Okay but if we go by the bicameral mentality hypothesis there we can see how this would have been a very revolutionary and forward thinking idea back in the era where it was produced. One that many probably wouldn't have even been able to wrap their minds around.
I believe I read that this was a manual of sorts for crude peasants who found themselves conscripted. We in the modern era, and computers at our fingertips, have the whole history of warfare and how strategies evolved. If you are a 5th century BC chink who has handled only a shovel your whole life and news is more or less confined to your village, having a spear put in your hands and marching many many miles would be a shock. A lot of stuff that is common sense now wasn’t then
And? Sun Tzu explains strategy, not by which end a conscript should hold a spear.
8 months ago
Anonymous
No shit. There is a difference in strategy if you are going out with nobles who are trained fighters or if you are leading a rag tag group of peasants
8 months ago
Anonymous
Yes, the difference being the nobles would be charioteers/horsemen, and peasants comprise foot soldiers.
I don't get why you're trying to insinuate that Sun Tzu would be helpful in drilling peasants who only need to use their weapons and execute simple commands.
8 months ago
Anonymous
I see you are one of those morons who argues for the sake of arguing. OP mocks The Art of War for being common sense shit. I’m saying there were no widely dispersed strategic warfare books for fighting with an army of nontrained fighters. It is a crude book because warfare has evolved and strategy has grown and is more easily disseminated since then. It is a barebones strategy book and one must view it in relation to the time it was written
8 months ago
Anonymous
>It is a crude book because warfare has evolved and strategy has grown and is more easily disseminated since then.
perhaps it was intended as a basic reference/manual for soldiers to help them understand their orders and give them the broad idea rather than a compendium of secret techniques. or perhaps he just didn't want to lose a battle or war because his adversary picked up a copy of sun tsu's warfare for dummies.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>And? Sun Tzu explains strategy, not by which end a conscript should hold a spear.
you don't think it's of some value to have soldiers who have at least a rough idea of what is expected of them or what they ought to do without necessarily being told?
8 months ago
Anonymous
I don't think you grasp how ignorant your typical peasant is.
Thats why no one seriously read sun tzu instead of something like a von Clausewitz or a Montecuccoli.
Its good for snappy quotes or meditation, but not for an analytical discussion of what war is and how to deal with it practically.
talks way too idealy and has too many assumed points.
It is "seriously read", but it's one of many foundational books for officer courses like
I’m not going to pretend I went to West Point or something but I’m sure it’s taught as a foundational type text where one can see the evolution. If you think the book is the end all, be all for strategic warfare, fine. I’m sure the Gregorian chant is taught in musical theory classes but more in the historical context, not the heights the subject can take you to
suggests.
I’m not going to pretend I went to West Point or something but I’m sure it’s taught as a foundational type text where one can see the evolution. If you think the book is the end all, be all for strategic warfare, fine. I’m sure the Gregorian chant is taught in musical theory classes but more in the historical context, not the heights the subject can take you to
If you're curious on what's consider the height of strategic thinking -- look up the RAND Corp generation (Brody, Schelling, Khan -- maybe Freedman since he's RAND by proxy).
I’m not going to pretend I went to West Point or something but I’m sure it’s taught as a foundational type text where one can see the evolution. If you think the book is the end all, be all for strategic warfare, fine. I’m sure the Gregorian chant is taught in musical theory classes but more in the historical context, not the heights the subject can take you to
Several WW2 and contemporary military commanders have said that Art of War is a constant reference for them. It's not taught as a "here's how rudimentary things were when we first started thinking about warfare", it's taught as something you should study carefully and put into practice in your military career.
Thats why no one seriously read sun tzu instead of something like a von Clausewitz or a Montecuccoli.
Its good for snappy quotes or meditation, but not for an analytical discussion of what war is and how to deal with it practically.
talks way too idealy and has too many assumed points.
What's I've read about this subject is that once you get into the nitty gritty of planning and executing a complex military operation it's very easy for your plans to become detached from common sense, so the way the military makes use of the seemingly simplistic stuff you find on Art of War is by using it as a sort of common sense check to your plans. You can't make any real plans through some simple common sense maxims, but at the end of the day your plans must still satisfy that common sense, so Sun Tzu works as a sort of quality assurance to your plans.
>it's very easy for your plans to become detached from common sense
"No plan survive first contact with the enemy." One is battle one's own thought and biases as well. Deployment is truly fate, and terrain/troop dispositions are part of the text and topology. If it comes to violence of action now over the best laid plans, one has to be ready to act.
Get the Mair translation of the Dao and thoroughly scour the notes. The 'terrain' is not primarily physical. Internal Alchemy daoism was a late interpolation, but the metahpor applies here-- if Sneed Tzu was a pioneer, it lies in this. Recall that literacy was the domain of court eunuch gay treasonous nerds endlessly deferring to textual authorities for interpretation -- no such thing exists on the battlefield, and the manual is b***h slapping young inexperienced nobles into the operational art of dancing with uncertainties and marking out contingencies. Yes, Clausewitz and Jomini and von Moltke are more relevant; and yes Sneed Tzu is superceded in the end by Mao's "end of a gun" dictum -- but if you are in the inferior position with regards to force, or are juggling the politics of will and battle morale, he has much to offer. The reader simply isn't going to get anything out of the rigamarole of troop composition and movement out of the ordinary without context-- hell, even Macchiaveli's own Art of War suffers in this regard. Read the Dao (one with a great commentary apparatus, like Mair's) so you are primed for the subtext attendant to a work like this.
