Each room features a Jacuzzi bathtub and separate shower stall. In addition, every room is equipped with state-of-the-art technology, including high-speed internet access and LCD flat-screen TV. We spent our New Years at the hotel. It was amazing. The staff is amazingly friendly and helpful. The scenic bar on the 33rd floor was great to experience, drinks are a bit pricey and there is a cover charge but totally worth it. There are also several restaurants and amazing amenities such as a bowling alley or onsen that it made the stay wonderful.
Outside the hotel it was a great location for accessing transportation and close to a lot of must see. The temple right next to it was an amazing experience for New Years. I highly recommend. Everything is just excellent from service to the room to the place itself. Only disadvantage you have to walk abit to the train station but its not that far. About mins walk. The service i have to especially highlight is really tip-top. They really pay attention to every single detail. My partner was re-packing her luggage at the lobby and accidentally hurt her thumb and had a small cut.
Out of no where one of the staff just came out and gave her a plaster within a second. Was really touch by it and even after checking out they still gave us 2 bottle of water while waiting for the bus. Will definitely stay here again! They provide free shuttle bus to Daimon Station. Staff speaks good English and easier to communicate. B2 has access to the park and the view is spectacular at the breakfast area.
Will come back again. Our stay was filled with ups and downs and, the downs were quite funny, the kind of things I'd never expect a Japanese hotel to do to their guests. First, they gave me an upgrade and breakfast vouchers for the next day. Amazing view from the room! At night, we went to the Sky Lounge for drinks and were told to pay and extra fee just for the view. Well, ok? After the fee was paid we were asked to sit in front of a concrete pillar and had no view at all. Still, we were asked to pay the fee since no other seats were available. Unheard of.
Next morning, we were told that our vouchers didn't cover the breakfast costs and had to pay a handsome amount for scrambled eggs, bread, orange juice and ordinary coffee. The view? If you want a view, sir, stay in your room! Would I stay there again? Sure, yes. But I wouldn't expect much more than a business hotel with a nice view next time. Nice hotel for what it is! Views are great and beds are soft. Shibakoen is a great location but a bit of a walk. Being so close to Zojo-ji temple was nice. A little bit pricey but worth it if you can upgrade to Suite.
It was an amazing stay and would recommend it. Waking up to the view of the Tokyo tower is perfect. Their rooftop bar is really cool. Their staff are very friendly, helpful and accommodating. I was very happy that I chose to book this hotel! Away from the hustle and bustle of Tokyo main districts, this hotel provides some peace when you return from your day's travels.
The view of the hotel is wonderful and Tokyo Tower is magnificent both in the day and at night. It was good but strangely you have to pay to use the sauna and gym which cost an additional yen a day.
The Prince - Wikipedia
Quite ridiculous having to pay for the services when we are patrons in the hotel They also have a roof top steak house with a good view and once again strangely no children allowed. We can understand alcohol is served but like everywhere in the world as long as its before 10pm which is dinner time ,no reason why kids should not be allowed to eat all the same.
Strange policies. Hotel location was good and walking distance to 2 train stations. Staff was definitely helpful and proactive. However being such a posh hotel, no complimentary water was provided in the room and we were charged yen for a small bottle of mineral water. No instant coffee as well. Very nice hotel in the central Tokyo district without being disposed to the crowds. While it s not the easiest hotel to commute by walk, the place itself is very quite and gives you different view of Tokyo.
Rooms are immaculate and have enough space for few days travellers. I have been client for Tokyo Prince Hotels since Always love the comfortable room and staff service to make me feel at home. Especially during my trip I was upgraded to the Junior sweet! I fully enjoyed the luxury of this hotel. Thank you. This is a 5 star hotel, located near Tokyo tower. There are no restaurants or other facilities nearby, but the hotel has everything you need.
The rooms are big and the staff extremely helpful. Comfortable stay. The hotel design is that all the room have views towards the outside. There is a park nearby and you can see Tokyo Tower is just the opposite. The surrounding area is pretty quiet, quite different from the normal busy city environment. It is about 10 min walk from the subway station. The room is very comfortable.
