July 18, 2024 • 29 mins
Commonly regarded as one of humanity's premiere works on the art of pursuing and securing power, Niccolò Machiavelli's book "The Prince" has become so popular that the name of its author is synonymous with unethical behavior in the modern day. However, it turns out that Machiavelli himself wasn't the first proponent of ruthless behavior -- the author (or authors) of ancient India's Arthashastra outlined incredibly similar strategies almost 2,000 years before the publication of Machiavelli's masterpiece. Tune in to learn more with Ben and Noel in this Classic episode.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Folks, if you were a fan of weird literature, you
have probably heard of machiavelli Is famous book The Prince,
which was either satire or a straight faced guy to
political manipulation to get the stuff you want.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
Wasn't there also that posthumous TUPAC record that was called Machiavelli.
Speaker 1 (00:20):
Well, posthumous that that goes to stuff they don't want
you to know.
Speaker 3 (00:25):
An island. Oh, yes, you're right, You're absolutely right. He's
also into Assassin's screen games too, and Brotherhood. He's very important,
and especially in Brotherhood. He was a wily kind of thinker,
wasn't he. I mean he was, I guess a very
practical philosopher of sorts, you know, almost like a sun
(00:46):
Zu type figure, you know. I mean he really had
a viewpoint that he was able to funnel into some
pretty actionable behavior.
Speaker 2 (00:56):
Is that people could consider kind of ruthless and a
bit cruel and you know, but ultimately self serving. Playing
the game, the climbing of the ladder, all of that stuff,
little finger type shit.
Speaker 1 (01:10):
Yeah, chaos as a ladder. And it turns out, as
we'll see in this weekend's classic episode, that Machiavelli himself,
even though his name now functions as a term of
manipulative behavior, Machiavelli himself was not the first proponent of
cold hearted stake craft. The actual, like the actual origin
(01:31):
of this which we discovered in this episode, goes back
to ancient India, and a book with unclear authors seems
to have preceded the ideas of Machiavelli by almost two
thousand years.
Speaker 3 (01:46):
Jeez leis that's a lot of years. Well, let's hear
all about it.
Speaker 1 (01:53):
Ridiculous History is a production of iHeartRadio. In the world
(02:21):
of business, self improvement and management courses, there are several
books that you will continually encounter, things like you know,
The Art of War by Sun Zoo or perhaps Justice
Famously the Prince by Nicolo Machiavelli. My name is.
Speaker 3 (02:39):
Ben, My name is Nolan Ben. Your Machiavellian accent was
on point.
Speaker 1 (02:45):
Thank you very much, Noel, thank you so much. When
you and I have done Italian accents in the past,
we have endeavored not to go too far into a
cartoon land. So it's it's been a day by day
thing for both of us.
Speaker 3 (03:00):
Or maybe I was just trying to employ flattery to
get you to do what I want?
Speaker 1 (03:06):
How machiavellian? Indeed, And how could we mention Machiavelli and
the Prince without, of course mentioning our own mentor in
the lawful evil alignment super producer Casey Pegram.
Speaker 3 (03:22):
But he seems so nice. Listen that, such a delightful sound.
How can he be such a monster? Well? What is
what is a monster? Really? That depends on perspective? What
is a person?
Speaker 1 (03:35):
Right?
Speaker 3 (03:35):
What is a question?
Speaker 1 (03:38):
We could go we could go down this rabbit hole,
but instead let's talk about Machiavelli just a little bit. This,
this author of The Prince, has become in many ways
synonymous with unethical dealing, right, wherein all actions are rated
as good if they benefit the person committing those actions.
Speaker 3 (04:02):
Double dealing, treachery, schemery, deceit indeed.
Speaker 1 (04:08):
So you'll find things like this The Prince is published
in fifteen thirty two, and you'll find quotes in there
such as a prince never lacks good reasons to break
his promises?
Speaker 3 (04:21):
What a doche?
Speaker 1 (04:23):
I don't know. I don't know if we should be
so quick to judge. I'm on the fence about it,
because you can see the utility of the book. I
had to read it in grad school.
Speaker 3 (04:35):
Actually, I'm sure you studied international affairs, and this is
something that would certainly come into play with things like diplomacy.
I mean, a little healthy subterfuge can go a long way,
or a little bit of a healthy flattery could maybe
get someone to do exactly what you want without having
to strong arm them, make it seem like it was
their idea, to sort of incept them, as it were.
Speaker 1 (04:57):
And you and I, in the horse of preparing for
this episode, discovered that maybe the Prince is not as
original as we once thought it was.
Speaker 3 (05:09):
Ah, yes, you've arrived the topic of today's episode. Let's
see if I can get this pronunciation right. It's a
little book, a little known book, and I don't know,
I mean generally little known, certainly known to some called
the Arthur Shastra. Well done, nol, Did I get it?
Speaker 1 (05:26):
I think you did. I think you did. The Arthur Shastra.
What's this book about?
Speaker 3 (05:30):
Well, this book was actually very recently discovered in only
think the early nineteen hundreds. It had been transcribed from
an original copy onto I want to say a palm
leaf for a series of palm leaves, isn't that right,
Ben In this book, The Artha Shastra was most likely
written by a group of authors, but is typically credited
(05:53):
to a man named Katilia, who served as an advisor
to Chandragupta, who was the ruler of the Iron Age
civilization of the Marian Empire, which was a vast section
of northern India, and it was actually one of the
earliest ruling societies in the continent of India.
Speaker 1 (06:17):
Yes, and Cotulia, we believe now was the pen name
for a minister named Chanakya. But as as No points out,
this probably wasn't just one person writing. The text itself
is divided into fifteen books that function as a primer
(06:39):
for kings.
Speaker 3 (06:40):
Right.
Speaker 1 (06:41):
It covers a military subject's political, economic subjects. The name
Arthur Shastra, the concept translates to like means of life
or worldly success. Pro tip if you run it through
your Google Translate, it will tell you the translation is economics.
Speaker 3 (07:00):
Also seen it written as science of Politics or the
science of political economy. Those are also pretty commonly accepted translations.
But the reason that this gets lumped in with Machiavelli,
who is much more well known comparatively, is that it
also dealt with a lot of that kind of shady
subterfugei manipulative techniques that Machiavelli dealt with in writings like
(07:26):
The Prince, And in addition to things like how to
set up a ring of spies and manage your secret agents,
it gives suggestions like a king should fake divine miracles
in order to impart a sense of almost godlike power
to his subjects.