Okay but if we go by the bicameral mentality hypothesis there we can see how this would have been a very revolutionary and forward thinking idea back in the era where it was produced. One that many probably wouldn't have even been able to wrap their minds around.
I believe I read that this was a manual of sorts for crude peasants who found themselves conscripted. We in the modern era, and computers at our fingertips, have the whole history of warfare and how strategies evolved. If you are a 5th century BC chink who has handled only a shovel your whole life and news is more or less confined to your village, having a spear put in your hands and marching many many miles would be a shock. A lot of stuff that is common sense now wasn’t then
Peasants were illiterate. They wouldn't be commanders.
No shit. It was for the commanders to teach and keep in mind
And? Sun Tzu explains strategy, not by which end a conscript should hold a spear.
No shit. There is a difference in strategy if you are going out with nobles who are trained fighters or if you are leading a rag tag group of peasants
Yes, the difference being the nobles would be charioteers/horsemen, and peasants comprise foot soldiers.
I don't get why you're trying to insinuate that Sun Tzu would be helpful in drilling peasants who only need to use their weapons and execute simple commands.
I see you are one of those morons who argues for the sake of arguing. OP mocks The Art of War for being common sense shit. I’m saying there were no widely dispersed strategic warfare books for fighting with an army of nontrained fighters. It is a crude book because warfare has evolved and strategy has grown and is more easily disseminated since then. It is a barebones strategy book and one must view it in relation to the time it was written
>It is a crude book because warfare has evolved and strategy has grown and is more easily disseminated since then.
perhaps it was intended as a basic reference/manual for soldiers to help them understand their orders and give them the broad idea rather than a compendium of secret techniques. or perhaps he just didn't want to lose a battle or war because his adversary picked up a copy of sun tsu's warfare for dummies.
>And? Sun Tzu explains strategy, not by which end a conscript should hold a spear.
you don't think it's of some value to have soldiers who have at least a rough idea of what is expected of them or what they ought to do without necessarily being told?
I don't think you grasp how ignorant your typical peasant is.
It is "seriously read", but it's one of many foundational books for officer courses like
suggests.
If you're curious on what's consider the height of strategic thinking -- look up the RAND Corp generation (Brody, Schelling, Khan -- maybe Freedman since he's RAND by proxy).
if one man in any given unit is literate he can read it to the rest, obviously.
No this was entirely aimed at teaching strategy to commanders and is required reading for military officers to this day.
I’m not going to pretend I went to West Point or something but I’m sure it’s taught as a foundational type text where one can see the evolution. If you think the book is the end all, be all for strategic warfare, fine. I’m sure the Gregorian chant is taught in musical theory classes but more in the historical context, not the heights the subject can take you to
Several WW2 and contemporary military commanders have said that Art of War is a constant reference for them. It's not taught as a "here's how rudimentary things were when we first started thinking about warfare", it's taught as something you should study carefully and put into practice in your military career.
my thoughts exactly.
If peace is the goal of war, why is it not called the Art of Peace? Dumb asiatics
Thats why no one seriously read sun tzu instead of something like a von Clausewitz or a Montecuccoli.
Its good for snappy quotes or meditation, but not for an analytical discussion of what war is and how to deal with it practically.
talks way too idealy and has too many assumed points.
Most "great wisdom" is just common sense or obvious stuff.
The execution part is what gives most trouble.
What's I've read about this subject is that once you get into the nitty gritty of planning and executing a complex military operation it's very easy for your plans to become detached from common sense, so the way the military makes use of the seemingly simplistic stuff you find on Art of War is by using it as a sort of common sense check to your plans. You can't make any real plans through some simple common sense maxims, but at the end of the day your plans must still satisfy that common sense, so Sun Tzu works as a sort of quality assurance to your plans.
>t. didn't read the notes
Try again.
>it's very easy for your plans to become detached from common sense
"No plan survive first contact with the enemy." One is battle one's own thought and biases as well. Deployment is truly fate, and terrain/troop dispositions are part of the text and topology. If it comes to violence of action now over the best laid plans, one has to be ready to act.
k heres the modern version
Get the Mair translation of the Dao and thoroughly scour the notes. The 'terrain' is not primarily physical. Internal Alchemy daoism was a late interpolation, but the metahpor applies here-- if Sneed Tzu was a pioneer, it lies in this. Recall that literacy was the domain of court eunuch gay treasonous nerds endlessly deferring to textual authorities for interpretation -- no such thing exists on the battlefield, and the manual is b***h slapping young inexperienced nobles into the operational art of dancing with uncertainties and marking out contingencies. Yes, Clausewitz and Jomini and von Moltke are more relevant; and yes Sneed Tzu is superceded in the end by Mao's "end of a gun" dictum -- but if you are in the inferior position with regards to force, or are juggling the politics of will and battle morale, he has much to offer. The reader simply isn't going to get anything out of the rigamarole of troop composition and movement out of the ordinary without context-- hell, even Macchiaveli's own Art of War suffers in this regard. Read the Dao (one with a great commentary apparatus, like Mair's) so you are primed for the subtext attendant to a work like this.