- Multinationality--Earnings, Efficiency, and Market Considerations: Earnings, Efficiency and Market Considerations.
- luxury hotel in Tokyo!
- Navigation menu.
- Mad muses and the early surrealists.
Quite large size, with a big bathtub. Wifi is free. There is english channel TV and movies channel. The bed is comfortable. The staff is friendly and helpful. I really enjoy my stay here and definitely recommend this to people who come to Tokyo.
The Prince Gallery Tokyo Kioicho, A Luxury Collection Hotel
The hotel is big and nice. Rooms are okay, customer sevice is good. The Hotel is very near to Tokyo Tower and subway. It is a nice place to stay on Tokyo. It is the much better choice compared to the rest of the similar pricing hotels. Very good hotel, near the tokyo tower. But i don't get room with the tower view. Meanwhile, i book a room so i can see the tower from my room..
And internet in the business centre is payable.. Other is okay. I personally enjoy my stay in this hotel, we stayed for 7 nights without regrets. Great hotel, staff service is excellent and they go out of the way to make sure your needs are met. If you are lucky enough, you may get an excellent view of tokyo tower lit up at night which is simply beautiful.
Not too far away from several train stations, Akebanebashi and Shibakoen which are great to access most of the city. To begin with these sections focus on defining, conquering, and subjugating principalities, with practical advice for princes on how to make, and hold on to, territorial gains. Later however the text shifts, and focuses more on the nature of being a ruler and how to play the political game.
The jist of the book can be summarised as 'effective truth is more important than any ideals, and power and survival justify any means, even if they are immoral'. As such after getting over frankly rather tiresome advice on whether or not to live in a newly-conquered territory or to govern from abroad, or the benefits of mercenaries versus a civilian army, the book takes a decidedly evil turn.
Machiavelli praises men who do terrible, violent, underhanded deeds in the name of retaining power, and worst of all as a reader you can't help but see the logic to it all. These are the unspoken rules of how men like Tywin Lannister and Walter White in fiction stay at the top of the pyramid, and how men like Stalin and Saddam Hussein ruled with an iron fist. To see the rules of the game laid bare in front of you is a disconcerting experience, and makes you ask yourself: why do I not do this? While not a totally satisfying answer, perhaps I erroneously?
I have read discussion that The Prince may have been written as a satire from the preface: 'to comprehend fully the nature of the people, one must be a prince, and to comprehend fully the nature of princes one must be an ordinary citizen' but to me this book is a comprehensive primer on how to rule and be feared. It is dangerous, fascinating, and demands to be read. View 1 comment. Libertine magazine issue 3 has a quote down the spine: it is the common good, and not private gain, that makes the cities great I like to quote this to friends and play the yes-no game at guessing who said it.
Everyone is stunned that it was Machiavelli. Oct 20, Laura Noggle rated it it was amazing Shelves: must-reads , psychology-philosophy , nonfiction. Mandatory reading for Earthlings. Incredible insights on humanity, experience, perception, glory and honor, power and survival. Will re-read.
View all 9 comments. I will go out on a limb to say that second only to the major religious works the Bible, the Koran, etc. Composed by the Florentine in the 16th Century, "The Prince" provides the blueprint not just for the Renaissance ruler for whom it was allegedly penned, but also for anyone in politics, warfare, or even contemporary business.
Machiavelli's premises may seem extreme to many henc I will go out on a limb to say that second only to the major religious works the Bible, the Koran, etc. Machiavelli's premises may seem extreme to many hence the adjectival "Machiavellian," meaning extremely censorius and penury , but his notions on alliances and leadership showcase a brilliant mind who paid attention not only to his contemporaries, but also to his ancestors to find the lessons and the errors made by countless generals and kings throughout Italian and European history.