Speaker 1 (07:45):
Not just credibility. But they get into the brass tax
of it, and they say, you should go to state
temples fake a miracle so you'll increase your revenue from pilgrimages,
so people will get taxed to go see that part
where you know you made a statue cry milk or something.
And this is fascinating because the book itself predates the
(08:06):
prints by about one eight hundred years or so. And
I believe that the copy we found in the early
nineteen hundreds, we being human civilization, not just Casey and
Nolan myself, this was a copy of a copy right
it had already existed in some other form. So we
(08:27):
know that this book was valuable enough to be transcribed.
And it's a really unsentimental read. You can find free
translations of it online. You can download the PDF and
check it out firsthand. But in this in the Arthur Shastra,
Catilia openly writes about stuff like assassinations, when you should
(08:50):
kill your family members, and as Noel said, how to
manage secret agents. Also, when is it useful to violate
a treaty?
Speaker 3 (08:57):
Yeah, anytime it suits you, right right.
Speaker 1 (09:01):
This this draws comparisons, of course to the Prince, because
it is seen as intensely a moral right, lacking morals,
and it makes me think of you're familiar with D
and D right, dungeons and dragons. So there's this concept
of alignments that go either from good to evil or
(09:22):
lawful to chaotic, and this counts as lawful evil, which also,
you know, I think is the alignment of the quistor.
Speaker 3 (09:30):
Oh yeah, for sure. Who also is in real life,
actual facts a dungeon master? Easy, I could see it.
I mean, he has a dungeon, is the master of it.
That's where he dwells.
Speaker 1 (09:41):
Oh man, he might be, and he might be in
the studio now, and we don't know. He is such
a creature, but he will he will eventually return. If
this is your first time tuning in and you're thinking
Ben Nole, super producer, Casey, who is this squister you
talk about? Just stick a stick around in one episode
or another.
Speaker 3 (09:58):
It'll be time. Gosh.
Speaker 1 (10:00):
I feel like maybe we're I know, we're sort of
whistling in a graveyard here, but maybe by talking about it,
he won't show up this episode.
Speaker 3 (10:10):
Anyway. Back to Cortilia, there are actually quite a few
pretty serious differences between his writings and Machavelly. Right.
Speaker 1 (10:18):
Yeah, this is something that you and I were chopping
it up about, and you brought up a point that
I feel it feels pretty observant and I would agree with,
which is that you see this as more of a
I don't know, would you say, a slightly better moral
character to this work.
Speaker 3 (10:35):
It does feel that way. It certainly doesn't seem to
lean quite as heavily on that deceitful manipulation that Machavelly
was so fond of. See.
Speaker 1 (10:44):
I think that's a valid point. It's strange because people
still seem somewhat divided on this. You know, there are
some people who will prefer one over the other, or
feel like one is maybe less unethical. I feel like
I can't say more ethical less unethical. It's actually a
favorite book of Henry Kissinger. In his work World Order,
(11:09):
he refers to this ancient Indian treatise as something that
lays out the requirements of power and the dominant reality
in politics.
Speaker 3 (11:18):
Yeah, and you were mentioning to me off air that
this kind of combines the ideas behind Confucianism and legalism
into sort of this hybrid, very functional philosophy of governing.
It even goes so far as to set up kind
of a schedule for a ruler that I'm gonna I'm
(11:39):
gonna give you a snippet of. I think this is great.
So in your first ninety minutes of the day at sunrise,
you the ruler should go through the various reports and
documents and you know, write checks and sign papers and
the like, what have you. Then the second ninety minutes
is when you should sort of hold court and allow
people to present their grievances to you, you know, public audiences,
(12:02):
let's call it. Then in the third ninety minutes, have
a little breakfast and you know, maybe take some personal time,
do some sit ups, some pull ups, I know you're
fond of doing that. Then have a little bath, little spa,
you know, read a book whatever. Then we're into the
fourth ninety minutes, when you get to meet with all
of your cabinet and your ministers and the like. Then
the fifth ninety minutes is when you should write your letters.
(12:25):
And then the last ninety minutes is when you take
a lunch. Apparently, yes, that's a late lunch.
Speaker 1 (12:31):
It's a late lunch. And also it's a pretty demanding schedule.
We found that this bakes in about what five hours
of sleep.
Speaker 3 (12:39):
Thinking roughly four and a half over the last than five. Yeah,
so you really have to burn the candle at both
ends to be a good leader as far as Cotilia
was concerned.
Speaker 1 (12:52):
And this was enormously influential in ancient and classical India,
but as a result of invasions and conquests, it disappeared
from widespread usage sometime in the twelfth or thirteenth century.
So that's you know, that's the long and short of
how we lost it, which is a shame because you
(13:13):
have to wonder, you know, in the intervening centuries, how
knowledge of this text may have changed things, especially you know,
in the centuries before the publication had spread of the Prince. Again,
these books are related, but thereby no means exactly the same.
It's just this is the earlier record espousing this brutal
(13:36):
realism that most people associate with Machiavelli.
Speaker 3 (13:39):
So it's much more an example of parallel thinking than
it is somebody ripping off somebody else.
Speaker 1 (13:44):
Right, Yeah, but how Machiavelli would it have been had
Michiavelli discovered this book and just not told anyone.
Speaker 3 (13:51):
Oh. The most one thing I thought was really interesting
that that we both can across was this idea of
the mandala theory, which I think is super cool. He
Catilia lays out the idea of the universe as being
(14:13):
a mandala, a series of concentric circles with your particular
kingdom or culture in the middle, and then the concentric
circle outside of that is your enemy, and the concentric
circle outside of that is your enemy's enemy and therefore
your friend, and so on. And it's just an interesting
way of kind of like figuring out alignments, and I
(14:34):
thought it was a really cool kind of visual device.
He actually has twelve levels of these concentric circles and
gives specific advice on how to deal with them according
to which part of the mandala you find yourself in, right.
Speaker 1 (14:51):
Yeah, this author, this group of authors, is all about
list depending on the position of a state, These concentric
circles of this mandala that Noel just laid out here
very well put my day. Add the author recommends different
types of foreign policy. Do you pursue peace? Do you
(15:12):
pursue war? Do you pursue neutrality? Do you prepare for
war in a public way that signals it to your enemies?
Do you seek protection from another state? Or this is
the this is the weirdest one, and they write so
openly about this. Do you practice duplicity? Do you pursue
peace and war at the same time with the same kingdom?
Speaker 3 (15:34):
Is that sort of a double agent kind of scenario
or are you sort of playing both sides? Yeah?
