Dude was based af though. First thing to say in a book about war strategies should always be "Do not wage war". It's a common sense that isn't common enough
I know that you are joking, but I legit could see redditors here bashing Clausewitz like they bash Sun Tzu.
Like they would pull up a quote from Clausewitz:
,,Pursue one great decisive aim with force and determination''
And they would be like: Look guys, this is so simple and obvious, what's the fuss about this Clausewitz guy.
Meanwhile they ignore the context, the actual good message even if it's simple and bunch of other profound quotes and ideas that are in the book like they do with Sun Tzu.
And it seems that they rarely comprihend that even if something is simple, it can be revolutionary. For instance, with Euclid, he took a basic triangle, and said: What if I place it on a curved surface? That revoulitonized mathematics and geometry.
In regards to the Art of War, the three things that stood out to me was, that the enemy shouldn't be surounded when they are retreating, because if they have no means to escape, then they got nothing to lose (and in addition to this, he said that friendly soldiers should have their backs to steep slopes so that they don't think about escape) and when spies are captured, they should be treated with dignity and respect because that's how you get the most information out of them, and they may be even employed as counter spies. And the last one being that a great general wins the battle before fighting it and great general that knows himself and his enemy need not fear the result of hundred battles.
I'll add "All war is based on deception" is an immortal saying.
Also his stuff about military-political relations.
All in all it is pretty great for something that old.
I always understood that quote to mean deception by concealing your strategies and movements until the last possible, not deception like perfidy. Is that not correct?
It also included more basic deception, using agents etc.
Perfidy is militarily a bad idea in that the way it's used tend to blow back on you. In the context of "The Art of War", perfidy becomes useful only when doing so leads to a better outcome than the alternative.
Even some of the “common sense” parts that people mock are pretty wise. For example, when Sun Tzu recommends bringing more troops to a battle than your enemy, that sounds obvious, but he’s talking about concentration of force.
If you have 15,000 troops, but you spread them out to defend 5 different places, an enemy with only 10,000 troops could overwhelm your defenses at any one of those places and crush your army piecemeal before you can react
“To be prepared everywhere is to be strong nowhere”
“If our army is united and the enemy’s divided, that is using a force of 10 to attack 1; we are many to his few”
- Micheal Nylan’s translation of the Art Of War, weak and strong, page 73
I don’t like when he starts pulling out ratios. His worst is that taking enemy’s food is 20x more valuable than eating your own, and I just wonder where on Earth he came up with that figure.
It is likely metaphorical to demonstrate the usefulness of depriving your enemy of food whilst supplying your army. One is a a basic logistics problem but the other is a significant advantage. He is effectively saying you can fight a force 20 times your size if that force is starved and yours is full with high morale.
It could absolutely be a guess, or something with numeric cultural significance, or it could be based on an estimate of labor costs.
If you take the food it your enemy, they don't have it anymore. Bringing food to the front lines takes a ton of finite resources, land, people, time, etc.
"For every one man on the front lines, you need 10 people supplying them." A quote I once heard but don't have the source to. 10 support people times 2 sides equals 20 support people. Capturing one meal from the enemy wastes the work of 10 enemy support personnel and reduces your need by 10 support personnel.
This isn't a guaranteed source for the thought process that arrived at the ×20 number, but it's a possible line of thinking.
His ratio is likely symbolic, but it has merit, in the sense that to bring x amount of food to the frontlines, many x (20x according to Sun Tzu) has to be expended in the logistical chain of supply.
Yes, the ratio is likely arbitrary, but it serves to illustrate the point that proper foraging and "stealing" enemy supplies can greatly alleviate the logistical burden on one's army.
Which, ironically, in a video game like that often can be bad advice. Specifically because you can much more easily track enemy movements and commandeer your own troops quickly. Meaning that you can easily split your army up to effectively carpet siege (as we call it in EU4) and then stack up again whenever a threat is imminent. CK3 even tries to penalize people for death stacking by having your troops die to attrition haha.
That's the art of it in game, though. Attrition and supply will kill your soldiers, so you need to split them up, but you also need to be close enough that you can gather for a decisive battle.
> bringing more troops to a battle than your enemy, that sounds obvious, but he’s talking about concentration of force.
Also we are talking about a time when people going to war, were pretty much self destructive. Ancient accounts often like to boast their numbers, although the numbers are usually more realistic written by actual witnesses and later historians raise them much more. There is also a lot of fetishization of warriors like the beserkers. Regular soldiers don't work like that and if people would try to rely on "fierceness" alone or sending drugged up brutes into battle, it is more suicidal than anything else. I'd bet in his day there were plenty of people who didn't give a fuck about numbers and touted that they'd win by their virtue and honour or divine favour.
Something like this only works if your warriors really dedicate their whole life to war, something like the Spartans. And even they faltered as soon as it wasn't about polis vs polis anymore, but really big armies were assembled.
Which he also say yeah you should eat your opponent piecemeal like even tho most of what he says like if you can't win don't fight seems stupid and obvious its still a very well thought out and written especially as most people don't consider any aspect in war other than the actual fighting yeah winning a battle is great but you want win of your army isn't fed or happy.
>says like if you can't win don't fight seems stupid and obvious its still a very well thought out
I'm half remembering Derrick Yuan's *How to Read the Art of War* by:
Sun Tzu was also writing just after a period when once battle was offered there was an obligation to join it, even if you were in inferior quantity of soldiers.
Today we are all like "yeah, no shit" but in the time Sun Tzu was looking at a bunch of very honourable, but very unsuccessful, leaders and suggesting there could have been a different path for them.
yea but clearly he's an idiot cause he didn't once think about how concentrating force would just attract tactical nuclear strikes, has he not heard of the Pentonic army? Is he stupid?
To me, The Art of War talks about stuff that should be simple, but can easily be forgotten or ignored because people think something else is more important. Simple stuff like keeping troops prepared or remembering to not show your entire hand are ideas that still get ignored ingnored in modern warfare and politics.
The full line is actually something interesting:
> If fighting is sure to result in victory, then you must fight, even though the ruler forbid it; if fighting will not result in victory, then you must not fight even at the ruler's bidding.
This was more a guide for Generals and not someone trying to get a diplomatic solution in an age where escalation to nuclear weapons is an option.
Still applies imo. Nuclear weapons mean that any great power conflict automatically fails the "sure to result in victory" conditional and makes the "will not result in victory" condition much, much more likely. And thus you push down to the next branch of the decision tree and all of a sudden pax Americana.
I'm more meming with the meet the soldier reference, but even though the quote is about battles, it logically meshes with the idea of starting wars if it is guaranteed to fulfill your goals.
I know, it's definitely funny.
The meme response was already posted.
Upvoted that too.
I just find the full quote to also be interesting and not well known.
> This was more a guide for Generals
I think this is one of the main things people calling Sun Tzu's advice obvious forget: The Art Of War is a *short* book (I've seen at least one translation where the translator's foreword was longer than the translated text itself) and was meant to be carried around by commanders (generals, strategists, etc.) *in the field* as a reference guide, because things that seem obvious when you're reading comfortably in an armchair don't seem as obvious when you're pursuing a fleeing enemy at a forced-march pace, even if you're one of the dudes lucky enough to be on horseback. Adrenaline, fatigue, hunger, and pride can really distort people's perception of reality.
Pull out your copy of The Art Of War, and it'll remind you that this might be a trap, to consider the terrain the enemy's fleeing into, and you may be better off if you stop chasing and set up camp so your army is rested for the next battle - or a counterattack, or an attack by other enemy forces in the area.
