How much does Machiavelli’s Prince belong in the tradition of the medieval ‘mirror for princes’ genre?
>>1714413
It doesn't
>>1714440
care to elaborate?
>>1714413
Totally and completely. The behaviour suggested is different than most other works, but it still fits perfectly the definition of mirror for princes.
The only way you could argue otherwise is by playing the satire angle, but let's not bother with that discredited and talked to death theory.
Why do people only care about his Prince when The Art of War was far better book?
>>1714507
bbb888