Oriental vs Western Military Thinking

[Dromikaites]

The Oriental (mainly Chinese and Japanese) writings about tactics and strategy became very popular in the West in the second part of the 20th century, probably due to the rapid econmic progress of the Far-East and of the Vietnam war.

There is an interesting observation to be made: in the West, the most influential authors were those from the napoleonic wars (Clausewitz, Jomini) while in the East the most popular writings were centuries (Musashi) or even thousands of years old (Sun Tzu and Sun Bin).

There is a striking diference between the two aproaches. The Westerners are very analythical and their purpose is to find "laws" or rules easy to understand and apply. Eventualy, however, they end with advices like:"these are only guidelines and the comander should use his better judgement". The Easterners on the other hand, are rather vague, use methaphors extensively but in the end insist there is a way and their way is THE TRUE ONE. Joking we might say that while the Westerners start with certitudes and end in doubt while the oposite is true for the Orientals.

Now, let's assume that two military academies compete against each other. The competition is this: 100 graduates from each academy compete in a war game (map games, sand box games, computer simulations, etc.) One military academy uses only Western texts for training, the other only Oriental ones (up to you guys to decide the curricula).

Out of 100 matches, what would be the final score and why?

[MoROmeTe]

Clausewitz I've read, SunTzu I've seen bits and pieces of, Musashi, The Book of Five Rings, I've read three times and I need to go back to read again.

If the Western Academy takes Clausewitz as the norm and built from there, the approach they use should be higly rigid and formlized, resulting in bland tactics and rationalized efforts, using force before cunning.

If the Eastern Academy goes with Sun TZu and Musashi they are going to be more adaptable and flexible but less inclined to prolonged and ardous fighting.

It all depends on the quality of the pupils and of the teachers and there is also the question of the nature of the war games themselves, but I tend to think the Eastern Academy would take around 60% of the engagements.

[Pompeius Minus]

I think the difference it's more due to the fact that eastern military thinking stagnated since they never really entered the enlightenment or the industrial revolution.

During the middle ages and renaissance the most popular military works in Europe were also ancient texts, primarily Vegetius.

[Ummon]

Sun Tzu is even more valid now that we have space age warfare. A war is decided through information and surgical strikes, not attrition.

Notice that Clausewitz's and Jomini's are useful texts. I have read both and appreciated them. Casistics and methodology are not incompatible.

[SovietDoom]

I'll say that the Western texts would win the most, becuase they probably would be following ancient Romans like Vegetius and that small unit tactics are more favored in Western culture.

[Søren]

I would say that the western academy is superior. You miss out one very influential book The Art of War by Niccolo Machavelli. Although better known for his discourses on the ruling of states, he makes some very astute observations on the training of men. (and also the mock battle by Fabrizo(Character in book))

In my opinion such works as Sun-Tzu have little to say about such complex military manouvers and logistical endevours. Rather they choose to concentrate on obvious proverbs such as "Know yourself ; know your enemy".

[Ummon]

I would say that the western academy is superior. You miss out one very influential book The Art of War by Niccolo Machavelli. Although better known for his discourses on the ruling of states, he makes some very astute observations on the training of men. (and also the mock battle by Fabrizo(Character in book))

In my opinion such works as Sun-Tzu have little to say about such complex military manouvers and logistical endevours. Rather they choose to concentrate on obvious proverbs such as "Know yourself ; know your enemy".

You are missing the point of Machiavelli entirely. Machiavelli and Sun Tzu are infact very similar. The content of Ping Che, furthermore, is anything but generic. The lack of understanding that you and Soviet show is motivated by the lack of understanding of the inherently different nature of eastern thought, and even language.

Also, the name is not Fabrizo, but Fabrizio. Note that the name of the protagonist Fabrizio Colonna, Fabrizio comes from Fabricius, name which the Romans themselves linked with an old saying repeated in the verse of Terentius: "Faber suae quisque fortunae esse" (the phrase is an objective hence the infinitive in the verb to be): EVERYONE IS THE SMITH OF HIS OWN DESINY. For some reason, choosing this name, Machiavelli pointed out that the accent is on the man, not on external teachings.

Sun Tzu's Art of war is a very complicated metatext including allegoric meanings and multiple significates (between the row and the column, the square ideographic text is a living experience and has no fixed content).

Even a good translation (taking these multiple levels of significance into account) in not as good as the chinese text. But a good translation (without the Sun Bin) is much better than any western military textbook.