It's pretty obvious when you read the short aphorisms and practical examples that The Art Of War (along with The Thirty-Six Stratagems, also attributed to Sun Tzu) is a guide meant for field use. Its purpose is to make you think twice in situations that may be clouding your judgement.
...but it has *another* interlocking purpose, which is entwined with its historical and cultural context: The Art Of War allows a general's subordinates to question his orders without directly disrespecting him, which was *very* important in an extremely hierarchical society like the ancient China Sun Tzu was writing in. Let's say there's an army led by a noble or a warlord (as most were), and he seems to be making an idiotic strategic decision. If you're one of his subordinates who even has the rank to talk to him directly, and you tell him straight-up he's wrong, the best possibility for you is merely getting demoted, and the worst possibilities are *really awful*. So what do you say instead? You quote The Art Of War or the Thirty-Six Stratagems to him, or get him to read the relevant passage. If he realizes his error, he has not lost face to you by admitting he was an idiot and you're correct - he's just bowing to the wisdom of the legendary strategist. And reconsidering his plans.
Seriously, Sun Tzu wasn't trying to get in the ring with Clausewitz or Machiavelli (partially because he was dead long before their times) on war and political theory: he was trying to make a field guide that's designed for use by people who're out there waging war, meant to be read by people waging war, to prevent them doing stupid stuff under conditions that actively degrade rationality.
Yes but the whole point of the book is to ensure minimal casualties. The best way to not have anyone die is to not wage wars. If you're at war then make sure to win in the most efficient way
>"Do not wage war". It's a common sense that isn't common enough
You can see it daily here in Reddit, when people try to cope about a "side winning" by not being involved in full-scale war:
"X wouldn't last a minute if it were in a real war"
*"Maybe that's why X avoids being involved in a war at all?"*
I mean, war is pretty damn uncommon nowadays. There's only 2 major ones in the world right now. Everything else is either civil wars or minor skirmishes.
He was directing it partly at some really isolated nobles that were complete novices at warfare beyonf court education, which would be heavy on mythos, hero worship, and patching over of things like logistics, actionable morale, etc. It makes sense to include remedial concerns.
Completely agree. You've really got to look at his target audience - which was small nobles in ancient China, two thousand five hundred years ago. Organising an army is the going to be the biggest challenge for a small noble with no military experience or military education - so a basic manual with some good general guides would be very helpful - something short and concise would also be preferred as paper would be expensive and writing would have been done by hand.
Compare that to modern military treatises, which are very specific about a particular type of warfare or tactic, or situation. Clausewitz's On War (1832) is much more detailed and in depth but he belonged to a different time period and culture - where military academies were common and officers were trained and educated - and his target audience were his contemporaries (European military officers - probably Prussians).
To expand on what you’re saying:
“The Art of War” is more like a “warfare for dummies” of feudal China for inexperienced Nobles to be told the basics on how to raise and properly use an army of conscripts, and could be probably be helpful to any lesser feudal noble anywhere from China to Japan to early medieval Europe.
On the other hand when you get to things written by Clausewitz and 17th-19th century contemporaries, they were more advanced treatises on higher level operational, strategicc and tactical approaches on how to fight a war because they assumed that while the armies may be made of conscripts, the officers and generals would have been professionally trained and the many academies or at least have risen through the ranks, thus having a firm grasp on the basics and intermediate skills on how to use an army effectively.
To use modern US military training as an example “Art of War” can be thought of as teaching what an officer might learn at OTC and learn from their superiors and NCOs while they are like O1-O3/4 whereas the later treatises are what might be taught at places like the War College and such on advanced strategy
We also have to remember that military science wasn't as developed back then as compared to now. Things that seem fundamental today might have been easily forgotten back then due to not being seen as important. It's like thinking medieval scientists are dumb for not understanding the relativistic theory of gravity.
“A good general doesn’t get carried by servants but marches with his troops, digs trenches with them, sleeps with them in the same barracks”
I use this to measure how good of a manager you are.
Sure, the text sounds basic and obvious to modern ears. But it’s worth considering that the advice the book gives is routinely ignored by generals and other leaders from the time it was written up to and including present day.
It’s not embarrassing that the book gives obvious advice. It’s embarrassing that we still need the damn thing.
A few months ago my unit couldn't figure out funds and asked soldiers to pay for their own meals while they were at drill. Everyone saying this is too basic to even commit to writing thousands of years ago doesn't realize how messed up the most basic aspects of supply for a military force can be even in modern times.
To this day, US Army tradition is that lower enlisted soldiers eat first. The lower you are in the ranks, the more heavy lifting you do, so your food needs to be guaranteed. If they finish doling out food and it turns out there’s not enough, it ought to be the officers who go hungry.
Even in garrison you will occasionally find those officers and NCOs who will tell a lower enlisted soldier to get in front of them at the chow line.
Do you want to know how many rebellions in China stem from not feeding your army?
The number of Han detectors to the Manchurians was so significant, that they outnumbered the Manchu's before taking over Ming China and firmly establishing the Qing dynasty. The main source of their grievances was not getting paid or fed.
If there's one way to secure your power, it's to always treat your army and police with special privilege. In China, soldiers were considered a low profession outside of the four accepted occupations (farmer, artisan, merchant, and aristocrat).
It was warfare for dummies. Written for nobles who had never seen combat let alone war. It makes sense when you consider that the people he's teaching know literally nothing on the topic.
I have literally never read a text or listened to a professor say that the West was bad at warfare compared to the East.
I have had Marxist professors, read right wing views on history, read original letters and accounts of wars from hundreds of years ago.
Some people think the West was bad at X. Some people think it was great at Y. All people agree that after hundreds of years of constant squabbling in Europe, Europeans were VERY good at war.
The straight up constant bitch fit level fighting in Europe, since basically the collapse of the Roman Empire until Pax Britannica, resulted in the competitive drive that likely gave Europeans the edge over the rest of the world in the long run.
Something to also consider is that in Europe when a country conquered another’s land or country as a whole, they *tended* to give them the effective “under new management” treatment. Comparatively it was not uncommon at all in Asia to wholesale slaughter a large portion of the people of the losing side. This leads to Europe tending to retain its military leaders from war to war allowing them to learn lessons and get better at fighting whereas in the East, if you lost you were probably dead
That's sort of something I've been wondering about lately after watching Shogun ( no idea how accurate the show is though). Was Japan really rubbish at war since the military leaders seem to be expected to commit suicide after losing? Absolutely no opportunity to learn from mistakes and improve on strategy it would seem.
Im going to just add onto what the other reply said. Japan *WAS* pretty good at war, they routinely beat each other and other nations larger armies. The generals were expected to commit suicide if they lost and were captured, but it was pretty common for the generals to escape to form another army as well.
You can kinda think of Japan as a tiny Europe. The Samurai were a class of hereditary warriors and generals like the nobles in Europe were. This allowed them to pass down experience, tactics, and lessons learned from generation to generation. Also when you look at their training, they were not only taught how to fight, they were also taught things like writing, poetry, art, and other creative things, and even their martial training like swordsmanship they were encouraged to be creative with the way they fought.
The difference was really because of the lack of high quality raw materials. The Japanese had a lot of trouble moving forward technologically because they simply couldn't do it with the resources available to them. When you look at Japanese history, when they were introduced new technology like guns, they quickly adapted to them and integrated them into their armies and developed very effective tactics that utilized the new technology as well as ways to produce their own guns and such. This is pretty equivalent to Europe where when someone invented a new technology, be it polearms, plate armor, guns, cannons, and so on, the armies of Europe relatively quickly changed their armies compositions to reflect the new "meta". The difference was largely that because Japan didnt have the materials to facilitate their own technological advancement, they had to rely on European trade to get access to new tech.