Speaker 1 (15:38):
I totally could maybe have some rumors or leaks spread
that you're preparing for war or something while you offer
peace treaty. I mean, that's complex state craft. I wonder
what would happen kind of a false flag scenario. Huh,
there we go, Yeah, there we go. And we might
be making this sound like a super villain textbook, But
(16:01):
what's fascinating about it is it proves a longstanding argument
or tenant or position in international affairs, which is that
state actors behave rationally and states do not have friends,
they have interest. So whatever neck of the global woods
you live in, when what are your politicians is telling
(16:23):
you that there is a friendship between your country and
another country, what that really means is they're cooperating because
their interest aligned, you know what I mean.
Speaker 3 (16:36):
Yeah, it's true. And that's why it kind of becomes
interesting when you start applying this idea of Machiavelianism to
like an individual rather than a state actor. You know, because,
as it turns out, it's not necessarily the people that
behave in these ways. Isn't because necessarily they've read the
Prince or they've read the Arthur Shastra. It turns out,
psychologically certain people are just predisposed to being manipulative. And
(17:01):
in the nineteen seventies, a psychologist by the name of
Richard Christy, along with his research partner Florence Geiss, developed
a test of Machiavelianism called the wait for it, the
mock four.
Speaker 1 (17:16):
I love that name, and I'm so glad that you
introduced this test to me as well as to Casey
and you had the proposal that we all take a
version of the mock four test, which is available online.
Speaker 3 (17:29):
I did, and we have.
Speaker 1 (17:32):
Not shared our scores with each other. Right, we don't
know caseys, he doesn't know ours. We're all we're all
kind of in the dark, right.
Speaker 3 (17:41):
And folks, if you want to take this along with us,
you can go to openpsychometrics dot org slash tests slash
m acch dash i V. Those are caps the mock
four part, so m ah dash Roman numeral four.
Speaker 1 (17:54):
So there there are some interesting things about this test.
And I'm wondering, you know, yeah, I want your take.
Do you think we should just tell each other our
scores and then talk about the test a little or
do you think we should talk about the test and
then tell each other our scores.
Speaker 3 (18:09):
Let's talk about the test a little bit. Let's set
up what the you know, Let's just give a little
introduction to the test. Okay, sure.
Speaker 1 (18:15):
So this is a series of what's it around twenty questions?
Speaker 3 (18:20):
Y's right? I think it was twenty on the nose.
Speaker 1 (18:22):
It's twenty questions on the nos You have five possibilities.
These are all questions that ask whether you agree or
disagree to a statement, or if you remain neutral, and
to what degree you disagree or agree.
Speaker 3 (18:36):
Right that being disagree, slightly disagree, neutral, slightly agree, or agree.
And again. This test was developed by Richard Christy and
Florence L. Geiss, and it was released in the seventies.
They began their research on it in the sixties, and
they compiled a list of statements from Machavelli's various writings,
and they put them to you and ask you to
(18:57):
weigh in on whether you which level of agreement or
disagreement you have about that idea.
Speaker 1 (19:04):
And these will have just to give you a taste
of the statements you'll be reacting to. These are statements
such as, never tell anyone the real reason you did
something unless it is useful to do so. That's not
so shady, and it's also kind of vague.
Speaker 3 (19:18):
Yeah, or one should take action only when it is
morally right. The best way to handle people is to
tell them what they want to hear, or things like
it's hard to get ahead without cutting corners here and there.
Speaker 1 (19:31):
And there are also questions that don't come from the
book to or statements rather sure like you know it
is possible to be good in all respects.
Speaker 3 (19:39):
Would you kill a puppy in cold blood? Would you
kill a puppy and warm milk? Whatever, whatever, whatever your
flavor is. So there are also some gut checks from
the scientists where they say, are you responding honestly to
this quiz? And of course it's an honor system. I
didn't get that one. You didn't get that one.
Speaker 1 (19:59):
Oh wait, because there's the option after you complete the
quiz to answer additional questions.
Speaker 3 (20:04):
Ah, I didn't do that. I never never, I never
go the extra mile with these kinds of things. It's
like when I do tech support and they say, would
you fill out a short survey after you complete your
tech support request? I always decline every single time.
Speaker 1 (20:17):
I'll usually decline the survey, But if I've had to
be on the phone with a living human being, then
I always love to ask them if they get any
sort of kudos for customer compliments, and unless they do
an absolutely terrible job, I'll have them transfer you over
to their manager. I'll just say this person is great.
They should get a raise.
Speaker 3 (20:36):
They're awesome. Oh, Ben, you are a much better person
than me, And I think that will prove out in
the scores of the Mack four test. Are you prepared? Oh,
I'm prepared. Should we say it at the same time?
Speaker 1 (20:47):
No?
Speaker 3 (20:48):
Okay you first, I was eighty four percent. Machiavellian, I
thought you'd be pretty high. No offense, I was seventy four. Wow, Ben,
you must really think I'm a monster.
Speaker 1 (20:59):
Well again, for this whole episode, I'm the one who's
saying we shouldn't be so quick to judge that's true
or call anybody a monster.
Speaker 3 (21:07):
Now. To be fair, I answered slightly disagree quite a lot.
I felt like it punished me a little unfairly because
some of these questions were kind of broad and they
didn't really have a hard yes or no answer, like
you know, no, I would not kill a puppy. But also,
I don't really think that everyone is inherently good. Not
only that makes me a bad person, I don't think
(21:28):
everyone else is kind of a bad person.
Speaker 1 (21:30):
Sure, and there's another Okay, So there are two interesting
things about this test that we should definitely point out. First,
your results will probably change as if you take this
multiple times, and those changes will likely depend upon your mood.
So if you are feeling super warm and fuzzy and
(21:51):
something really nice has just happened to you, Then you're
going to be more likely to say that you think
all people have some sort of goodness in them.
Speaker 3 (22:01):
Right, This is true. This is true. That's a very
good point. And we have kind of missed the most
important detail of all to prove whether or not our
super producer Casey is as much of a monster as
I accused him of being at the top of the show.
Speaker 1 (22:14):
That is true, super Producer, Casey, pegram moment has arrived,
and we are very very curious to hear your results, sir.
Speaker 4 (22:23):
All right, Well, I'm actually currently finishing up the last
few questions on that extended questionnaire, so I opted in
as well as you Ben. That might give you a
little bit of an indicator which direction we're heading in here.
Speaker 3 (22:34):
Do you feel good about your choice though, Casey, I.
Speaker 4 (22:37):
Was in a very mellow mood just now when I
took this, so I'm probably gonna be more more of
the live and let live hippie variety today.
Speaker 1 (22:45):
And those additional questions to paint the scene for everybody.