Said this, the perfect general IMITATES and MEDITATES Sun Tzu, and LEARNS and UNDERSTANDS Clausewitz. These are two completely different and compatible processes.

[Søren]

The lack of understanding that you and Soviet show is motivated by the lack of understanding of the inherently different nature of eastern thought, and even language.

No, I understand easten thought, the problem is that of the illogical supposition taken from the general statement.
This is "Others say this ; They do no understand easten thought : He says it ; he does not understand easten thought. (note lack of "ergo" between "this ; They". Hovever I do understand easten thought. Sun tzu, you will find is very different from Machevelli.

Even a good translation (taking these multiple levels of significance into account) in not as good as the chinese text. But a good translation (without the Sun Bin) is much better than any western military textbook.

Addmittiably it may be different in the chinese.
However although Sun tzu introduced new concepts and should be studied, it does not provide the detail for logistical movements.

[Ummon]

Detail is not required when the method is known.

Bavarian, you suppose you understand, but I can tell you, you don't.

[Pompeius Minus]

I think some of you are missing the point here. The books mentioned in this thread are not really comparable, since they are books from different genres and totally different time periods.

Musashis "Five Rings" is not a military work at all. It is a swordfighting manual and should be compared to European swordfighting manuals, of which there are many.

Sun Tzu is a strategic work comparable to Clausewitz, Jomini, or Machiavelli. However Clausewitz and Macchiavelli wrote their books after the enlightenment and halfways into the industrial revolution, so comparing them to an ancient work like Sun Tzu is like comparing Vegetius or Caesar to Clausewitz. The most fair comparison is probably Sun Tzu and Macchiavelli.

Vegetius is a military manual and not a strategic work. Vegetius became popular with the rediscovery of drill and standing armies in Europe during the renaissance.

I'll say that the Western texts would win the most, becuase they probably would be following ancient Romans like Vegetius and that small unit tactics are more favored in Western culture.

I don't think there is anything that suggests small unit tactics are more favoured in western culture. I'm pretty sure that drill, a prerequisite for small unit tactics, was discovered and rediscovered in both the east and west on different occasions. The west won the military race because of technological and economic developments, not because of some fundamental philosophical difference.

Joking we might say that while the Westerners start with certitudes and end in doubt while the opposite is true for the Orientals.

Again I think the difference, if there is one, is due to the fact that the books are from different time periods. Of course a book written after the enlightenment, like Clausewitz, is going to have a more modern scientific approach.

[Ummon]

The HI-NO-MAKI (book of Fire) and the CHI-NO-MAKI (Book of Earth) are both applicable to large scale fights. Musashi himself states that the Art of War is the same for one man and ten thousand.

Sun Tzu is superior to most western works on war under many aspects because it teaches the unchanging nature of the art of war. This nature has many possible incarnations during time, incarnations which vary through the ages and with the progress of technology, but the method is always the same.

Clausewitz and Machiavelli have written great works on strategy, but these works can become outdated as they're based on casistics. Sun Tzu cannot become outdated but partially, as it is a book on method.

Machiavelli wrote BEFORE enlightenment and during italian Renaissance. Yet, his work is as of yet the less outdated of the ones you quoted, overall.

[Søren]

Detail is not required when the method is known.

The method is important and so is the detail. Like a stem without leaves;like leaves withouut a stem. Perhaps I should clarify my use of the word "detail" detail is the continuation of the method through examples and/or is an integral part which is the "stem".

Bavarian, you suppose you understand, but I can tell you, you don't.

I suggest that you are branding anyone as un-knowlageable if they disagree with you. Mine is a totally valid idea; whether true or false. There is no need for such an uneccesarly arrogant statement in a discussion that I was endevouring to keep friendly.

[Ummon]

There's nothing unfriendly in telling you the truth.

Sun Tzu takes years to understand even partly, it has nothing to do with you being intelligent or stupid, knowledgeable or unknowledgeable.

[Søren]

Ummon :

I apologise for my slight over reaction :original: . However there are better, less terse ways for you to carry out a discussion.

As for my opinions on easten thought ; you seem to think that I have no appreciation of it, it may be that my understanding on that account is inferior to yours ; however my point was that western thinkers would beat easten thinkers in battle. Sun-tzu though invaluable in earlier times, (and indeed to a certain extent, now) does not convey the full realities of this nuclear age. Thus whil applying to any period, western thought has advanced further, being more useful in the present day.