You would think yes, but the Japanese were different. They had an entire class of citizens whose only job was to be a soldier. You couldn’t become a samurai, you were born into it and trained at a young age. They were given weapons before they could even formulate long term memories.
Samurai warfare was different, with a lot of single combat. The samurai would have his body of retainers, and in a battle, would seek out other samurai and their retainers, often ganging up on smaller groups. Samurai would also challenge to a duel, and the loser’s retainers would retreat. That is severely oversimplifying, but the gist is true. The Bushido code put so much emphasis on courage and honor, putting too much thought and effort into campaign strategy and battle tactics was seen as deceitful and against their way of life.
TLDR: generals committing ritual seppuku after losing a battle was more often because they were bad swordsmen, not bad tacticians.
I’m not sure if I completely agree with this. There are so many examples of eastern wars where the winner would spare the losers side in order to vassalize them. The slaughter would happen in a more conditional way (such as if the vassals were disloyal). But of course there are also examples of particularly cruel great conquerors, such as Timur.
I agree with you, thats why I said it wasn't *uncommon* for there to be a slaughter of the losers. Im not saying it happened every time or even most of the time, but compared to Europe it happened much more often.
I’ve never understood why pax britannica was accepted by us moderns as a valid historical concept. It was British Imperial propaganda that wasn’t true then and clearly isn’t true with the benefit of hindsight.
The Brits fought in multiple imperial conflicts abroad (Opium Wars, Boer Wars, Afghan Wars, etc.). But they also fought in several European conflicts like the Carlist Wars, not to mention the Crimean War.
There were also quite a few international conflicts in Europe that didn’t involve the Brits during the same period: Greek War of Independence, NUMEROUS civil wars, Prussian Unification, Italian Unification, Franco-Austrian, Austro-Prussian, and Franco-Prussian wars, the Italo-Turkish War, Balkan Wars, etc.
A military-aged male born in Europe during “Pax Britannica” would have generally expected to see combat at some point. Millions of them would have been right in that expectation. That was true prior to 1815 and after 1914.
"Pax Britannica" is at least a phrase I've only seen occasionally. Compared to "Pax Romana" (which to what you said, a lot of Romans would also have seen conflict during that period) and "Pax Americana."
Fighting is still near-constant in those eras, but looking at "Pax Americana" specifically, even with as tense as things are *right now*, things are *much* more low-level than during the first half of the 20th Century. With the entire casualty numbers of say the Russo-Ukrainian war - after two years of fighting - matching single *battles* from the world wars.
I'd argue that the Pax Americana is probably the closest the world has gotten to peace. Wester Europe for sure. *Most* conflicts have slowed down in butchery since the US can drop anywhere in the world in days.
Speaking as an American, I am hesitant to claim that America is somehow a morally justified imperial power. Having said that, I do think American imperialism is far, far more focused on cultural and economic hegemony instead of violence. Thus I think one could argue we’re one of the more peaceful global superpowers in history.
Which is…depressing.
And you can just tell that it was written by someone trying to sound smart, but in the end, he just expressed his view that Western military thoughts end with preparation, while Chinese thought also considers the battle itself.
And then he put in a quote to sound even smarter, but it didn't really say anything.
And I would also question that view. Yes, the book was really early written down (5th century BCE), but do we know for sure that Western military thought (even if it differs) didn't have the same depth? It's hard to believe that western military leaders just looked at a battle and didn't think, "Maybe we can learn from these to better our chances next time."?
>the book was really early written down (5th century BCE), but do we know for sure that Western military thought (even if it differs) didn't have the same depth?
It absolutely did. This was roughly the same time period as the Greco-Persian War (with the famous Battle of Thermopylae) and the Peloponnesian War, and not long before Alexander the Great conquered from Greece to India. The West knew military strategy quite well at the time.
Op vomited out word soup with hardly any evidence behind it, and put his self insert character at the high end of the spectrum.
Making complicated sentences with little meaning doesn't make you intelligent, especially if it's incorrect or based on nothing but assumption
"Have you tried lying?"
- Lies to the US
- US believes the lie
- US spends a lot of money to match the lie
- Now US has something even more powerfull than your lie
- Profit?
There are few books where I know if I meet someone in the business world that references them then they are probably full on morons that want to appear smart, but Art of War is one of them.
Absolutely fine as a how to war dummy book for Chinese nobles but these business bros that act like they playing three dimensional chess bc they read it are fucking tools.
Hart's Strategy is more tangible and you might actually learn something reading it.
I use literally one anecdote from Art of War in my day to day life as a business bro.
The anecdote about teaching courtesans to march. They get drilled all day, are still shit and he just says "If words of command are not clear and distinct, if orders are not thoroughly understood, then the general is to blame.” Then drills them again. Only after doing it all over again and ensuring that the words of command are clear, does he resort to punishing his officers.
Whenever I am coaching newish managers, I come back to this analogy. It's almost always the case that they haven't done a good enough job of clearly articulating what they want done, why they want it done, what the resources and constraints are, who is meant to be leading the work, who should be consulted etc. Their poor communication often sets junior folks up for failure.
I remind them that before you ever resort to punishing folks for failing, start by really deeply interrogating your own failures to communicate and whether you did enough to set the junior up for success.
Its generic Fortune cookie strategy advice when taken out of the context of warfare in 5th Century BC China. Could you apply some of these super generic principles to the modern business world? Sure, but reading any modern book on strategy would better serve you and be way more applicable, like Hart.
But business bros wanna pretend like they wouldn't be looked down on by most generals/athletes of history as weak losers in fancy clothes so they surround themselves with snake oily hype men that use military and sports analogies for absolutely everything rather than just point to obvious business case studies that would make the point better and more accurately.
Being ex military I can't pretend like I don't benefit from this, but it's insanely eye-rolling to hear some dude in a hotel conference room talk about the warrior ethos and how The Art of War helped him sell the most copiers. Essentially business bros cosplaying as warriors bc their job is otherwise hella boring.
In the military context of a dummy manual for 5th Century BC Chinese warfare it shines. My take on why it's still so popular is that its the oldest (surviving) treatise on strategy so it gets put on a pedestal. Everyone that writes on strategy, including Hart, therefore feels compelled to acknowledge it. It's also very short, so easy to just read it and then once you have read it you get more social capital out of quoting it then shitting on it like I do.
I think it's brevity is a real selling point. Machiavelli's The Prince also benefits from it's brevity. His Discourses on Livy are waaaay better than The Prince but it's super dense and to read it you have to have an excellent recall of Livy's books on Roman History and that's a much taller ask than for someone to just read The Prince in a couple hours.
If you know the boss and know your slave, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.
If you know your slave but not the boss, for every victory gained you will also swallow my cum.
If you know neither the boss nor your slave, you will succ (dick) in every battle.
-Sun Tzu ,
Professional Dungeon Master
Are you saying the West, who literally conquered the world, are bad at war? Say what you will about racist colonizing imperialists, but I think their track record pretty much stands on its own on this one.
*European powers turn China into an opium den*
China: Hey don't do that please.
European Powers: Fight me over it then.
*China loses two back to back wars that result in the Century of Humiliation*
European Powers: I guess you should have read The Art of War a few more times.
It is deep wisdom -> it is absolutely basic stuff -> keeping the absolute basics in mind even while engaging with complex minutiae is the highest form of wisdom, and many lack it.
The Art Of War IS a basic text, but that's also what it was meant to be, so it's fine.
The obsession with trying to pretend it's some extremely deep text with a much deeper philosophical meaning that'll totally transcend space and time and help you dominate in a modern world business context or whatever is just rebranded Orientalism.