We need look only to the newspaper to find out that the current system--from the current Bush Administration and going back some odd years--has fallen victim to Machiavelli's lessons again and again. One need only think of the blunders of the CIA, the Bay of Pigs, the Iran-Contra scandal, and yes, Iraq, to see that Machiavelli is as relevant today as he was half a millenium ago. The axiom states that we are doomed to repeat our own defective history should we not heed its lessons. If five centuries after "The Prince," governments and kingdoms have still learned nothing, then days darker than the Black Death may yet be ahead.
This is one of the greatest works in print, of any time, of any place, in any language. Read it, learn it, live it! Apr 27, K. People who need to read this? A certain orange someone whose name rhymes with Ronald Rump. There were definitely moments in this that made me yell "OMG YES" at my tablet, because despite being written in the early s, there's a LOT of stuff in this that's still completely relevant to politics today.
But there was ALSO a lot in here that was incredibly dry and just kind of boring and that I just didn't really give a shit about. I think it's one that's important to read at least once. But I People who need to read this? But I doubt I'll bother rereading this in the future. Apr 25, Bettie added it Shelves: spring , author-in-the-mirror , cults-societies-brotherhoods , winter , gangsters , sleazy , italy-florence , paper-read , casual-violence , gruelling. I didn't see in either book the part where the prince falls out off his fucking head trying to achieve all the sociopathic manouvering alluded to.
Renaissance political insights introduced by Nick Robinson and read by Peter Firth. View all 26 comments. Sound Advice for a Budding Ruler 2 August Having now read this book three times I sort of wonder how Machiavelli's name came to represent a sort of politics that involved deceit, manipulation, and backstabbing, because for those who claim that this is what the Prince is about have probably read the wrong book, or probably not read the book at all. Somebody even suggested that The Prince was satire because they could not imagine that anybody would suggest such actions to anybody, especially i Sound Advice for a Budding Ruler 2 August Having now read this book three times I sort of wonder how Machiavelli's name came to represent a sort of politics that involved deceit, manipulation, and backstabbing, because for those who claim that this is what the Prince is about have probably read the wrong book, or probably not read the book at all.
Somebody even suggested that The Prince was satire because they could not imagine that anybody would suggest such actions to anybody, especially if that person was seeking to live a virtuous life. To the person who claims that The Prince is satire my response is that Machiavelli is deadly serious. He was not laughing when he wrote this book, and his audience were not laughing when they were reading it. As for the person who claims that the book is about scheming and manipulation, I respond by asking them to show me where it says that because after the third time I struggle to actually find anything of the sort.
Further, in response to them, I will also suggest that if you are a ruler then you ignore Machiavelli's advice at your own peril. Before I go further to expound upon what Machiavelli is advising in this book we must first look at the context in which it was written. I say this because if we apply Machiavelli's principles to the modern day you will probably find yourself in The Hague being charged with war crimes.
To be blunt, we simply cannot apply Machiavelli's advice as written to the modern world, in the same way that we cannot act in the way Joshua of the Bible fame acted when the Israelites invaded the promised land. Now, Machiavelli was writing to a Florentine Prince in 14th Century Italy which puts us right in the middle of the Renaissance. Now, today we live in a world with instantaneous communication where there are a handful of powers that dominate world affairs, and is governed by a basic parliamentary style institution which we call the United Nations. However, that did not exist in Machiavelli's time.
These days there are effectively four superpowers Russia, China, Europe, and the United States and practically every other country will throw their allegiance behind one of them usually for protection against the others. Any alliances that exist between the superpowers are tenuous at best though Europe and the United States do have a reasonably strong relationship, though it does not mean that Europe will always vote in accordance with the US's wishes.
However Renaissance Italy was much different. While the church still had power, it was in decline. Gone were the days of Pope Innocent III where kings would fear excommunication for even thinking in opposition to the Pope, and gone were the days when the Pope sat securely on his throne in Rome, however the church still held sway over Western Europe. Still, it did not come down to the church having control, but which noble family had control over the church one could easily swing the church over to your side by installing your man in as pope, as the Medici's, among others, had managed to do on occasion.
