This book is about ways to achieve power, and is filled with historical anecdotes about the uses of the 48 laws. It is most entertaining, highly amoral, and the most requested book in American prisons (make of that what you will...). However, I find it hard to enjoy reading ever since I did some research on some of the stories of people using these laws. For example, the 3rd law is about hiding your intentions. There is then a story about how the Duke of Marlborough during the War of the Spanish Succesion in 1711 captured a citadel in northern France that blocked the road further down through Europe, with the intention of letting them take it back, hoping they would then destroy it, so he could march unoppossed down through Europe (!).The logic was, that he would confuse them by taking the fort, making them think he wanted it for some unknown purpose, let them recapture and destroy it, so the road down Europe would be easier...
This, to me, makes absolutely no sense:
How could he possibly know they would destroy the fort?
If the fort was such a huge problem when going south, then why was it so easy to capture?
Was it really necessary to have the fort destroyed, even after he had gained control of it?
Indeed when I actually did some serious research (wikipedia...), I couldn't find anything supporting this story. Marlborough did succesfully lay siege to an important French fort in 1711 (Bouchain). However, the British retreated soon after, and the fort was retaken the following year. The siege didn't have any significant impact, the French didn't subsequently destroy it, and I think it's safe to say, that Marlboroughs intentions were preeetty clear throughout the whole affair. You know, with the whole "being at war" thing...
So my question is, is this an exception, or is the level of historical accuracy this low throughout the whole book?
There are more examples of low historical accuracy.
In the same chapter (Law III) Greene fabulates that Bismarck in 1850 during the conflict about the Erfurter Union was already dreaming of a united Germany without Austria, which he hated. He writes that only the King and his ministers where against war, and that it was surprising that Bsimarck would have been against war. He even states that Bismarck "as a former soldier" viewed war as something glorious.
All of this is nonsense. Bismarck came to be annoyed (far from hating) by the Austrians only after his appointment in Frankfurt. Wide parts of the conservatives where against war, as they thought that the Erfurter Unification would lead to a fragmentation of Prussia, which Bismarck even states in the speech Greene writes about. Bismarck was a former soldier. He served his one year, as did most of Prussian bureaucrats (as a so called Einjahresfreiwilliger). He was in no way part of the military establishment, but Greene makes it sound like he would have been.
Most of the other chapters which have Bismarck examples are equally horrible, the way Greene writes makes it look like Bismarck would have always had the plan to unite Germany in a certain way and only played toward that end, which, presumably, is good for a book detailing such things as this book, but is not grounded in historic evidence.
Sources: Planze, Otto: Bismarck Bd. 1: Der Reichsgründer
and Kolb, Eberhard: Bismarck
I actually started reading this book again recently. I wouldn't take as a reference for specific historical event. He is not a historian and the book is not focused on accurate portrayal of events. He does provide a bibliography at the end so he is obviously getting his information from somewhere. Greene is just interpreting certain events to fit his narrative and overall book's theme. I think it's a fine read, entertaining and thought provoking. But it's not something to take at face value, especially motives of historical figures.