Did Niccolò Machiavelli's The Prince inspire autocracy among other "Princes"?

While the Prince is perhaps the most often read of Machiavelli's works in modern classrooms, many of his other works were actually more influential and widely read. His Discourseson Livy in particular were read by contemporaries and, most notably, by many of the Framers of the United States Constitution. These writings, far from recommending autocracy, are more geared toward republicanism, and in fact have been read by some historians of political ideas as seminal...

While the Prince is perhaps the most often read of Machiavelli's works in modern classrooms, many of his other works were actually more influential and widely read. His Discourses on Livy in particular were read by contemporaries and, most notably, by many of the Framers of the United States Constitution. These writings, far from recommending autocracy, are more geared toward republicanism, and in fact have been read by some historians of political ideas as seminal works in that political theory. In fact, the Prince is very different than most of Machiavelli's writings, and there are some who argue that Machiavelli was essentially providing some of the avaricious, amoral leaders of the Italian city-states like the Medici of Florence with a justification for their behavior in an attempt to win their favor. Also, Machiavelli had spent a great deal of time in the courts of Europe, including France and the Papal States, by the time he wrote the book, and his book was more influenced by these "princes" than it was influential among them. It is well known, for example, that the Prince basically held up the ruthless Cesare Borgia, whom Machiavelli knew, as the model leader. We do not know whether the Prince was read by the monarchs of the early modern period. But certainly many behaved as if they had read the man. Overall, though, his Discourses were more influential in Europe than the Prince.