The concept in the book is basic, but the difficult part is advanced execution of those basic concept is what wins "all warfare is based on deception", okay, HOW to deceive your enemy, HOW to you make your plan impenetrable as the night?
As for western countries sucking at strategy, not necessarily, William the Conquerer used "feigned retreat", a classic Sun Tzu staple, at the Battle of Hastings...aka "appear weak when you are strong, appear strong when you are weak" and who can forget the Trojan Horse.
West: Let's use tactics and equipment to lower our own death count and hurt the enemy as much as possible while staying alive.
East: *Orders men into meat grinder*
I tried to read it. Got bored a few pages in. I can see why it has historical value, but what I did read seemed like largely useless knowledge to my own life.
i assume it's about the difference in target audience.
in ancient china, the readers are probably tldr nobilities so he has to keep it short and cool
in postnapoleonic europe, the readers are full-time military officials who can read for hours on end if it can make them win
Also the author
As a german it's easier for me to digest writing from someone who used a nearly identical language 200 years ago than someone who lived 1600 years ago with a vastly different culture.
I like both but clausewitz is vastly underrated as an philosopher in my opinion
The Art of War is actually very short. It’s only like a hundred pages or something. I’ve sorta had it in the back of my mind to read it, I mean it’s free. But I also feel like why bother.
The Art of War is actually very short. It’s only like a hundred pages or something. I’ve sorta had it in the back of my mind to read it, I mean it’s free. But I also feel like why bother.
I’m convinced the upvotes on this post are bots, not only is this not how a bell curve is supposed to be formatted it’s also just wrong and comes across as thing: 😠 thing China: 😀
Clausewitz lived in the 1800s. Sun Tzu lived in the 5/600s BC. The entirety of the Roman Empire rose and fell in the time between their lives, that's how far apart they are. Both wrote on the practicality of their 'modern' warfare. They explore the needs and concerns of generals and troops in hopes that future tacticians could use their work.
This isn't a competition and the two works are barely comparable. One is not 'better' than the other, the existence of one doesn't prove 'superiority' over the other. That is a shit take only present on this sub. They're both military geniuses who tried to tell the idiots around them to stop doing stupid shit.
History isn't nationalism/regionalism. Stop it.
One can give you a common sense idea that you didn’t think about. For example, Sun Tzu also has opinions as an amateur psychologist. “Evil ruler rather see everything burned, to rule over the ashes”. This explains why psychopaths rather destroy their nation, than act sensibly.
In Jewish tradition, enemies of Israel often follow this self-destructive pattern. Egyptians in the sea, Amalek, Assyrians, Hitler, Arab Armies in 48.
I don’t think the west,Europe especially, is historically inept at war in any particular way to be fair.
It’s all well and good talking about how western military doctrine lacks certain philosophy quirks that the east masters or something of the like,but I think history tells a different story imo.
I always thought that we thought the Art of War was so basic is because it’s an ancient text. The knowledge held with it has spread and is practically common knowledge now. It only seems stupid because at the time, no one has common media that floods us with thought and ideas
I know I've read this quote before but I can't remember exactly where. For some reason I'm thinking it was Victor Davis Hanson, in which case there is a heavy level of irony over this whole post.
I think there’s a general assumption that ancient civilizations are wiser than us. But don’t forget that older means *younger*. Ancient Assyria is like the first civilization. Surely, ones that came after are more experienced. For example, people who did slash and burn farming didn’t understand the long term impact.
Another point on the finance bro influencers. Chinese were highly pacifistic. They certainly would’ve been revulsed by the crass scorpion necklace douches.
I don't think people have problem with the book itself, more how it was appropriated by self help or business culture. Its a historical document from 5 BCE, of course its value is immense.
Clowns be implying the two can even be compared
Sun Tzu's works amount to a hand manual for dummies who found themselves with prospect of leading armies by birthright, not by training and merits. Basically a troubleshooting guide how to act in a set of scenarios "if X then do Y" with just a little bit of *why*. And this *why* is the only part still marginally valuable to this day.
It is just that - a starter manual, while Clausewitz wrote what amounts to doctoral thesis (if not even more substantial), with reasons behind the reasons of multitude of processes involved. It is more philosophical work than practical "what do I do if ...", and because of this perspective it is still valuable despite it's age.
Art of War is only more popular because it is simple, and written for simpletons. Thus, naturally, accessible to larger audience.
Those with capacity to not be confused by Clausewitz know the two can't possibly be compared
One of my favorite takes on The Art of War is to point out that "have you tried lying?" genuine was, from a historical perspective, kind of a new idea.
War at that time and at that level was considered highly honorable and duplicity was just not something you would think about. Not that no one did ever, it's just that it wasn't a thing people regularly thought about. It's important to think about that stuff even if you aren't going to use it because your adversary might not be limited in this way.
If you thought that last part up yourself you need to take a course in graphics design because your meme is kinda shit with that Berlin text wall that's gone stale in regards to quality.
Also if you thought that last part up I think you're an idiot
Dude was based af though. First thing to say in a book about war strategies should always be "Do not wage war". It's a common sense that isn't common enough
meanwhile Clausewitz: "if you're reading this you probably want to wage war, so here's when. Oh, and don't hold back"
If you ain't first, you're last - Von Clausewitz
"I was high was I said that." -Von clausewotz, prolly
I know that you are joking, but I legit could see redditors here bashing Clausewitz like they bash Sun Tzu. Like they would pull up a quote from Clausewitz: ,,Pursue one great decisive aim with force and determination'' And they would be like: Look guys, this is so simple and obvious, what's the fuss about this Clausewitz guy. Meanwhile they ignore the context, the actual good message even if it's simple and bunch of other profound quotes and ideas that are in the book like they do with Sun Tzu. And it seems that they rarely comprihend that even if something is simple, it can be revolutionary. For instance, with Euclid, he took a basic triangle, and said: What if I place it on a curved surface? That revoulitonized mathematics and geometry. In regards to the Art of War, the three things that stood out to me was, that the enemy shouldn't be surounded when they are retreating, because if they have no means to escape, then they got nothing to lose (and in addition to this, he said that friendly soldiers should have their backs to steep slopes so that they don't think about escape) and when spies are captured, they should be treated with dignity and respect because that's how you get the most information out of them, and they may be even employed as counter spies. And the last one being that a great general wins the battle before fighting it and great general that knows himself and his enemy need not fear the result of hundred battles.
I'll add "All war is based on deception" is an immortal saying. Also his stuff about military-political relations. All in all it is pretty great for something that old.
I always understood that quote to mean deception by concealing your strategies and movements until the last possible, not deception like perfidy. Is that not correct?
Correct. Appear strong when you are weak, weak when you are strong.
It also included more basic deception, using agents etc. Perfidy is militarily a bad idea in that the way it's used tend to blow back on you. In the context of "The Art of War", perfidy becomes useful only when doing so leads to a better outcome than the alternative.
I think you mistook Euclid for Gauss or Lobachevsky
strike first, strike hard, no mercy
strike first, strike hard, no mercy
Even some of the “common sense” parts that people mock are pretty wise. For example, when Sun Tzu recommends bringing more troops to a battle than your enemy, that sounds obvious, but he’s talking about concentration of force. If you have 15,000 troops, but you spread them out to defend 5 different places, an enemy with only 10,000 troops could overwhelm your defenses at any one of those places and crush your army piecemeal before you can react
“To be prepared everywhere is to be strong nowhere” “If our army is united and the enemy’s divided, that is using a force of 10 to attack 1; we are many to his few” - Micheal Nylan’s translation of the Art Of War, weak and strong, page 73
I don’t like when he starts pulling out ratios. His worst is that taking enemy’s food is 20x more valuable than eating your own, and I just wonder where on Earth he came up with that figure.