There were some large kingdoms, such as France and Spain, that could influence control, but in many cases these kingdoms were not exactly powerful, and one could protect oneself by playing them off against each other. There was also Venice, which was a very powerful maritime power, but when it came to domination over the land, it was quite weak. Venice's navy was powerless against landlocked principalities such as Florence and Milan. Northern Italy as well as Germany were not unified nation-states, but a collection of city states and principalities that would forever be at each other's throat, and while there was a titular 'Holy Roman Empire' he was effectively powerless.
In fact he did not even have his own army, but had to rely upon the generosity of his allies to attempt to exert control, and as Phillip of Spain discovered when he was elected emperor: ruling Spain and ruling the Holy Roman Empire involved a completely different skill set. Now that we have an idea of the political situation of the time, let us now consider what Machiavelli is actually saying. The theme that runs through the book is how to be an effective prince and how to survive: to do that you need to be respected loved and feared and not hated.
Machiavelli is very clear on this point because if you are hated then you are not long for this world. Remember, Renaissance Italy is like 'The Game of Thrones' on steroids, and as it is said in The Game of Thrones, 'when you play the game of thrones you either win or you die'. That, my friend, is 14th century Italy. Now, it is clear from the first couple of pages of this essay because that is what it is that Machiavelli means what he says.
First he says that there are two forms of government, the principality, which is the rule by a human, and there is the republic, which is the rule by a constitution. He points to another book he has written, The Discourses , which deals with the republic, so he skips over that system of government and focuses on the idea of rule by a human. The main difference is that where the state is ruled by a human, the human can effectively do what they want.
The only restraint on their power is the potential that they are removed from their position, usually by force. They cannot forfeit their role simply by breaking the law because they are the law. One of the things that he warns against is living in excess, namely because that generates hatred among the subjects, and when that happens all they need to do is to either rebel and thus overthrow you, or petition one of your enemies to come and remove you. Machiavelli also makes extensive use of examples of other princes, both modern in his time that is and ancient.
Now, all of the ancient sources that Machiavelli had we also have so we can easily check his references, however with a number of the modern examples we only have him to rely upon. However you can be assured that his readers would have been well aware of the political situation at the time. Simply put, he could not make them up. In any case it is very clear that he is not writing to an idiot, but to an intelligent person that would be quite well aware of what he is talking about.
Further, he also appeals to common sense, but uses examples to prove why that course of action is wise. For example, he talks about using auxiliary troops that is borrowing an army from another prince and why such a course of action is foolish. The reason being is that if you lose you are going to have another prince that is somewhat upset with you because you have weakened his position. However, if you win, then you have a neighbouring territory that is occupied by a foreign army that is more than likely not going to leave.
As such this situation is a lose lose situation. Now, can we apply his principles to today and my response is that we can. One of the managers at my former work would give new team leaders a copy of The Art of War explaining that the principles that Sun Tzu uses to fight wars can also be used to manage a team, or even a department. I would suggest that the same applies to 'Il Principe'. Yet we simply cannot take the book as is and apply it literally simply because, as mentioned above, we will get into trouble and we simply cannot invade and conquer our neighbour's team.
However the principles of respect and hatred apply. As a manager we need to inspire respect within those we are managing, we cannot demand respect because that garners hatred, and by garnering hatred, we undermine our position. However we need to garner respect, and if that means making an example of a disruptive and rebellious team member, then so be it.
In fact, that is expected, because once again if we don't make an example of a rebellious team member we end up undermining our own position. In my time I have seen team leaders as leaders who have earned the respect of their team, and advanced. I have also seen team leaders act as bosses which results in them being removed or demoted. I have also seen team leaders play their team members up against each other, and while they survived for a time, their position was eventually undermined. Indeed Machiavelli does say that there are times when playing factions off against each other will strengthen your position, however it will not work all the time.