Those additional questions are things that will help the researchers
so they don't necessarily deal with Machiavelli and stuff. They're
more like demographic questions. Do you know the deafnis to
these works?
Speaker 3 (23:01):
Those don't affect your score though, No, You're just your
score ends before the extra questions. And I just want
to point out that hippies can be manipulative too, Casey,
have you heard of the Manson family?
Speaker 1 (23:10):
Well, the extended questions are just to give a helping
hand to those researchers furthering their work.
Speaker 3 (23:16):
I'm getting really worked up about this, you guys, Casey.
Speaker 4 (23:18):
I must know your score, all right, I've just found
out seconds ago when I clicked continue.
Speaker 3 (23:23):
Can you put could you put a drum roll? In?
Speaker 4 (23:25):
Absolutely all right? And my score is fifty sixese.
Speaker 3 (23:34):
Man, Casey's the best one. He's the best one.
Speaker 4 (23:38):
I'm I'm on the low end of the curve. Actually,
I'm like on the slope going up to the middle.
Speaker 3 (23:42):
I'm on the fat part. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (23:44):
The curve shows us that on aggregate, the largest amount
is going to be just under seventy.
Speaker 3 (23:51):
It looks like, but don't I score points for feeling
guilty that I scored so high?
Speaker 1 (23:56):
But do you really feel guilty or is it part
of the part of the show. Because I could see
how Machiavelli or Catilia might argue that it's smart to
signal that. But I also don't think you should feel bad.
Speaker 3 (24:09):
I don't even know anymore.
Speaker 1 (24:11):
So well, so we pointed out that the test will
probably change depending on your mood.
Speaker 3 (24:16):
Casey said he was an m mellow mood crap test.
Speaker 1 (24:19):
And additionally, if somebody is truly Machiavellian, Casey, then it's
not hard to engineer a low score on this test.
Speaker 4 (24:32):
Casey, Oh, I like that absolutely well. I was kind
of you know, I might have been leaning that way
a little bit. So to be continued, the proof.
Speaker 3 (24:40):
Would be in the putting of your actions, sir.
Speaker 1 (24:45):
I did not mean that laugh to come out so sinister.
Speaker 3 (24:47):
See, none of us knows anymore who we are. We're
all doubting and questioning ourselves because if this blasted internet test.
Speaker 1 (24:53):
Because we are old friends, I will make a confession
to you, guys. I looked up the average beforehand and
aimed for that.
Speaker 3 (25:01):
Wow, and I still got a little bit higher, you
son of a son in law. Yes, is so?
Speaker 1 (25:07):
And so indeed, it just goes to show that these
questions that we're still asking today as individuals, as businesses,
as organizations, as governments still were relevant thousands and thousands
of years ago and will likely be just as relevant
(25:28):
thousands and thousands of years from now.
Speaker 3 (25:30):
Yeah, and it turns out, no surprise, the Arthur Shastra
has played a big role in the political identity and
culture of India. It is considered a classic of diplomacy
and there are quite a few universities and some diplomatic
offices that have been named after the likely author Cotilia
(25:52):
to celebrate this work.
Speaker 1 (25:54):
Right, this is a profoundly important book and if you
if you haven't heard of it before this episode, and
you happen to enjoy The Prince, we highly recommend you
check this out again. It's free online. You can get
a paperback copy pretty easily via Amazon or your favorite
used bookstore.
Speaker 3 (26:15):
And speaking of The Prince, I just wanted to acknowledge
that we are podcasting today the inaugural recording in our
new studios at how Stuff Works HQ. You can picture
kind of a giant shipping container in a room and
Ben and I are inside of that at this lovely
mahogany wood table with our new fancy microphones, and we
(26:39):
have our own little headphone boxes and I'm sorry, I'm
nerding out about it. I kind of set it up
and it's the kind of stuff that excites me. But
it's great. And Casey's out there on the outside through
the window and he's got his own mic and got
a cool Ikia China ball hanging from the ceiling, and
I don't know. Well, the reason I said the Prince
is because I think we're going to call this studio prince.
Speaker 1 (26:58):
Right, We've arrived, We're moving on up. This is this
is a big step for us, and we've got to
send some pictures out. This is the first studio I
think we can all agree that we would just hang
out in for funzies.
Speaker 3 (27:12):
It's right, it's very very comfy. And you know, we'll
hop on the social media train soon and post some pictures.
I know we have a Facebook group, now, don't we
think the ridiculous historians? Right, Yes, that is correct.
Speaker 1 (27:23):
If you are inclined to Facebook, love things both historical
and ridiculous, join us. You can see some stuff that
may or may not have made it to the air,
get a peek behind the scenes, and also hear from
some of our peer podcast and.
Speaker 3 (27:39):
It's a fun place to share articles and maybe we
can delve into for future episodes of the show. And
if anyone feels inclined to be a moderator, if you're
into that kind of thing, shoot us an email and
we'll talk about it.
Speaker 1 (27:50):
And while you're on the internet, regardless of your results
on the mock four quiz, feel free to drop by
iTunes or your platform choice and leave us a review.
Let us know how we're doing.
Speaker 3 (28:04):
It's okay if it's just to manipulate us into liking you.
As long as it's positive, it will totally work. Absolutely,
I can guarantee that.
Speaker 1 (28:11):
So this will conclude today's episode, but not our show.
Joined us next time as we cover the killer marketing
campaign behind Guy fowkx V for Vendetta. I just said
the name of the movie. I don't know why, I
just said that. I like the film though, Yeah, the
comic is better. Yeah, the graphic novel is a fantastic greed.
As a matter of fact, you know, I don't want
(28:33):
us to be the people who are always saying the
book is better than the movie, but in this case,
I think it's true.
Speaker 3 (28:39):
Now what the episode is about, but we will dig
into that fabled British figure and his bungled plot. So
join us in the meantime.
Speaker 1 (28:50):
You can find us on Twitter, you can find us
on Instagram, you can find us on our Facebook page,
or you can write us a good old fashioned email
with your reaction to the story of the Arthur Shastra.
Have you read both this work and The Prince? If so,
how would you rank them? How do you think they
compare or contrast? Let us know you can write to
(29:11):
us directly. We're ridiculous at HowStuffWorks dot com.
Speaker 3 (29:14):
So as always, thanks to our slightly less suffering and
totally not evil unless you know he is, super producer
Casey Pegram. Thanks to Alex Williams, who composed our theme.
Speaker 1 (29:25):
Also thanks to our regular contributor Laurie el Dove, the
author of Ridiculous History Ancient India beat Machiavelli to the
punch by one eight hundred years, And of course, most importantly,
thanks to you for checking out the show.