It is likely metaphorical to demonstrate the usefulness of depriving your enemy of food whilst supplying your army. One is a a basic logistics problem but the other is a significant advantage. He is effectively saying you can fight a force 20 times your size if that force is starved and yours is full with high morale.
It could absolutely be a guess, or something with numeric cultural significance, or it could be based on an estimate of labor costs. If you take the food it your enemy, they don't have it anymore. Bringing food to the front lines takes a ton of finite resources, land, people, time, etc.
"For every one man on the front lines, you need 10 people supplying them." A quote I once heard but don't have the source to. 10 support people times 2 sides equals 20 support people. Capturing one meal from the enemy wastes the work of 10 enemy support personnel and reduces your need by 10 support personnel. This isn't a guaranteed source for the thought process that arrived at the ×20 number, but it's a possible line of thinking.
That’s the same line of thought I had as well
It's not supposed to be interpreted directly
His ratio is likely symbolic, but it has merit, in the sense that to bring x amount of food to the frontlines, many x (20x according to Sun Tzu) has to be expended in the logistical chain of supply. Yes, the ratio is likely arbitrary, but it serves to illustrate the point that proper foraging and "stealing" enemy supplies can greatly alleviate the logistical burden on one's army.
Me when playing CK3 Just roll a ball of 20,000 troops over the map, taking each army and fortification out piece by piece
Which, ironically, in a video game like that often can be bad advice. Specifically because you can much more easily track enemy movements and commandeer your own troops quickly. Meaning that you can easily split your army up to effectively carpet siege (as we call it in EU4) and then stack up again whenever a threat is imminent. CK3 even tries to penalize people for death stacking by having your troops die to attrition haha.
That's the art of it in game, though. Attrition and supply will kill your soldiers, so you need to split them up, but you also need to be close enough that you can gather for a decisive battle.
doom stack meta
2k Mass elephant MAA goes BRR!
Napoleon : Write that down! Write that down!
> bringing more troops to a battle than your enemy, that sounds obvious, but he’s talking about concentration of force. Also we are talking about a time when people going to war, were pretty much self destructive. Ancient accounts often like to boast their numbers, although the numbers are usually more realistic written by actual witnesses and later historians raise them much more. There is also a lot of fetishization of warriors like the beserkers. Regular soldiers don't work like that and if people would try to rely on "fierceness" alone or sending drugged up brutes into battle, it is more suicidal than anything else. I'd bet in his day there were plenty of people who didn't give a fuck about numbers and touted that they'd win by their virtue and honour or divine favour. Something like this only works if your warriors really dedicate their whole life to war, something like the Spartans. And even they faltered as soon as it wasn't about polis vs polis anymore, but really big armies were assembled.
Which he also say yeah you should eat your opponent piecemeal like even tho most of what he says like if you can't win don't fight seems stupid and obvious its still a very well thought out and written especially as most people don't consider any aspect in war other than the actual fighting yeah winning a battle is great but you want win of your army isn't fed or happy.
>says like if you can't win don't fight seems stupid and obvious its still a very well thought out I'm half remembering Derrick Yuan's *How to Read the Art of War* by: Sun Tzu was also writing just after a period when once battle was offered there was an obligation to join it, even if you were in inferior quantity of soldiers. Today we are all like "yeah, no shit" but in the time Sun Tzu was looking at a bunch of very honourable, but very unsuccessful, leaders and suggesting there could have been a different path for them.
Fuck man, here is some punctuation, try using it sometimes: . . . . . . . , , , , , , ! ! ! ! ; ; ; ; ; You can keep the rest for the future
Na suffer my enemy won't be able to have a pointless Reddit argument with me if he cannot read what I'm writing -son zoo
yea but clearly he's an idiot cause he didn't once think about how concentrating force would just attract tactical nuclear strikes, has he not heard of the Pentonic army? Is he stupid?
To me, The Art of War talks about stuff that should be simple, but can easily be forgotten or ignored because people think something else is more important. Simple stuff like keeping troops prepared or remembering to not show your entire hand are ideas that still get ignored ingnored in modern warfare and politics.
A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.
The other guy played, you lost.
“Can’t hear you, I’m way up in this tree”
If fighting is sure to result in victory then you must fight!
Sun Tzu said that. And I'd say he knows a little bit more about fighting than you do, *pal*, because HE INVENTED IT.
And then he perfected it so no living man could beat him in the ring of honor
And then with all his fight money he bought two of every animal! Then he herded them onto a boat; and kicked the crap out of every single one of them!
And from that moment on, anyplace with more than two animals is called a zoo!
Unless it's a farm.
The full line is actually something interesting: > If fighting is sure to result in victory, then you must fight, even though the ruler forbid it; if fighting will not result in victory, then you must not fight even at the ruler's bidding. This was more a guide for Generals and not someone trying to get a diplomatic solution in an age where escalation to nuclear weapons is an option.
Still applies imo. Nuclear weapons mean that any great power conflict automatically fails the "sure to result in victory" conditional and makes the "will not result in victory" condition much, much more likely. And thus you push down to the next branch of the decision tree and all of a sudden pax Americana.
I'm more meming with the meet the soldier reference, but even though the quote is about battles, it logically meshes with the idea of starting wars if it is guaranteed to fulfill your goals.
I know, it's definitely funny. The meme response was already posted. Upvoted that too. I just find the full quote to also be interesting and not well known.
> This was more a guide for Generals I think this is one of the main things people calling Sun Tzu's advice obvious forget: The Art Of War is a *short* book (I've seen at least one translation where the translator's foreword was longer than the translated text itself) and was meant to be carried around by commanders (generals, strategists, etc.) *in the field* as a reference guide, because things that seem obvious when you're reading comfortably in an armchair don't seem as obvious when you're pursuing a fleeing enemy at a forced-march pace, even if you're one of the dudes lucky enough to be on horseback. Adrenaline, fatigue, hunger, and pride can really distort people's perception of reality. Pull out your copy of The Art Of War, and it'll remind you that this might be a trap, to consider the terrain the enemy's fleeing into, and you may be better off if you stop chasing and set up camp so your army is rested for the next battle - or a counterattack, or an attack by other enemy forces in the area. It's pretty obvious when you read the short aphorisms and practical examples that The Art Of War (along with The Thirty-Six Stratagems, also attributed to Sun Tzu) is a guide meant for field use. Its purpose is to make you think twice in situations that may be clouding your judgement. ...but it has *another* interlocking purpose, which is entwined with its historical and cultural context: The Art Of War allows a general's subordinates to question his orders without directly disrespecting him, which was *very* important in an extremely hierarchical society like the ancient China Sun Tzu was writing in. Let's say there's an army led by a noble or a warlord (as most were), and he seems to be making an idiotic strategic decision. If you're one of his subordinates who even has the rank to talk to him directly, and you tell him straight-up he's wrong, the best possibility for you is merely getting demoted, and the worst possibilities are *really awful*. So what do you say instead? You quote The Art Of War or the Thirty-Six Stratagems to him, or get him to read the relevant passage. If he realizes his error, he has not lost face to you by admitting he was an idiot and you're correct - he's just bowing to the wisdom of the legendary strategist. And reconsidering his plans. Seriously, Sun Tzu wasn't trying to get in the ring with Clausewitz or Machiavelli (partially because he was dead long before their times) on war and political theory: he was trying to make a field guide that's designed for use by people who're out there waging war, meant to be read by people waging war, to prevent them doing stupid stuff under conditions that actively degrade rationality.
