Machiavellian is to attribute to the person ruthless ambition, craftiness and merciless political tactics. Being believed to be Machiavellian is generally politically incorrect. Being Machiavellian, alas, can often be politically expedient.

Machiavelli based his work in The Prince upon his basic understanding of human nature. He held that people are motivated by fear and envy, by novelty, by desire for wealth, power and security, and by a hatred of restriction. In the Italy in which he was writing, democracy was an un-implemented Greek philosophical idea, not a political structure with a history of success; thus, one person's power usually involved the limitation of another person's power in an autocratic way.

Machiavelli did not see this as a permanent or natural state of being -- in fact, he felt that, during his age, human nature had been corrupted and reduced from a loftier nobility achieved during the golden ages of Greece and Rome. He decided that it was the corrupting influence of Christianity that had reduced human nature, by its exaltation of meekness, humility, and otherworldliness.

Machiavelli has a great admiration for the possible and potential, but finds himself inexorably drawn to the practical, dealing with situations as they are, thus becoming an early champion of realpolitik carried forward into this century by the likes of Kissinger, Thatcher, Nixon, and countless others. One of the innovations of Machiavelli's thought was the recognition that the prince, the leader of the city/state/empire/etc., was nonetheless a human being, and subject to all the human limitations and desires with which all contend.

Because the average prince (like the average person) is likely to be focussed upon his own interests, a prince's private interests are generally in opposition to those of his subjects. Fortunate is the kingdom ruled by a virtuous prince, virtue here not defined by Christian or religious tenets, but rather the civic virtue of being able to pursue his own interests without conflicting those of his subjects.

Virtue is that which increases power; vice is that which decreases power. These follow Machiavelli's assumptions about human nature. Machiavelli rejected the Platonic idea of a division between what a prince does and what a prince ought to do. The two principle instruments of the prince are force and propaganda, and the prince, in order to increase power (virtue) ought to employ force completely and ruthlessly, and propaganda wisely, backed up by force. Of course, for Machiavelli, the chief propaganda vehicle is that of religion.

Whoever reads Roman history attentively will see in how great a degree religion served in the command of the armies, in uniting the people and keeping them well conducted, and in covering the wicked with shame.

Machiavelli has been credited with giving ruthless strategies (the example of a new political ruler killing the deposed ruler and the ruler's family to prevent usurpation and plotting is well known) -- it is hard to enact many in current politics in a literal way, but many of his strategies can still be seen in electioneering at every level, in national and international relations, and even in corporate and family internal 'politics'. In fact, I have found fewer more Machiavellian types than in church politics!

Of course, these people would be considered 'virtuous' in Machiavellian terms -- doing what is necessary to increase power and authority.

The title of this piece -- the virtues of Machiavelli, must be considered in this frame; certainly in no way virtuous by current standards, but then, it shows, not all have the same standards. Be careful of the words you use -- they may have differing definitions.

Perhaps if Machiavelli had lived a bit later, and been informed by the general rise of science as a rational underpinning to the world, he might have been able to accept less of a degree of randomness in the universe. Perhaps he would have modified his views. Perhaps not -- after all, the realpolitikers of this age are aware of the scientific framework of the universe, and still pursue their courses.

This is an important work, intriguing in many respects. Far shorter than the average classical or medieval philosophical tome, and more accessible by current readers because of a greater familiarity with politics than, say, metaphysics or epistemology, this work yields benefits and insights to all who read, mark, inwardly digest, and critically examine the precepts.

Ruthless, 28 Oct 2004
The Prince... well its difficult to describe exactly what it entails. I think to start with all who consider going into politics or any kind of management role should be handed a copy of this book at the same time as they recieve their application forms. It is ruthless but efficient also and so its central premises should always be remembered, particularly by our governing bodies.
Machiavelli writes with a self assurance which is refreshing in an age of hesitation and self correction.
I'm not convinced that this was a life changing book for me to read, it certainly affected my attitudes and values but is not a inspirational self help book (not that its supposed to be).
I recommend this to anyone who has an interest in history or in politics.