Speaker 3 (29:42):
We can't wait to hear about your score. For more
podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or
wherever you listen to your favorite shows.
Folks, if you were a fan of weird literature, you
have probably heard of machiavelli Is famous book The Prince,
which was either satire or a straight faced guy to
political manipulation to get the stuff you want.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
Wasn't there also that posthumous TUPAC record that was called Machiavelli.
Speaker 1 (00:20):
Well, posthumous that that goes to stuff they don't want
you to know.
Speaker 3 (00:25):
An island. Oh, yes, you're right, You're absolutely right. He's
also into Assassin's screen games too, and Brotherhood. He's very important,
and especially in Brotherhood. He was a wily kind of thinker,
wasn't he. I mean he was, I guess a very
practical philosopher of sorts, you know, almost like a sun
(00:46):
Zu type figure, you know. I mean he really had
a viewpoint that he was able to funnel into some
pretty actionable behavior.
Speaker 2 (00:56):
Is that people could consider kind of ruthless and a
bit cruel and you know, but ultimately self serving. Playing
the game, the climbing of the ladder, all of that stuff,
little finger type shit.
Speaker 1 (01:10):
Yeah, chaos as a ladder. And it turns out, as
we'll see in this weekend's classic episode, that Machiavelli himself,
even though his name now functions as a term of
manipulative behavior, Machiavelli himself was not the first proponent of
cold hearted stake craft. The actual, like the actual origin
(01:31):
of this which we discovered in this episode, goes back
to ancient India, and a book with unclear authors seems
to have preceded the ideas of Machiavelli by almost two
thousand years.
Speaker 3 (01:46):
Jeez leis that's a lot of years. Well, let's hear
all about it.
Speaker 1 (01:53):
Ridiculous History is a production of iHeartRadio. In the world
(02:21):
of business, self improvement and management courses, there are several
books that you will continually encounter, things like you know,
The Art of War by Sun Zoo or perhaps Justice
Famously the Prince by Nicolo Machiavelli. My name is.
Speaker 3 (02:39):
Ben, My name is Nolan Ben. Your Machiavellian accent was
on point.
Speaker 1 (02:45):
Thank you very much, Noel, thank you so much. When
you and I have done Italian accents in the past,
we have endeavored not to go too far into a
cartoon land. So it's it's been a day by day
thing for both of us.
Speaker 3 (03:00):
Or maybe I was just trying to employ flattery to
get you to do what I want?
Speaker 1 (03:06):
How machiavellian? Indeed, And how could we mention Machiavelli and
the Prince without, of course mentioning our own mentor in
the lawful evil alignment super producer Casey Pegram.
Speaker 3 (03:22):
But he seems so nice. Listen that, such a delightful sound.
How can he be such a monster? Well? What is
what is a monster? Really? That depends on perspective? What
is a person?
Speaker 1 (03:35):
Right?
Speaker 3 (03:35):
What is a question?
Speaker 1 (03:38):
We could go we could go down this rabbit hole,
but instead let's talk about Machiavelli just a little bit. This,
this author of The Prince, has become in many ways
synonymous with unethical dealing, right, wherein all actions are rated
as good if they benefit the person committing those actions.
Speaker 3 (04:02):
Double dealing, treachery, schemery, deceit indeed.
Speaker 1 (04:08):
So you'll find things like this The Prince is published
in fifteen thirty two, and you'll find quotes in there
such as a prince never lacks good reasons to break
his promises?
Speaker 3 (04:21):
What a doche?
Speaker 1 (04:23):
I don't know. I don't know if we should be
so quick to judge. I'm on the fence about it,
because you can see the utility of the book. I
had to read it in grad school.
Speaker 3 (04:35):
Actually, I'm sure you studied international affairs, and this is
something that would certainly come into play with things like diplomacy.
I mean, a little healthy subterfuge can go a long way,
or a little bit of a healthy flattery could maybe
get someone to do exactly what you want without having
to strong arm them, make it seem like it was
their idea, to sort of incept them, as it were.
Speaker 1 (04:57):
And you and I, in the horse of preparing for
this episode, discovered that maybe the Prince is not as
original as we once thought it was.
Speaker 3 (05:09):
Ah, yes, you've arrived the topic of today's episode. Let's
see if I can get this pronunciation right. It's a
little book, a little known book, and I don't know,
I mean generally little known, certainly known to some called
the Arthur Shastra. Well done, nol, Did I get it?
Speaker 1 (05:26):
I think you did. I think you did. The Arthur Shastra.
What's this book about?
Speaker 3 (05:30):
Well, this book was actually very recently discovered in only
think the early nineteen hundreds. It had been transcribed from
an original copy onto I want to say a palm
leaf for a series of palm leaves, isn't that right,
Ben In this book, The Artha Shastra was most likely
written by a group of authors, but is typically credited
(05:53):
to a man named Katilia, who served as an advisor
to Chandragupta, who was the ruler of the Iron Age
civilization of the Marian Empire, which was a vast section
of northern India, and it was actually one of the
earliest ruling societies in the continent of India.
Speaker 1 (06:17):
Yes, and Cotulia, we believe now was the pen name
for a minister named Chanakya. But as as No points out,
this probably wasn't just one person writing. The text itself
is divided into fifteen books that function as a primer
(06:39):
for kings.
Speaker 3 (06:40):
Right.
Speaker 1 (06:41):
It covers a military subject's political, economic subjects. The name
Arthur Shastra, the concept translates to like means of life
or worldly success. Pro tip if you run it through
your Google Translate, it will tell you the translation is economics.
Speaker 3 (07:00):
Also seen it written as science of Politics or the
science of political economy. Those are also pretty commonly accepted translations.
But the reason that this gets lumped in with Machiavelli,
who is much more well known comparatively, is that it
also dealt with a lot of that kind of shady
subterfugei manipulative techniques that Machiavelli dealt with in writings like
(07:26):
The Prince, And in addition to things like how to
set up a ring of spies and manage your secret agents,
it gives suggestions like a king should fake divine miracles
in order to impart a sense of almost godlike power
to his subjects.
Speaker 1 (07:45):
Not just credibility. But they get into the brass tax
of it, and they say, you should go to state
temples fake a miracle so you'll increase your revenue from pilgrimages,
so people will get taxed to go see that part
where you know you made a statue cry milk or something.
And this is fascinating because the book itself predates the
(08:06):
prints by about one eight hundred years or so. And
I believe that the copy we found in the early
nineteen hundreds, we being human civilization, not just Casey and
Nolan myself, this was a copy of a copy right
it had already existed in some other form. So we
(08:27):
know that this book was valuable enough to be transcribed.