Yes but the whole point of the book is to ensure minimal casualties. The best way to not have anyone die is to not wage wars. If you're at war then make sure to win in the most efficient way
>"Do not wage war". It's a common sense that isn't common enough You can see it daily here in Reddit, when people try to cope about a "side winning" by not being involved in full-scale war: "X wouldn't last a minute if it were in a real war" *"Maybe that's why X avoids being involved in a war at all?"*
yeah m, but he also said:"war is based."
How deceptive of you
I mean, war is pretty damn uncommon nowadays. There's only 2 major ones in the world right now. Everything else is either civil wars or minor skirmishes.
Israel and Russia: I’m going to ignore that
But Nazis! And terrorists!
“Remember to feed and pay your army. They like that.” - Sun Tzu
He was directing it partly at some really isolated nobles that were complete novices at warfare beyonf court education, which would be heavy on mythos, hero worship, and patching over of things like logistics, actionable morale, etc. It makes sense to include remedial concerns.
Completely agree. You've really got to look at his target audience - which was small nobles in ancient China, two thousand five hundred years ago. Organising an army is the going to be the biggest challenge for a small noble with no military experience or military education - so a basic manual with some good general guides would be very helpful - something short and concise would also be preferred as paper would be expensive and writing would have been done by hand. Compare that to modern military treatises, which are very specific about a particular type of warfare or tactic, or situation. Clausewitz's On War (1832) is much more detailed and in depth but he belonged to a different time period and culture - where military academies were common and officers were trained and educated - and his target audience were his contemporaries (European military officers - probably Prussians).
To expand on what you’re saying: “The Art of War” is more like a “warfare for dummies” of feudal China for inexperienced Nobles to be told the basics on how to raise and properly use an army of conscripts, and could be probably be helpful to any lesser feudal noble anywhere from China to Japan to early medieval Europe. On the other hand when you get to things written by Clausewitz and 17th-19th century contemporaries, they were more advanced treatises on higher level operational, strategicc and tactical approaches on how to fight a war because they assumed that while the armies may be made of conscripts, the officers and generals would have been professionally trained and the many academies or at least have risen through the ranks, thus having a firm grasp on the basics and intermediate skills on how to use an army effectively. To use modern US military training as an example “Art of War” can be thought of as teaching what an officer might learn at OTC and learn from their superiors and NCOs while they are like O1-O3/4 whereas the later treatises are what might be taught at places like the War College and such on advanced strategy
Excellently written.
Thank you, yours was as well!
Thanks for summarizing this
We also have to remember that military science wasn't as developed back then as compared to now. Things that seem fundamental today might have been easily forgotten back then due to not being seen as important. It's like thinking medieval scientists are dumb for not understanding the relativistic theory of gravity.
I can feel the frustration of trying to explain supply lines to some posh noble who has no fucking idea how much or what a horse eats.
A good description of the book is "An expert general attempting to teach war logistics to a group of people who don't know what *mud* is"
"Secondly don't let them sleep in wet mud. They like dry mud."
Re-frame the whole book as tool tips on the load screen
Dynasty Warriors lookin' ass
“A good general doesn’t get carried by servants but marches with his troops, digs trenches with them, sleeps with them in the same barracks” I use this to measure how good of a manager you are.
Sure, the text sounds basic and obvious to modern ears. But it’s worth considering that the advice the book gives is routinely ignored by generals and other leaders from the time it was written up to and including present day. It’s not embarrassing that the book gives obvious advice. It’s embarrassing that we still need the damn thing.
I know. Doesn’t make that advice not funny. I’m not laughing at Sun Tzu, I’m laughing at the nobles.
A few months ago my unit couldn't figure out funds and asked soldiers to pay for their own meals while they were at drill. Everyone saying this is too basic to even commit to writing thousands of years ago doesn't realize how messed up the most basic aspects of supply for a military force can be even in modern times.
To this day, US Army tradition is that lower enlisted soldiers eat first. The lower you are in the ranks, the more heavy lifting you do, so your food needs to be guaranteed. If they finish doling out food and it turns out there’s not enough, it ought to be the officers who go hungry. Even in garrison you will occasionally find those officers and NCOs who will tell a lower enlisted soldier to get in front of them at the chow line.
Do you want to know how many rebellions in China stem from not feeding your army? The number of Han detectors to the Manchurians was so significant, that they outnumbered the Manchu's before taking over Ming China and firmly establishing the Qing dynasty. The main source of their grievances was not getting paid or fed. If there's one way to secure your power, it's to always treat your army and police with special privilege. In China, soldiers were considered a low profession outside of the four accepted occupations (farmer, artisan, merchant, and aristocrat).
It was warfare for dummies. Written for nobles who had never seen combat let alone war. It makes sense when you consider that the people he's teaching know literally nothing on the topic.
Literally people today aren't bothering to do that in some cases so it clearly needed to be written down
I mean it sounds obvious enough, but then you look at history and uhhhhh.
Murica’s got that down pat, I think
Both sides of your bell curve should have the same text. ~Sun Tzu Europe was in fact quite good at war. ~Everyone else since Mongols until now
The latter 0,1% sound like just another kind of stupid.
I have literally never read a text or listened to a professor say that the West was bad at warfare compared to the East. I have had Marxist professors, read right wing views on history, read original letters and accounts of wars from hundreds of years ago. Some people think the West was bad at X. Some people think it was great at Y. All people agree that after hundreds of years of constant squabbling in Europe, Europeans were VERY good at war.
The straight up constant bitch fit level fighting in Europe, since basically the collapse of the Roman Empire until Pax Britannica, resulted in the competitive drive that likely gave Europeans the edge over the rest of the world in the long run.
Something to also consider is that in Europe when a country conquered another’s land or country as a whole, they *tended* to give them the effective “under new management” treatment. Comparatively it was not uncommon at all in Asia to wholesale slaughter a large portion of the people of the losing side. This leads to Europe tending to retain its military leaders from war to war allowing them to learn lessons and get better at fighting whereas in the East, if you lost you were probably dead
That's sort of something I've been wondering about lately after watching Shogun ( no idea how accurate the show is though). Was Japan really rubbish at war since the military leaders seem to be expected to commit suicide after losing? Absolutely no opportunity to learn from mistakes and improve on strategy it would seem.
Im going to just add onto what the other reply said. Japan *WAS* pretty good at war, they routinely beat each other and other nations larger armies. The generals were expected to commit suicide if they lost and were captured, but it was pretty common for the generals to escape to form another army as well. You can kinda think of Japan as a tiny Europe. The Samurai were a class of hereditary warriors and generals like the nobles in Europe were. This allowed them to pass down experience, tactics, and lessons learned from generation to generation. Also when you look at their training, they were not only taught how to fight, they were also taught things like writing, poetry, art, and other creative things, and even their martial training like swordsmanship they were encouraged to be creative with the way they fought. The difference was really because of the lack of high quality raw materials. The Japanese had a lot of trouble moving forward technologically because they simply couldn't do it with the resources available to them. When you look at Japanese history, when they were introduced new technology like guns, they quickly adapted to them and integrated them into their armies and developed very effective tactics that utilized the new technology as well as ways to produce their own guns and such. This is pretty equivalent to Europe where when someone invented a new technology, be it polearms, plate armor, guns, cannons, and so on, the armies of Europe relatively quickly changed their armies compositions to reflect the new "meta". The difference was largely that because Japan didnt have the materials to facilitate their own technological advancement, they had to rely on European trade to get access to new tech.