A prince among men., 14 Oct 2003
Machiavelli's realisation of the true nature of men as "...fickle,lying,cowards..." leads him in his brilliantly astute work to illuminate the realities of government and life in general.
Disregarding all political theorie's and ideaoligies machiavelli refreshingly deals with how things are and not how they should.
While on first glance machiavellis work would seem almost evil in its implications as it has been labeled countless times, a deeper look would show it to be more humane and considerate of human wellbeing then any half baked political ideology (communism, Republicanism,democracy etc). His assertion that the ends justifies the means is a good demonstration of this as Machiavelli demonstrates through historical analogies the truth of life in general: for people to prosper others have to suffer. In truthfully explaining this and insisting it be done quickly and totaly for it to be over and done with machiavelli shows a level of compasion far greater than any bleeding hearted liberal vegaterian (the most likely to be opposed to his assertions)
His work while being what many would labels as deeply cinical is niether cinical nor idealogical but an honest assesment of life in general as well as politics, which cannot help but uplift those of the same frame of mind with the comfort of nowing that the realisation that the world is a very unhappy place is not theres alone.
But if you truly believe in the hollywood view of the world in which love is blind and happy endings happen for every one than don't read this book (ignorance is bliss).

Civilizations or Cultures?, 08 Sep 2008
This is a book which has had wide currency among international opinion-formers. The egregious Tony Blair has cited it many times (typically enough, without actually crediting it as such, just using the words as if the product of his own thoughts). My problem with it rests on some inadequacies of expression and treatment. The role of race is virtually ignored for one: Islam only attracts those in or descended from certain racial or sub-racial groups, where Islam has been predominant for centuries. Yes, there are a few mavericks and cranks who take it up, but these are rare exceptions. So Islam is NOT (as Huntington claims) likely to somehow take over the "West" EXCEPT by conquest, destruction or (most crucially) by Europe and elsewhere accepting vast numbers of Muslims (who have, as he says, a far higher birth rate) into the European or European-founded societies. Unfortunately this IS the case as Europe is flooded with infiltrating millions.

Huntington's view of "The West" is very Americo-centric. Instead of seeing our Age (I.E. the 2,100 years after 1415) as a whole as Anglo-American-German, as Rudolf Steiner did (he called it the "5th Post-Atlantean"), or as "the age of the white northern European", Huntington really thinks of America as the heartland of Western Civilization (and not, as some might, one of its graveyards!) and thinks that if America ceases to be "Western" by giving up individualism, the Christian church(es) etc, then America itself will be "de-Westernized" and the West would be "reduced to Europe and a few lightly populated overseas European settler countries [and] becomes a miniscule and declining part of the world's population on a small and inconsequential peninsula at the extremity of the Eurasian land mass" (paperback edition p.307).

This above viewpoint must be seen as absurdly misconceived and "little American". For one thing, even Western Europe has a population at least equivalent to that of the United States and its Canadian appendage. And some of the overseas offshoots of the European Empires (especially the British) have large populations which are still mostly of European descent, such as Australia, which is now counted as having about 20 million. And what is the obsession with mere numbers? The British ruled most of India and Africa and elsewhere with tiny groups of British/European civil servants and officers disposing of modest numbers of European police and soldiers.

To my way of thinking, the book is important because it does raise the subject, but apart from the above criticisms, it fails to note that in advanced sections of European (or, as Huntington would put it, "Western") humanity, there is a continuing evolution of consciousness which might lead to a quantum leap in civilization, particularly if Europe joins with a fully independent Russia, that is a Russia which is run by Russians and not "rootless cosmopolitans" with Russian passports. That Europe + Russia could be at least the foundation of a a REAL New Order over time!

Prophetic and gripping, but slightly dated, 15 Apr 2007
This book was written as a prophecy about what the author felt would characterise the C21st. Now that we are nearly a decade into the C21st, we have the ability to look back and see if he was right. If yes, then this book was prophetic and its lessons should be learned. If not, then he is wrong, and the book is little more than an airport novel.

On one or two dimensions, Huntingdon has been extraordinarily accurate, predicting that Islamic extremism would become the number one security threat to the West in the C21st. Ominously, he predicted that the West would be driven to attack nations that possessed WMDs in the fear they would pass them on to terrorists. This is the Bush doctrine, written before Bush was even an elected official, never mind President. Equally ominous, he predicted that Islamic radicals would rally to the cause of any Muslim state attacked in such a way, and the influx of foreign insurgents into Iraq confirms this. Interestingly, the author predicts that the Taliban and Al Qaeda would be very prominent in the C21st, yet never actually names the organisations by name (in the case of Al Qaeda because it did not adopt its current name until several years after the book was written).

Huntingdon is slightly inaccurate in his prediction that China would become more bellicose and confrontational. At least so far, China has been warm towards the West, with trade deals and cultural exchanges flourishing. Another weakness of the book is his rather arbitrary definition of societies, and his notion that a "core state" would drive forward its respective civilisation. This is not the case, with supra-national agencies taking the place of "core states".

Overall, the book is highly recommended. However, given its relative age, it would be advisable to buy a more recent book on geopolitics as well, to top up the introduction that this boo