And it's a really unsentimental read. You can find free
translations of it online. You can download the PDF and
check it out firsthand. But in this in the Arthur Shastra,
Catilia openly writes about stuff like assassinations, when you should
(08:50):
kill your family members, and as Noel said, how to
manage secret agents. Also, when is it useful to violate
a treaty?
Speaker 3 (08:57):
Yeah, anytime it suits you, right right.
Speaker 1 (09:01):
This this draws comparisons, of course to the Prince, because
it is seen as intensely a moral right, lacking morals,
and it makes me think of you're familiar with D
and D right, dungeons and dragons. So there's this concept
of alignments that go either from good to evil or
(09:22):
lawful to chaotic, and this counts as lawful evil, which also,
you know, I think is the alignment of the quistor.
Speaker 3 (09:30):
Oh yeah, for sure. Who also is in real life,
actual facts a dungeon master? Easy, I could see it.
I mean, he has a dungeon, is the master of it.
That's where he dwells.
Speaker 1 (09:41):
Oh man, he might be, and he might be in
the studio now, and we don't know. He is such
a creature, but he will he will eventually return. If
this is your first time tuning in and you're thinking
Ben Nole, super producer, Casey, who is this squister you
talk about? Just stick a stick around in one episode
or another.
Speaker 3 (09:58):
It'll be time. Gosh.
Speaker 1 (10:00):
I feel like maybe we're I know, we're sort of
whistling in a graveyard here, but maybe by talking about it,
he won't show up this episode.
Speaker 3 (10:10):
Anyway. Back to Cortilia, there are actually quite a few
pretty serious differences between his writings and Machavelly. Right.
Speaker 1 (10:18):
Yeah, this is something that you and I were chopping
it up about, and you brought up a point that
I feel it feels pretty observant and I would agree with,
which is that you see this as more of a
I don't know, would you say, a slightly better moral
character to this work.
Speaker 3 (10:35):
It does feel that way. It certainly doesn't seem to
lean quite as heavily on that deceitful manipulation that Machavelly
was so fond of. See.
Speaker 1 (10:44):
I think that's a valid point. It's strange because people
still seem somewhat divided on this. You know, there are
some people who will prefer one over the other, or
feel like one is maybe less unethical. I feel like
I can't say more ethical less unethical. It's actually a
favorite book of Henry Kissinger. In his work World Order,
(11:09):
he refers to this ancient Indian treatise as something that
lays out the requirements of power and the dominant reality
in politics.
Speaker 3 (11:18):
Yeah, and you were mentioning to me off air that
this kind of combines the ideas behind Confucianism and legalism
into sort of this hybrid, very functional philosophy of governing.
It even goes so far as to set up kind
of a schedule for a ruler that I'm gonna I'm
(11:39):
gonna give you a snippet of. I think this is great.
So in your first ninety minutes of the day at sunrise,
you the ruler should go through the various reports and
documents and you know, write checks and sign papers and
the like, what have you. Then the second ninety minutes
is when you should sort of hold court and allow
people to present their grievances to you, you know, public audiences,
(12:02):
let's call it. Then in the third ninety minutes, have
a little breakfast and you know, maybe take some personal time,
do some sit ups, some pull ups, I know you're
fond of doing that. Then have a little bath, little spa,
you know, read a book whatever. Then we're into the
fourth ninety minutes, when you get to meet with all
of your cabinet and your ministers and the like. Then
the fifth ninety minutes is when you should write your letters.
(12:25):
And then the last ninety minutes is when you take
a lunch. Apparently, yes, that's a late lunch.
Speaker 1 (12:31):
It's a late lunch. And also it's a pretty demanding schedule.
We found that this bakes in about what five hours
of sleep.
Speaker 3 (12:39):
Thinking roughly four and a half over the last than five. Yeah,
so you really have to burn the candle at both
ends to be a good leader as far as Cotilia
was concerned.
Speaker 1 (12:52):
And this was enormously influential in ancient and classical India,
but as a result of invasions and conquests, it disappeared
from widespread usage sometime in the twelfth or thirteenth century.
So that's you know, that's the long and short of
how we lost it, which is a shame because you
(13:13):
have to wonder, you know, in the intervening centuries, how
knowledge of this text may have changed things, especially you know,
in the centuries before the publication had spread of the Prince. Again,
these books are related, but thereby no means exactly the same.
It's just this is the earlier record espousing this brutal
(13:36):
realism that most people associate with Machiavelli.
Speaker 3 (13:39):
So it's much more an example of parallel thinking than
it is somebody ripping off somebody else.
Speaker 1 (13:44):
Right, Yeah, but how Machiavelli would it have been had
Michiavelli discovered this book and just not told anyone.
Speaker 3 (13:51):
Oh. The most one thing I thought was really interesting
that that we both can across was this idea of
the mandala theory, which I think is super cool. He
Catilia lays out the idea of the universe as being
(14:13):
a mandala, a series of concentric circles with your particular
kingdom or culture in the middle, and then the concentric
circle outside of that is your enemy, and the concentric
circle outside of that is your enemy's enemy and therefore
your friend, and so on. And it's just an interesting
way of kind of like figuring out alignments, and I
(14:34):
thought it was a really cool kind of visual device.
He actually has twelve levels of these concentric circles and
gives specific advice on how to deal with them according
to which part of the mandala you find yourself in, right.
Speaker 1 (14:51):
Yeah, this author, this group of authors, is all about
list depending on the position of a state, These concentric
circles of this mandala that Noel just laid out here
very well put my day. Add the author recommends different
types of foreign policy. Do you pursue peace? Do you
(15:12):
pursue war? Do you pursue neutrality? Do you prepare for
war in a public way that signals it to your enemies?
Do you seek protection from another state? Or this is
the this is the weirdest one, and they write so
openly about this. Do you practice duplicity? Do you pursue
peace and war at the same time with the same kingdom?
Speaker 3 (15:34):
Is that sort of a double agent kind of scenario
or are you sort of playing both sides? Yeah?
Speaker 1 (15:38):
I totally could maybe have some rumors or leaks spread
that you're preparing for war or something while you offer
peace treaty. I mean, that's complex state craft. I wonder
what would happen kind of a false flag scenario. Huh,
there we go, Yeah, there we go. And we might
be making this sound like a super villain textbook, But
(16:01):
what's fascinating about it is it proves a longstanding argument
or tenant or position in international affairs, which is that
state actors behave rationally and states do not have friends,
they have interest. So whatever neck of the global woods
you live in, when what are your politicians is telling
(16:23):
you that there is a friendship between your country and
another country, what that really means is they're cooperating because
their interest aligned, you know what I mean.