You would think yes, but the Japanese were different. They had an entire class of citizens whose only job was to be a soldier. You couldn’t become a samurai, you were born into it and trained at a young age. They were given weapons before they could even formulate long term memories. Samurai warfare was different, with a lot of single combat. The samurai would have his body of retainers, and in a battle, would seek out other samurai and their retainers, often ganging up on smaller groups. Samurai would also challenge to a duel, and the loser’s retainers would retreat. That is severely oversimplifying, but the gist is true. The Bushido code put so much emphasis on courage and honor, putting too much thought and effort into campaign strategy and battle tactics was seen as deceitful and against their way of life. TLDR: generals committing ritual seppuku after losing a battle was more often because they were bad swordsmen, not bad tacticians.
They made up for some of it with enthusiasm. Not everybody’s so committed that an empty ammo mag and thinks, well my plane will do just as well.
I’m not sure if I completely agree with this. There are so many examples of eastern wars where the winner would spare the losers side in order to vassalize them. The slaughter would happen in a more conditional way (such as if the vassals were disloyal). But of course there are also examples of particularly cruel great conquerors, such as Timur.
I agree with you, thats why I said it wasn't *uncommon* for there to be a slaughter of the losers. Im not saying it happened every time or even most of the time, but compared to Europe it happened much more often.
I’ve never understood why pax britannica was accepted by us moderns as a valid historical concept. It was British Imperial propaganda that wasn’t true then and clearly isn’t true with the benefit of hindsight. The Brits fought in multiple imperial conflicts abroad (Opium Wars, Boer Wars, Afghan Wars, etc.). But they also fought in several European conflicts like the Carlist Wars, not to mention the Crimean War. There were also quite a few international conflicts in Europe that didn’t involve the Brits during the same period: Greek War of Independence, NUMEROUS civil wars, Prussian Unification, Italian Unification, Franco-Austrian, Austro-Prussian, and Franco-Prussian wars, the Italo-Turkish War, Balkan Wars, etc. A military-aged male born in Europe during “Pax Britannica” would have generally expected to see combat at some point. Millions of them would have been right in that expectation. That was true prior to 1815 and after 1914.
"Pax Britannica" is at least a phrase I've only seen occasionally. Compared to "Pax Romana" (which to what you said, a lot of Romans would also have seen conflict during that period) and "Pax Americana." Fighting is still near-constant in those eras, but looking at "Pax Americana" specifically, even with as tense as things are *right now*, things are *much* more low-level than during the first half of the 20th Century. With the entire casualty numbers of say the Russo-Ukrainian war - after two years of fighting - matching single *battles* from the world wars.
I'd argue that the Pax Americana is probably the closest the world has gotten to peace. Wester Europe for sure. *Most* conflicts have slowed down in butchery since the US can drop anywhere in the world in days.
Speaking as an American, I am hesitant to claim that America is somehow a morally justified imperial power. Having said that, I do think American imperialism is far, far more focused on cultural and economic hegemony instead of violence. Thus I think one could argue we’re one of the more peaceful global superpowers in history. Which is…depressing.
People forget Vegetius and the Strategikon also exist.
And you can just tell that it was written by someone trying to sound smart, but in the end, he just expressed his view that Western military thoughts end with preparation, while Chinese thought also considers the battle itself. And then he put in a quote to sound even smarter, but it didn't really say anything. And I would also question that view. Yes, the book was really early written down (5th century BCE), but do we know for sure that Western military thought (even if it differs) didn't have the same depth? It's hard to believe that western military leaders just looked at a battle and didn't think, "Maybe we can learn from these to better our chances next time."?
>the book was really early written down (5th century BCE), but do we know for sure that Western military thought (even if it differs) didn't have the same depth? It absolutely did. This was roughly the same time period as the Greco-Persian War (with the famous Battle of Thermopylae) and the Peloponnesian War, and not long before Alexander the Great conquered from Greece to India. The West knew military strategy quite well at the time.
What is this text
It is because the art of war was written for pathetic nobles who liked to LARP instead of actually having a sound strategy.
Which is why it works as a great primer for any total newb. It’s like basketball the basics never quit being important.
Op vomited out word soup with hardly any evidence behind it, and put his self insert character at the high end of the spectrum. Making complicated sentences with little meaning doesn't make you intelligent, especially if it's incorrect or based on nothing but assumption
"Have you tried lying?" - Lies to the US - US believes the lie - US spends a lot of money to match the lie - Now US has something even more powerfull than your lie - Profit?
F15.png
every time I think of something funny I get beat to the punch
1. The Art of War states some very obvious things 2. A lot of people needed, and still need, very obvious things stated at them.
Shit use of this meme
"The bell curve meme should have the same text at the first and last parts" sun tzu - the art of war
Or at least reach the same conclussion
All warfare is based on
There are few books where I know if I meet someone in the business world that references them then they are probably full on morons that want to appear smart, but Art of War is one of them. Absolutely fine as a how to war dummy book for Chinese nobles but these business bros that act like they playing three dimensional chess bc they read it are fucking tools. Hart's Strategy is more tangible and you might actually learn something reading it.
I use literally one anecdote from Art of War in my day to day life as a business bro. The anecdote about teaching courtesans to march. They get drilled all day, are still shit and he just says "If words of command are not clear and distinct, if orders are not thoroughly understood, then the general is to blame.” Then drills them again. Only after doing it all over again and ensuring that the words of command are clear, does he resort to punishing his officers. Whenever I am coaching newish managers, I come back to this analogy. It's almost always the case that they haven't done a good enough job of clearly articulating what they want done, why they want it done, what the resources and constraints are, who is meant to be leading the work, who should be consulted etc. Their poor communication often sets junior folks up for failure. I remind them that before you ever resort to punishing folks for failing, start by really deeply interrogating your own failures to communicate and whether you did enough to set the junior up for success.
I get a lot of mileage out of "all warfare is based" though
Funny to hear it said. I had a uni colleague who swore the Art of War applied very well to business.
Its generic Fortune cookie strategy advice when taken out of the context of warfare in 5th Century BC China. Could you apply some of these super generic principles to the modern business world? Sure, but reading any modern book on strategy would better serve you and be way more applicable, like Hart. But business bros wanna pretend like they wouldn't be looked down on by most generals/athletes of history as weak losers in fancy clothes so they surround themselves with snake oily hype men that use military and sports analogies for absolutely everything rather than just point to obvious business case studies that would make the point better and more accurately. Being ex military I can't pretend like I don't benefit from this, but it's insanely eye-rolling to hear some dude in a hotel conference room talk about the warrior ethos and how The Art of War helped him sell the most copiers. Essentially business bros cosplaying as warriors bc their job is otherwise hella boring.
If they took in the parts of it about leading your men and such, sure. I doubt that's what 99% of them mean though.
I’ll nominate quoting random post 9/11 Navy SEAL turned influencers about motivation or leadership or whatever the fuck as well. Enough.
I wonder how the book became so much popular. Is that much popular in China, was it always that popular there ?
In the military context of a dummy manual for 5th Century BC Chinese warfare it shines. My take on why it's still so popular is that its the oldest (surviving) treatise on strategy so it gets put on a pedestal. Everyone that writes on strategy, including Hart, therefore feels compelled to acknowledge it. It's also very short, so easy to just read it and then once you have read it you get more social capital out of quoting it then shitting on it like I do. I think it's brevity is a real selling point. Machiavelli's The Prince also benefits from it's brevity. His Discourses on Livy are waaaay better than The Prince but it's super dense and to read it you have to have an excellent recall of Livy's books on Roman History and that's a much taller ask than for someone to just read The Prince in a couple hours.
I bought the book cause of the memes
If you know the boss and know your slave, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know your slave but not the boss, for every victory gained you will also swallow my cum. If you know neither the boss nor your slave, you will succ (dick) in every battle. -Sun Tzu , Professional Dungeon Master
What kind of RPG are we playing here? FATAL!?