[Ummon]

Nuclear war is a very specific case of 0-sum game. This peculiar form of 0-sum games do not follow the rules explained by Sun Tzu. It could be infact argued that nuclear war is a -1 sum game. All the parts lose.

[Søren]

And modern war has the black shadow of a nuclear war looming over it. Although not as likley as some think it is, it must be taken into consideration.

An interesting point to make is that at the end of the 100 games both sides, hopefully having learned from their mistakes, would end up using an analgamation of the two strategies.

[SigniferOne]

The west won the military race because of technological and economic developments, not because of some fundamental philosophical difference.

Quite the contrary, the West has always (except for the Dark/Medieval Ages) won against its enemies is precisely because of philosophy. You can go back to the philosophy behind the original Greek hoplite to understand why the West has always won, and always will as long as it remains the only one with adherence to what maybe called "the hoplite culture". You people are comparing Western/Eastern military thinking but you try to look for One book from each culture that will identify that culture's way of thinking. For the east that work may be Sun Tzu's, but in the west there is no One book, but many diffuse ones, and they don't teach specific advice but a uniquely western CULTURE of war. You can go back
to Tyrtaeus (7th century BC):


(6, 7) It is beautiful when a brave man of the front ranks falls and
dies, battling for his homeland, and ghastly when a man flees planted fields
and city and wanders begging with his dear mother, aging father, little
children and true wife. He will be scorned in every new village, reduced to
want and loathsome poverty; and shame will brand his family line, his noble
figure. Derision and disaster will hound him. A turncoat gets no respect or
pity; so let us battle for our country and freely give our lives to save our
darling children. Young men, fight shield to shield and never succumb to
panic or miserable flight, but steel the heart in your chests with
magnificence and courage. Forget your own life when you grapple with the
enemy. Never run and let an old soldier collapse whose legs have lost their
power. It is shocking when an old man lies on the front line before a youth;
an old warrior whose head is white and beard is gray, exhaling his strong soul
into the dust, clutching his bloody genitals in his hands--an abominable
vision, foul to see--his flesh naked. But in a young man all is beautiful
when he still possesses the shining flower of lovely youth. Alive he is
adored by men, desired by women, and finest to look upon when he falls dead in
the forward clash. Let each man spread his legs, rooting them in the ground,
bite his teeth into his lips, and hold.

Or to Alcaeus (also 7th century BC):

Not homes with beautiful roofs,
nor walls of permanent stone,
nor canals and piers for ships
make the city — but men of strength.

Not stone and timber, nor skill
of carpenter — but men brave
who will handle sword and spear.

With these you have: city and walls.


The freedom of the ancient Greek Polis (as opposed to five thosaund years of Chinese slavery to their masters) was what produced the original hoplite, and every other soldier that was patterned upon him. It is not accident that the citizen/warrior hoplite crushed innumerable hordes of Persians, and the same story has repeated itself with every other successor to the hoplite, against every other successor to the Eastern military thought.

[Ummon]

It's undoubtable that western morale and discipline are superior, for the reasons pointed by Signifer, and others.

Here though we are not talking of morale and discipline. Western troops led through Sun Tzu's method and using technical and tactical advancements of the West are the most desirable army.

Notice also that only the Chinese and Japanese have followed Sun Tzu's teachings during history. Overall, these are the only non-western cultures who have ever been able to beat western troops.

[SigniferOne]

Not true, the Arabs and the Mongols had a great run vs western troops. Let's not forget Zulus and Islandhwana. But so what? A Sun Tzu would achieve Islandhwana, while a Greek hoplite would achieve Rorke's Drift. That's the difference between the two military cultures.

[Ummon]

Arabs didn't beat western military style. Byzantines had renounced western military style (switching to light cavalry armies and conscript peasants) and the said style had not been exported to post-Roman europe yet.

When the crusades occurred, remember that the crusaders were always heavily outnumbered. A Templar knight could kill 100 Saracens and Templars were never attacked if the Arabs didn't have a monstruous numerical superiority. This comment applies for Zulus too, to a lesser extent.

Mongols only faced Russians and Poles. Only once they faced Western knights. But again, that wasn't properly western warfare, since medieval europe had no democracy and no rule of law.

Since the western style has been reinstated through modernity, only Japanese and Chinese have beaten it.