Speaker 3 (16:36):
Yeah, it's true. And that's why it kind of becomes
interesting when you start applying this idea of Machiavelianism to
like an individual rather than a state actor. You know, because,
as it turns out, it's not necessarily the people that
behave in these ways. Isn't because necessarily they've read the
Prince or they've read the Arthur Shastra. It turns out,
psychologically certain people are just predisposed to being manipulative. And
(17:01):
in the nineteen seventies, a psychologist by the name of
Richard Christy, along with his research partner Florence Geiss, developed
a test of Machiavelianism called the wait for it, the
mock four.
Speaker 1 (17:16):
I love that name, and I'm so glad that you
introduced this test to me as well as to Casey
and you had the proposal that we all take a
version of the mock four test, which is available online.
Speaker 3 (17:29):
I did, and we have.
Speaker 1 (17:32):
Not shared our scores with each other. Right, we don't
know caseys, he doesn't know ours. We're all we're all
kind of in the dark, right.
Speaker 3 (17:41):
And folks, if you want to take this along with us,
you can go to openpsychometrics dot org slash tests slash
m acch dash i V. Those are caps the mock
four part, so m ah dash Roman numeral four.
Speaker 1 (17:54):
So there there are some interesting things about this test.
And I'm wondering, you know, yeah, I want your take.
Do you think we should just tell each other our
scores and then talk about the test a little or
do you think we should talk about the test and
then tell each other our scores.
Speaker 3 (18:09):
Let's talk about the test a little bit. Let's set
up what the you know, Let's just give a little
introduction to the test. Okay, sure.
Speaker 1 (18:15):
So this is a series of what's it around twenty questions?
Speaker 3 (18:20):
Y's right? I think it was twenty on the nose.
Speaker 1 (18:22):
It's twenty questions on the nos You have five possibilities.
These are all questions that ask whether you agree or
disagree to a statement, or if you remain neutral, and
to what degree you disagree or agree.
Speaker 3 (18:36):
Right that being disagree, slightly disagree, neutral, slightly agree, or agree.
And again. This test was developed by Richard Christy and
Florence L. Geiss, and it was released in the seventies.
They began their research on it in the sixties, and
they compiled a list of statements from Machavelli's various writings,
and they put them to you and ask you to
(18:57):
weigh in on whether you which level of agreement or
disagreement you have about that idea.
Speaker 1 (19:04):
And these will have just to give you a taste
of the statements you'll be reacting to. These are statements
such as, never tell anyone the real reason you did
something unless it is useful to do so. That's not
so shady, and it's also kind of vague.
Speaker 3 (19:18):
Yeah, or one should take action only when it is
morally right. The best way to handle people is to
tell them what they want to hear, or things like
it's hard to get ahead without cutting corners here and there.
Speaker 1 (19:31):
And there are also questions that don't come from the
book to or statements rather sure like you know it
is possible to be good in all respects.
Speaker 3 (19:39):
Would you kill a puppy in cold blood? Would you
kill a puppy and warm milk? Whatever, whatever, whatever your
flavor is. So there are also some gut checks from
the scientists where they say, are you responding honestly to
this quiz? And of course it's an honor system. I
didn't get that one. You didn't get that one.
Speaker 1 (19:59):
Oh wait, because there's the option after you complete the
quiz to answer additional questions.
Speaker 3 (20:04):
Ah, I didn't do that. I never never, I never
go the extra mile with these kinds of things. It's
like when I do tech support and they say, would
you fill out a short survey after you complete your
tech support request? I always decline every single time.
Speaker 1 (20:17):
I'll usually decline the survey, But if I've had to
be on the phone with a living human being, then
I always love to ask them if they get any
sort of kudos for customer compliments, and unless they do
an absolutely terrible job, I'll have them transfer you over
to their manager. I'll just say this person is great.
They should get a raise.
Speaker 3 (20:36):
They're awesome. Oh, Ben, you are a much better person
than me, And I think that will prove out in
the scores of the Mack four test. Are you prepared? Oh,
I'm prepared. Should we say it at the same time?
Speaker 1 (20:47):
No?
Speaker 3 (20:48):
Okay you first, I was eighty four percent. Machiavellian, I
thought you'd be pretty high. No offense, I was seventy four. Wow, Ben,
you must really think I'm a monster.
Speaker 1 (20:59):
Well again, for this whole episode, I'm the one who's
saying we shouldn't be so quick to judge that's true
or call anybody a monster.
Speaker 3 (21:07):
Now. To be fair, I answered slightly disagree quite a lot.
I felt like it punished me a little unfairly because
some of these questions were kind of broad and they
didn't really have a hard yes or no answer, like
you know, no, I would not kill a puppy. But also,
I don't really think that everyone is inherently good. Not
only that makes me a bad person, I don't think
(21:28):
everyone else is kind of a bad person.
Speaker 1 (21:30):
Sure, and there's another Okay, So there are two interesting
things about this test that we should definitely point out. First,
your results will probably change as if you take this
multiple times, and those changes will likely depend upon your mood.
So if you are feeling super warm and fuzzy and
(21:51):
something really nice has just happened to you, Then you're
going to be more likely to say that you think
all people have some sort of goodness in them.
Speaker 3 (22:01):
Right, This is true. This is true. That's a very
good point. And we have kind of missed the most
important detail of all to prove whether or not our
super producer Casey is as much of a monster as
I accused him of being at the top of the show.
Speaker 1 (22:14):
That is true, super Producer, Casey, pegram moment has arrived,
and we are very very curious to hear your results, sir.
Speaker 4 (22:23):
All right, Well, I'm actually currently finishing up the last
few questions on that extended questionnaire, so I opted in
as well as you Ben. That might give you a
little bit of an indicator which direction we're heading in here.
Speaker 3 (22:34):
Do you feel good about your choice though, Casey, I.
Speaker 4 (22:37):
Was in a very mellow mood just now when I
took this, so I'm probably gonna be more more of
the live and let live hippie variety today.
Speaker 1 (22:45):
And those additional questions to paint the scene for everybody.
Those additional questions are things that will help the researchers
so they don't necessarily deal with Machiavelli and stuff. They're
more like demographic questions. Do you know the deafnis to
these works?
Speaker 3 (23:01):
Those don't affect your score though, No, You're just your
score ends before the extra questions. And I just want
to point out that hippies can be manipulative too, Casey,
have you heard of the Manson family?
Speaker 1 (23:10):
Well, the extended questions are just to give a helping
hand to those researchers furthering their work.