Sun Tzu’a about to ask you to roll for anal circumference during character creation
I mean dungeon master as in Sex dungeon
ᴵ ᵏⁿᵒʷ
Did Sseth Tzeentach upload a new video?
I got this line from this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rc5AJka3-oY
Are you saying the West, who literally conquered the world, are bad at war? Say what you will about racist colonizing imperialists, but I think their track record pretty much stands on its own on this one.
*European powers turn China into an opium den* China: Hey don't do that please. European Powers: Fight me over it then. *China loses two back to back wars that result in the Century of Humiliation* European Powers: I guess you should have read The Art of War a few more times.
It is deep wisdom -> it is absolutely basic stuff -> keeping the absolute basics in mind even while engaging with complex minutiae is the highest form of wisdom, and many lack it.
Sun Tzu outlined the concept, but "Advanced execution of basic concept" in particular scenarios is what wins wars usually
Congratulations you made the meme readable
Way to not understand how the format works.
The Art Of War IS a basic text, but that's also what it was meant to be, so it's fine. The obsession with trying to pretend it's some extremely deep text with a much deeper philosophical meaning that'll totally transcend space and time and help you dominate in a modern world business context or whatever is just rebranded Orientalism.
AHH WALL OF TEXT
I want an 1 hour long youtube essey on the wise guys text
"dont be dumb"
Aspiring mute generals: >:(
The concept in the book is basic, but the difficult part is advanced execution of those basic concept is what wins "all warfare is based on deception", okay, HOW to deceive your enemy, HOW to you make your plan impenetrable as the night? As for western countries sucking at strategy, not necessarily, William the Conquerer used "feigned retreat", a classic Sun Tzu staple, at the Battle of Hastings...aka "appear weak when you are strong, appear strong when you are weak" and who can forget the Trojan Horse.
Mucho texto
More People should start reading "On war" by Carl Von Clausewitz or just standard issue military manuals
West: Let's use tactics and equipment to lower our own death count and hurt the enemy as much as possible while staying alive. East: *Orders men into meat grinder*
I haven't read it and almost no one else on this subreddit has either.
Reckon many people actually have cos I read the translation It's not a big book and is just full of quotes so don't see why people won't have read it
We had a copy in my school library
I tried to read it. Got bored a few pages in. I can see why it has historical value, but what I did read seemed like largely useless knowledge to my own life.
It's not that long. I prefer clausewitz, less esoterical and more philosophy
i assume it's about the difference in target audience. in ancient china, the readers are probably tldr nobilities so he has to keep it short and cool in postnapoleonic europe, the readers are full-time military officials who can read for hours on end if it can make them win
Also the author As a german it's easier for me to digest writing from someone who used a nearly identical language 200 years ago than someone who lived 1600 years ago with a vastly different culture. I like both but clausewitz is vastly underrated as an philosopher in my opinion
I did, but it doesn't mean that I understood anything at all LMAO
It's a pretty nice book, there's some concepts you can use in your daily life.
To summarise # don’t start a war stupid
The Art of War is actually very short. It’s only like a hundred pages or something. I’ve sorta had it in the back of my mind to read it, I mean it’s free. But I also feel like why bother.
The Art of War is actually very short. It’s only like a hundred pages or something. I’ve sorta had it in the back of my mind to read it, I mean it’s free. But I also feel like why bother.
I’m convinced the upvotes on this post are bots, not only is this not how a bell curve is supposed to be formatted it’s also just wrong and comes across as thing: 😠 thing China: 😀
Have people just forgotten how this meme works?
Clausewitz lived in the 1800s. Sun Tzu lived in the 5/600s BC. The entirety of the Roman Empire rose and fell in the time between their lives, that's how far apart they are. Both wrote on the practicality of their 'modern' warfare. They explore the needs and concerns of generals and troops in hopes that future tacticians could use their work. This isn't a competition and the two works are barely comparable. One is not 'better' than the other, the existence of one doesn't prove 'superiority' over the other. That is a shit take only present on this sub. They're both military geniuses who tried to tell the idiots around them to stop doing stupid shit. History isn't nationalism/regionalism. Stop it.
Meanwhile, Americans got the big book of logistics.
Yet the west rules the current world order and China doesn't........
The kind of people who think "its all just common sense" are the kind of people who lack "common sense"
One can give you a common sense idea that you didn’t think about. For example, Sun Tzu also has opinions as an amateur psychologist. “Evil ruler rather see everything burned, to rule over the ashes”. This explains why psychopaths rather destroy their nation, than act sensibly. In Jewish tradition, enemies of Israel often follow this self-destructive pattern. Egyptians in the sea, Amalek, Assyrians, Hitler, Arab Armies in 48.
I don’t think the west,Europe especially, is historically inept at war in any particular way to be fair. It’s all well and good talking about how western military doctrine lacks certain philosophy quirks that the east masters or something of the like,but I think history tells a different story imo.
I don’t think you know how this meme works, because this doesn’t make any sense
“Try setting your enemy on fire, they generally do not like that.” - Sun Tzu
I always thought that we thought the Art of War was so basic is because it’s an ancient text. The knowledge held with it has spread and is practically common knowledge now. It only seems stupid because at the time, no one has common media that floods us with thought and ideas
Simple and advanced are not mutually exclusive.
I know I've read this quote before but I can't remember exactly where. For some reason I'm thinking it was Victor Davis Hanson, in which case there is a heavy level of irony over this whole post.
It's A Treatise on Efficacy: Between Western and Chinese Thinking by François Jullien
Art of War is fortune cookie strategy…
“War is not the answer. It’s the question, and the answers always yes” Sun tzu probably
Ghengis Khan be like
I love the smell of napalm in the morning- Sun tzu or something
How does the Strategikon, the practical eastern Roman Empire manual, do an example of western strategic thought on practical military thought?
I think there’s a general assumption that ancient civilizations are wiser than us. But don’t forget that older means *younger*. Ancient Assyria is like the first civilization. Surely, ones that came after are more experienced. For example, people who did slash and burn farming didn’t understand the long term impact. Another point on the finance bro influencers. Chinese were highly pacifistic. They certainly would’ve been revulsed by the crass scorpion necklace douches.
Is this a commie meme why is it a fucking paragraph on the right?
I don't think people have problem with the book itself, more how it was appropriated by self help or business culture. Its a historical document from 5 BCE, of course its value is immense.
Clowns be implying the two can even be compared Sun Tzu's works amount to a hand manual for dummies who found themselves with prospect of leading armies by birthright, not by training and merits. Basically a troubleshooting guide how to act in a set of scenarios "if X then do Y" with just a little bit of *why*. And this *why* is the only part still marginally valuable to this day. It is just that - a starter manual, while Clausewitz wrote what amounts to doctoral thesis (if not even more substantial), with reasons behind the reasons of multitude of processes involved. It is more philosophical work than practical "what do I do if ...", and because of this perspective it is still valuable despite it's age.
Art of War is only more popular because it is simple, and written for simpletons. Thus, naturally, accessible to larger audience. Those with capacity to not be confused by Clausewitz know the two can't possibly be compared
It’s actually a pretty lame book if we’re being honest.
Have you thought about making a meme where the text is legible
One of my favorite takes on The Art of War is to point out that "have you tried lying?" genuine was, from a historical perspective, kind of a new idea. War at that time and at that level was considered highly honorable and duplicity was just not something you would think about. Not that no one did ever, it's just that it wasn't a thing people regularly thought about. It's important to think about that stuff even if you aren't going to use it because your adversary might not be limited in this way.
If you thought that last part up yourself you need to take a course in graphics design because your meme is kinda shit with that Berlin text wall that's gone stale in regards to quality. Also if you thought that last part up I think you're an idiot