Machiavelli did not advocate ruthlessness in an unscrupulous way, nor did he claim that the ends justify the means or that dictatorship is inherently good. These are all misinterpretations due to, as mentioned in earlier comments in this thread, the absence of historical context.
At the time of writing, Italy did not even exist as a political entity. It was barely a glimmer of an idea based on common cultural, linguistic and geographic attributes in an otherwise splintered political landscape on a territory of a former ostrogoth kingdom. This patchwork of small political entities had a tendency to cause "internal" conflict in what would become Italy. It also provided little or no resistance to the many threats like the westwards expanding Ottoman empire, the Holy Roman empire under Maximilian I of Habsburg, the Spanish Habsburgs, France and plenty more.
Machiavelli saw it as vital that Italy would manage a union of it's own to "...defend her from the barbarians". The most logical choice of ruler for this union would be the Medici family as they had the money, influence and name to rise to the ocasion as well as having ruled in the past with success and peace as a result. The Prince was meant to inspire and guide the Medici family to take control of Italy and make it into a fully fledged power in it's own right, an analysis of political realism with a specific goal in mind. It was not meant as a greater justification of power-politics and ruthlessness in leadership, nor is it a critique thereof. It is more like a call to arms to the Medici family as well as those who could support them to finish the internal conflict in the face of common enemies. If you look at other writings by Machiavelli (and there are plenty!) it is more than obvious that he is in fact a republican with a passion for justice, rule of law and ethical conduct. The Prince should therefore not be seen as a book for all to read and follow but as a highly personal appeal in a last ditch effort to save Italy from the ravages of war. I read it as a historical curiosity, firmly bound to it's context. I don't think anyone should read it as a how-to of effective leadership, nor do I find the idea that it is a veiled critique of authoritarian rule likely.
The failure of Machiavelli to incite an Italian unification is seen best in the emergence of the Italian Wars during wich pretty much every great power in Europe of the time tried to get a piece of the rich Italian lands.
At the time of writing, Italy did not even exist as a political entity. It was barely a glimmer of an idea based on common cultural, linguistic and geographic attributes in an otherwise splintered political landscape on a territory of a former ostrogoth kingdom. This patchwork of small political entities had a tendency to cause "internal" conflict in what would become Italy. It also provided little or no resistance to the many threats like the westwards expanding Ottoman empire, the Holy Roman empire under Maximilian I of Habsburg, the Spanish Habsburgs, France and plenty more.
Machiavelli saw it as vital that Italy would manage a union of it's own to "...defend her from the barbarians". The most logical choice of ruler for this union would be the Medici family as they had the money, influence and name to rise to the ocasion as well as having ruled in the past with success and peace as a result. The Prince was meant to inspire and guide the Medici family to take control of Italy and make it into a fully fledged power in it's own right, an analysis of political realism with a specific goal in mind. It was not meant as a greater justification of power-politics and ruthlessness in leadership, nor is it a critique thereof. It is more like a call to arms to the Medici family as well as those who could support them to finish the internal conflict in the face of common enemies. If you look at other writings by Machiavelli (and there are plenty!) it is more than obvious that he is in fact a republican with a passion for justice, rule of law and ethical conduct. The Prince should therefore not be seen as a book for all to read and follow but as a highly personal appeal in a last ditch effort to save Italy from the ravages of war. I read it as a historical curiosity, firmly bound to it's context. I don't think anyone should read it as a how-to of effective leadership, nor do I find the idea that it is a veiled critique of authoritarian rule likely.
The failure of Machiavelli to incite an Italian unification is seen best in the emergence of the Italian Wars during wich pretty much every great power in Europe of the time tried to get a piece of the rich Italian lands.