Upvote:0
Probably "little, or not at all." Judging from the opprobrium with which his views were received at the time (and later).
Machiavelli was what we would now call a "geek" or "nerd." That is, a "calculating machine." A (mostly) rational person who is also considered socially inept because he doesn't adhere to the social conventions of the time.
From the passage cited by the OP: [A prince] "must have a mind disposed to adapt itself according to the wind, and as the variations of fortune dictate, and, as I said before, not deviate from what is good, if possible, but be able to do evil if constrained."
Machiavelli was not "Machiavellian" as we might understand the term: (devious). His "crime" was (inadvertently) challenging the "divine right" of kings and princes. For instance, he tells in detail of a shoemaker's son who "thought" his way up to becoming the tyrant of Syracuse. The idea of someone "systematically" making himself a ruler was a "no-no" for his time. This, instead, was a matter of talent and ultimately birth; it was either something you had, or didn't. It was not something to be achieved.