Speaker 3 (23:16):
I'm getting really worked up about this, you guys, Casey.
Speaker 4 (23:18):
I must know your score, all right, I've just found
out seconds ago when I clicked continue.
Speaker 3 (23:23):
Can you put could you put a drum roll? In?
Speaker 4 (23:25):
Absolutely all right? And my score is fifty sixese.
Speaker 3 (23:34):
Man, Casey's the best one. He's the best one.
Speaker 4 (23:38):
I'm I'm on the low end of the curve. Actually,
I'm like on the slope going up to the middle.
Speaker 3 (23:42):
I'm on the fat part. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (23:44):
The curve shows us that on aggregate, the largest amount
is going to be just under seventy.
Speaker 3 (23:51):
It looks like, but don't I score points for feeling
guilty that I scored so high?
Speaker 1 (23:56):
But do you really feel guilty or is it part
of the part of the show. Because I could see
how Machiavelli or Catilia might argue that it's smart to
signal that. But I also don't think you should feel bad.
Speaker 3 (24:09):
I don't even know anymore.
Speaker 1 (24:11):
So well, so we pointed out that the test will
probably change depending on your mood.
Speaker 3 (24:16):
Casey said he was an m mellow mood crap test.
Speaker 1 (24:19):
And additionally, if somebody is truly Machiavellian, Casey, then it's
not hard to engineer a low score on this test.
Speaker 4 (24:32):
Casey, Oh, I like that absolutely well. I was kind
of you know, I might have been leaning that way
a little bit. So to be continued, the proof.
Speaker 3 (24:40):
Would be in the putting of your actions, sir.
Speaker 1 (24:45):
I did not mean that laugh to come out so sinister.
Speaker 3 (24:47):
See, none of us knows anymore who we are. We're
all doubting and questioning ourselves because if this blasted internet test.
Speaker 1 (24:53):
Because we are old friends, I will make a confession
to you, guys. I looked up the average beforehand and
aimed for that.
Speaker 3 (25:01):
Wow, and I still got a little bit higher, you
son of a son in law. Yes, is so?
Speaker 1 (25:07):
And so indeed, it just goes to show that these
questions that we're still asking today as individuals, as businesses,
as organizations, as governments still were relevant thousands and thousands
of years ago and will likely be just as relevant
(25:28):
thousands and thousands of years from now.
Speaker 3 (25:30):
Yeah, and it turns out, no surprise, the Arthur Shastra
has played a big role in the political identity and
culture of India. It is considered a classic of diplomacy
and there are quite a few universities and some diplomatic
offices that have been named after the likely author Cotilia
(25:52):
to celebrate this work.
Speaker 1 (25:54):
Right, this is a profoundly important book and if you
if you haven't heard of it before this episode, and
you happen to enjoy The Prince, we highly recommend you
check this out again. It's free online. You can get
a paperback copy pretty easily via Amazon or your favorite
used bookstore.
Speaker 3 (26:15):
And speaking of The Prince, I just wanted to acknowledge
that we are podcasting today the inaugural recording in our
new studios at how Stuff Works HQ. You can picture
kind of a giant shipping container in a room and
Ben and I are inside of that at this lovely
mahogany wood table with our new fancy microphones, and we
(26:39):
have our own little headphone boxes and I'm sorry, I'm
nerding out about it. I kind of set it up
and it's the kind of stuff that excites me. But
it's great. And Casey's out there on the outside through
the window and he's got his own mic and got
a cool Ikia China ball hanging from the ceiling, and
I don't know. Well, the reason I said the Prince
is because I think we're going to call this studio prince.
Speaker 1 (26:58):
Right, We've arrived, We're moving on up. This is this
is a big step for us, and we've got to
send some pictures out. This is the first studio I
think we can all agree that we would just hang
out in for funzies.
Speaker 3 (27:12):
It's right, it's very very comfy. And you know, we'll
hop on the social media train soon and post some pictures.
I know we have a Facebook group, now, don't we
think the ridiculous historians? Right, Yes, that is correct.
Speaker 1 (27:23):
If you are inclined to Facebook, love things both historical
and ridiculous, join us. You can see some stuff that
may or may not have made it to the air,
get a peek behind the scenes, and also hear from
some of our peer podcast and.
Speaker 3 (27:39):
It's a fun place to share articles and maybe we
can delve into for future episodes of the show. And
if anyone feels inclined to be a moderator, if you're
into that kind of thing, shoot us an email and
we'll talk about it.
Speaker 1 (27:50):
And while you're on the internet, regardless of your results
on the mock four quiz, feel free to drop by
iTunes or your platform choice and leave us a review.
Let us know how we're doing.
Speaker 3 (28:04):
It's okay if it's just to manipulate us into liking you.
As long as it's positive, it will totally work. Absolutely,
I can guarantee that.
Speaker 1 (28:11):
So this will conclude today's episode, but not our show.
Joined us next time as we cover the killer marketing
campaign behind Guy fowkx V for Vendetta. I just said
the name of the movie. I don't know why, I
just said that. I like the film though, Yeah, the
comic is better. Yeah, the graphic novel is a fantastic greed.
As a matter of fact, you know, I don't want
(28:33):
us to be the people who are always saying the
book is better than the movie, but in this case,
I think it's true.
Speaker 3 (28:39):
Now what the episode is about, but we will dig
into that fabled British figure and his bungled plot. So
join us in the meantime.
Speaker 1 (28:50):
You can find us on Twitter, you can find us
on Instagram, you can find us on our Facebook page,
or you can write us a good old fashioned email
with your reaction to the story of the Arthur Shastra.
Have you read both this work and The Prince? If so,
how would you rank them? How do you think they
compare or contrast? Let us know you can write to
(29:11):
us directly. We're ridiculous at HowStuffWorks dot com.
Speaker 3 (29:14):
So as always, thanks to our slightly less suffering and
totally not evil unless you know he is, super producer
Casey Pegram. Thanks to Alex Williams, who composed our theme.
Speaker 1 (29:25):
Also thanks to our regular contributor Laurie el Dove, the
author of Ridiculous History Ancient India beat Machiavelli to the
punch by one eight hundred years, And of course, most importantly,
thanks to you for checking out the show.
Speaker 3 (29:42):
We can't wait to hear about your score. For more
podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or
wherever you listen to your favorite shows.
Ridiculous History News
Hosts And Creators
Ben Bowlin
Noel Brown
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
40s and Free Agents: NFL Draft Season
Daniel Jeremiah of Move the Sticks and Gregg Rosenthal of NFL Daily join forces to break down every team's needs this offseason.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.