In fact, while it may strengthen your position when you are at peace, it undermines your position when you are at war. Then there is fairness and justice another theme that runs through this book because by doing so may result in a perception of injustice, and indeed a team that fights amongst itself and stabs each other for their own personal gain and to garner favouritism with the leader may work in the short term but will ultimately fail. A team where each of the members respects and supports each other is an effective team and I have seen that happen where a team goes from being at the bottom to being at the top while a team that is at each other's throats will eventually find themselves collapsing in on their own disunity.
View all 4 comments. Turned out to be an easier and more entertaining a read than expected from a political treatise. After having read Walden, Civil Disobedience and now The Prince one after the other, I now feel equipped enough to take on heavy weights like Nietzsche and heavier tomes. After or so years of people writing about, arguing about, despising, lauding and picking apart this book, it's hard for me to come up with anything new to say. Was Machiavelli being sarcastic? Was he publishing a book on how to rule amorally so as to stir up the peasants and make them revolt?
Was he trying to bring rule of law into Italy, by any means necessary, and so sent instructions to the Medici's, hoping that that family's demonstrated ruthlessness would be able curb the wayward countr After or so years of people writing about, arguing about, despising, lauding and picking apart this book, it's hard for me to come up with anything new to say.
Was he trying to bring rule of law into Italy, by any means necessary, and so sent instructions to the Medici's, hoping that that family's demonstrated ruthlessness would be able curb the wayward country? I don't know, I wasn't there, and I'm not about to start an argument over it. What I can tell you is that this is an interesting read. The translation I read was not as hard to parse as old-timey writing tends to be for me, and while I certainly had to concentrate, I was not overwhelmed. The fact is, I love reading stories about Machiavellian bastards; rulers with amoral machinations, men who have planned every step of the conflict well ahead, princes who know how every ally and every opponent is going to react well ahead of time, and is just waiting for everyone to run headlong into the clever trap laid out with subtlety and style.
Taking this as a handbook for "awesome fictional villains" is a fun exercise, that might stem your tendency to be horrified at the sorts of things Machiavelli is supporting at face value, anyways. Should you read this book? Absolutely: it's not very long, and it will make your inner super villian cackle most deliciously.
This is an excellent, highly readable modern version with contextualising introduction, and the translator's note is quite fascinating for translation geeks. He's evidently a very good translator who pays meticulous attention both to original text and writer, and to understanding his audience. He also has a knack for explaining knotty historical events - namely the dreaded Italian Wars of the late fifteenth and earlier sixteenth century - with a clarity from which many history textbook writers could learn.
I hope this edition is now recommended to students, particularly at introductory undergrad or school level. They could explore older translations if they specialise. The translator's note discusses several dilemmas in detail, and quotes from previous translations by Bull a commonly-used Penguin Classics version for several decades, still in print and Marriot from the early 20th century. Prince Charles , or fluffy fairytale heroes Prince Charming? Parks probably has in mind an audience too young to think readily of Adam Ant. Machiavelli obviously had no way of knowing about WWII neutral countries.
Elegantly, this is an opportunity for Parks to highlight Machiavelli's awareness and explanation that the nature of power and political institutions in the Roman Empire was profoundly different from that in a[n] Machiavelli is read by some today as if he is "for all time"; as with Shakespeare, it seems extremely unlikely he ever intended to be - and besides knew that "all time" means a lot more than years. The Florentine realised that not all of the principles of his own political environment applied to the distant past, and therefore he would undoubtedly understand that not all of them work exactly the same way today.
Did he say he did not wish to censure notorious psychopath Cesare Borgia? Or that his morals are being ignored here not elevated, not condemned, just ignored , this being an evaluation of his political shrewdness and effectiveness? As with Shakespeare - again - I find that Machiavelli as a personality is so much clearer after more life experience than possessed by most in their late teens or early twenties, the age when most people commonly study these writers.
A guy who's fascinated by villains to the point of outright admiration, but himself is so upstanding he doesn't even fiddle expenses in an environment where everyone else does?
