You think Machiavelli was a Stoic? Good joke.
You’ve been reading too much self-help nonsense.
The guy who wrote The Prince—that blood-soaked pamphlet on how to screw people over and take their power—is hardly someone sitting under a tree meditating, thinking about virtue.
Stoicism is about virtue, self-control, and a calm acceptance of fate.
Machiavelli? He’d probably laugh in your face, drop a few F-bombs, and get back to scheming.
1. The Power-At-All-Costs Mentality
Machiavelli’s The Prince isn’t some quaint little guide on how to live a noble life or how to achieve inner peace.
No, it’s about power—raw, brutal power.
The kind of power that doesn’t ask for permission and doesn’t care who you crush in the process.
The Stoics, in contrast, would have had nothing to do with this kind of thinking.
They were too busy learning how to be indifferent to the noise of the world.
For them, power wasn’t the goal. Character was.
They’d look at someone like Machiavelli, writing a blueprint for manipulation, and they’d say, “Forget about the throne. Focus on what kind of person you are when you’re stripped of everything else.”
But not Machiavelli.
He wasn’t interested in character. In fact, he thought the idea of virtue was often a luxury for the weak.
To him, power was the thing—the only thing.
In The Prince, he famously writes, “The ends justify the means,” a quote that perfectly encapsulates his mindset.
Virtue? It’s a tool, a mask you wear to get what you want, not an ideal you strive for.
For the Stoics, virtue was the whole point of life—goodness, wisdom, and self-control.
But for Machiavelli, those were just words to be bent, twisted, and used however necessary.
Imagine the two of them in a room.
The Stoic, calm and measured, sitting with his legs crossed, saying, “If you’re not at peace with what you have, you’ll never be at peace with what you want.”
Then there’s Machiavelli, pacing the room, eyes gleaming with ambition. “Screw peace,” he’d say. “Give me the throne, and I’ll burn the world down to get it.”
He wouldn’t care about calm reflection or inner harmony.
His mind is already calculating, already figuring out how to manipulate and climb. His ambition burns hotter than any quiet philosophical reflection could ever cool.
Machiavelli didn’t believe in the slow, steady path of virtue.
He believed in bending reality to your will, using others as tools in your pursuit of power.
And it’s not just any power—it’s power for the sake of power, the kind that makes you feel like you can control everything around you, the kind that gives you the throne you crave, and forces everyone else to bow.
He’d never sit back and accept the way things are. No, that would be too passive. Machiavelli’s all about action, ruthless action.
The Stoic?
They’d probably recommend you meditate on what really matters in life.
Forget the throne. Forget the chase. Focus on your character, they’d say.
But Machiavelli would laugh, wipe the sweat from his brow, and say, “Character’s nice, but I’ll take the kingdom.”
That’s where the worlds of Stoicism and Machiavelli collide and shatter.
For the Stoics, life is a test of inner strength. For Machiavelli, it’s a battlefield where only the strongest, the most calculating, and the most ruthless survive.
2. Manipulation vs. Acceptance
The Stoic motto is “What happens, happens.”
Accept the things you can’t control.
Machiavelli? He’s all about controlling everything, even your thoughts.
He’s not just about winning—he’s about winning no matter the moral cost.
If you’ve got to lie, cheat, or bribe your way to the top, then so be it.
A Stoic would say, “You can’t control others. Focus on your own reactions.” Machiavelli would tell them to shut up and get a sword.
3. Self-Control? More Like Self-Interest
A Stoic is about mastering their emotions, keeping cool when life heats up.
Machiavelli? He’s the guy who’d stir up chaos and then step back and watch people fight.
Self-control isn’t his thing. He’d rather throw a banquet and watch the political chaos unfold—while plotting his next move.
Emotions? He uses them as tools, like a chess player.
4. Virtue vs. Expedience
Stoics are about virtue. The good life is the virtuous life, even if it’s hard.
The Stoic doesn’t want power for power’s sake; they just want to be good.
Machiavelli’s not even on the same page. Virtue is just a way to manipulate people.
He doesn’t care if you’re a good person or a bad one—he cares if you’re a useful one.
The idea of doing something just because it’s right? That’s a luxury for idealists. Machiavelli is a realist, a cold one.
5. Fate is the Enemy of the Prince
A Stoic would tell you to embrace fate. It’s all part of the divine plan, even when it sucks.
Machiavelli would tell you that fate is something to fight against.
You don’t wait for things to happen; you make them happen.
Stoicism says, “Accept what you cannot change.”
Machiavelli’s motto? “Change everything you can, and screw the consequences.”
6. Detachment vs. Power Play
The Stoic’s idea of happiness is detachment—being indifferent to wealth, power, or fame.
Machiavelli’s idea of happiness? Grab it all, hold it tight, and never let it go.
If you don’t believe me, read The Prince again. Machiavelli’s not about inner peace. He’s about inner revolution and external conquest.
If you think you can have peace while dominating the world, you’re as delusional as he is.
7. A Happy Life? Not for Machiavelli
Stoics are all about a good life, but it’s the kind of life that comes from serenity, not external rewards.
They believe true happiness is found in aligning with nature and reason.
Machiavelli? He’s the guy who’s obsessed with winning, and winning isn’t always pretty.
Happiness for him comes from manipulation, betrayal, and winning at any cost. No serene wisdom, just cold, calculated action.
| Reason | Machiavelli’s Approach | Stoic Perspective |
|---|---|---|
| Power-at-All-Costs | Win at any cost, manipulate | Power is irrelevant, focus on virtue |
| Manipulation vs. Acceptance | Control, manipulate, deceive | Accept what you can’t change |
| Self-Control vs. Self-Interest | Self-interest, chaos | Self-control, emotional mastery |
| Virtue vs. Expedience | Expediency, any means justify | Virtue for its own sake |
| Fate is the Enemy | Control your own fate | Accept fate, let go of control |
| Detachment vs. Power Play | Power and domination | Indifference to external things |
| A Happy Life? | Happiness from domination | Happiness from virtue and peace |
In the end, it’s clear. Machiavelli might’ve been a brilliant tactician, a master of manipulation, but he wasn’t a Stoic.
He was too busy making enemies, cutting throats, and clawing his way to power.
Stoics would’ve told him to put down his sword, sit down, and reflect.
But that’s not Machiavelli’s game, is it?
His game is about winning, no matter how dirty it gets. So next time someone tells you Machiavelli was a Stoic, laugh.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.