Yup, know the type - though these ones tend to be fans of movie gangsters and comic book baddies rather than of political dictators. This is a translation which attempts to evoke the spirit of the text and the writer, and especially to get the tone right: Machiavelli has a more spoken, flexible, persuading, sometimes brusque voice, and to get that tone in English, one has to opt for a syntax that is quite different.
Nabokov would not approve. This isn't actually The Prince ," part of me feels. But it is. Away with your semantic hair-splitting about translations as new books. We're being pragmatic here, and what's more, most Italians read it in modernised versions. Modern translations of old books always feel like a lucky, cheaty shortcut, but there's something particularly surreal perhaps because this is the first time I've re-read a book in a different translation and appropriately sneaky and illicit, about this.
It has never ceased to surprise me, though, how specific to the time and place of its writing The Prince is. In popular culture, the book is portrayed as universally applicable, useful in contemporary business and politics, yet rather a lot of it only makes sense for those well-placed in small, warlike states prone to frequent changes of leadership.
Every time I've read it this time was by far the most optional , it seemed first of all like a primary source on the military history of Renaissance Italy; "leadership success manual" would be some way down the list of things I'd perceive the book as, separated from its reputation. Which of course may be a measure of its influence, of how obvious the still-applicable bits now seem - it's the other stuff that stands out. In western democracies or large firms, one can't go around killing those who may be a threat to your position no matter how much you hate that guy two desks away.
I wrote most of this post several days ago, before the referendum, BTW If a ruler who is supported by his people but not his nobles is in a good position, Jeremy Corbyn should be a lot more secure as Labour leader than he is. Though the appeal of The Prince to gangsters including gangsta rappers and politicians in dictatorships is obvious; they, the latter especially, though, tend to disregard advice such as avoiding ongoing cruelty after establishing a power base.
The original context of The Prince is underemphasised in many discussions of the text. Machiavelli wrote elsewhere about republics e. It was what was there in front of him, and he figured he had to do his best with it. He thinks he would have rather worked for Cesare Borgia than for the ineffectual Soderini. Cesare Borgia is now significant mostly because of his most famous fan, rather than for his own actions: he was just one more short term player in a turbulent political landscape.
Undoubtedly there are now current undergrads for whom John Smith — Labour leader at the time I first heard of Gaitskell and Thorpe - is also quite obscure in the same way. The other contemporary prince Machiavelli praises most, Ferdinand of Aragon, has, due to the length of his reign, considerably more weight with current historians.
- The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli - Reading Guide: - tyruvyvizo.cf: Books.
- Concealed in Death (In Death, Book 38).
- 101 Amazing Mozart Facts.
And the implication that a ruler was a self-sacrificing being as, perhaps were those carrying out orders one who should be prepared to take actions that meant he may go to hell, and put the security of the state over his personal salvation, is rather fascinating. It aligns curiously with the old Golden Bough idea of the sacrificial king. View all 5 comments. For my "Renaissance War and Peace" class.
Interesting philosophy I suppose. But if it enlightened me more on anything, it was why I hate politicians in the first place. This book really opened my eyes to the way true power is exercised. Should be a 'foundational book' for anyone hoping to build a 'knowledge library' they can go back to throughout life.
Aug 25, Huda Aweys rated it liked it Shelves: politics , classics , references , history , psychology , philosophy , cultural. Readers also enjoyed. He is a figure of the Italian Renaissance and a central figure of its political component, most widely known for his treatises on realist political theory The Prince on the one hand and republicanism Discourses on Livy on the other.
Trivia About The Prince. Welcome back. Children under the age of 5 cannot be admitted. Gary Wilmot. Songs by:. Cast list:. Other info:. Projection: Jon Driscoll. Illusion designer: Chris Fisher. Wednesday, 5 February, Booking to:. Saturday, 12 September, Matinee Evening Monday - 7.
The Prince of Egypt - Next performances.