Must-Have Classics for the True Strategist

[Lord Thesaurian]

1. The Art of War (Sun Tsu) This book is a very Chinese book, so it is best to get the Penguin Classics Deluxe Edition, which has this venerated book both in its original translated pros an in a format which includes over 200 pages of valuable commentary to help the western reader understand the cultural assumptions of the book.

2. Strategy (B.H. Liddel Hart) This book has become a near-Bible of western strategy. The writings of Liddel Hart have influenced such great commanders as Erwin Rommel, Eisenhower, Montgomery, and even the tank ace of WWII, Heinz Guderian. This book is a must-have for any serious strategist, and contains both the basic rules of warfare and vital historical commentary by Hart himself.

3. On War (Karl von Clausewitz) This book is a commentary on the art of war compiled some 200 years ago by the strategist, Clausewitz himself. The book contains startling remarks, such as the infamous quote, "There is no victory without blood," and other rather linear statements. The book is, however, a valuble insight into the world of Clausewitz and the attitude of 19th century warfare. Clausewitz, just before dying of Cholera in 1832, said that he wanted his writings burned after he died, for they were unclear and not fit to be read yet, as Clausewitz had apparently not yet worked out all his theories. So, though skewed and misinterpreted, On War is another classic no strategist can go without.

4. Commentaries on the Gaullic War (Julius Caesar) Who among the masses of history buffs and strategists has not read this ancient classic? Written by the great general and founder of the Roman Empire himself, Commentaries is a surprisingly un-biased account of the first great Roman conquest since the Punic Wars. The book takes you through the Gaullic War from start to finish, as if Caesar knew that this was an epic undertaking to be remembered by posterity Though a book for any history buff or strategist, Commentaries contains valuable strategic, logistical, marshal, and tactical advice for any general, and should not be disreguarded as historical lore. After all, it is written by Caesar himself, is it not?

5. The Histories (Herodotos/Polybios) Much like Commentaries, this book is often described as historical lore. But The Histories should not be discounted among the annals of great strategic writings. Though biased and poetic, this ancient epic contains valuable strategic connotations, not to mention a window into Classical Greece. The Histories may not be an essential read for the strategist, but it is one that no strategist or history buff does not have on his shelf.

PS: Is this list missing something? add to it

[Hookah Smoking Caterpiller]

you mean armchair generals yes?

Also you forgot Zzap Branigans' big book of war

[SepulchreUK]

you mean armchair generals yes?

Also you forgot Zap Branigans' big book of war

Isn't anyone who plays Total War an armchair general?

Anyway I doubt this chap would like Branigan's Big Book of War, he doesn't look like he's fond of velour.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Isn't anyone who plays Total War an armchair general?
.

exactly!

Anyway I doubt this chap would like Branigan's Big Book of War, he doesn't look like he's fond of velour.

The fact that its called the "Big Book of War" probably means that I wont But its not that Im not "fond of valor." When it comes down to the nitty-gritty, valor is ultimately what wins a battle anyway. Its just that one should never take his own valor into account when strategizing. This has led to disaster far too many times. Plan a battle as if your men are silly little girls and you have to win it through ruse, and you will generally be victorious

What of the Battle of Ai?
?

Oh yeah! U mean the one where God had tell Joshua to fake a retreat so God could slaughter the men of Ai with giant rocks? How silly of me to forget that golden piece of strategic maneuvering!

Well, actually in real warfare one only needs experience and common sense..

To an extent, yes. That's why Im rather cynical when some historian claims that so-and-so's a military genius, just because he liked writing a biography on the guy. Like Napoleon, for example. He was an administrative, political, and social genius - but not a military genius. He was a master of tactics, which made him a field commander of genius. But his strategies were flawed more than a few times, and he was an idiot in the field of grand strategy, and this fact reared its ugly head more than a few times, notably in Nappy's farce attempt at an English invasion, which then led to Trafalgar (during this period Nappy couldnt really make up his mind on anything) and culminated in the disastrous invasion of Russia.

In today's warfare an officer can only be someone who received formsl education. My dad was a captain so I know how much things were to be learned.
Organisations, regulations, pre battle calculations, examples for various military actions...

.

The hierarchy of "schooled" officers is the plague of any nation. To put it in the words of some sage whose name I cannot now recall: "Great generals are not born, they become so through training and force of discipline."

Che Guevara had a diploma in medicine, Castro had a law degree

Neither of these were even military men. They were pissed off cowards who blamed society for their problems and managed to make things just the way they wanted - and look what happened.

[The Friend]

g!



To an extent, yes. That's why Im rather cynical when some historian claims that so-and-so's a military genius, just because he liked writing a biography on the guy. Like Napoleon, for example. He was an administrative, political, and social genius - but not a military genius. He was a master of tactics, which made him a field commander of genius. But his strategies were flawed more than a few times, and he was an idiot in the field of grand strategy, and this fact reared its ugly head more than a few times, notably in Nappy's farce attempt at an English invasion, which then led to Trafalgar (during this period Nappy couldnt really make up his mind on anything) and culminated in the disastrous invasion of Russia.

Napoleon is actually considered to be a master of grand strategy and sits alongside Wallenstein, Gustav and Genghiz in the citadel of the grand masters of this craft.
Strategies are always judged flawed or balanced/vindicated depending on its eventual outcome. While the outcome is a product of various extraneous efforts not always under the control of one sovereign.
Just one example for you : Consider this scenario. Tipu Sultan holding off the British in the Anglo-Mysore War (The final defeat was largely due to an act of treachery). This spells disaster for the emerging British Empire in India and is a great omen for the French Empire. Without substantial Continental trade, how does the British Empire support the huge land armies of the Central European Powers against Napoleon ?

If Napoleon had failed in anything , it was his political efforts of an United European confederacy and his efforts to isolate England from the continent.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Napoleon is actually considered to be a master of grand strategy and sits alongside Wallenstein, Gustav and Genghiz in the citadel of the grand masters of this craft.
Strategies are always judged flawed or balanced/vindicated depending on its eventual outcome. While the outcome is a product of various extraneous efforts not always under the control of one sovereign.

If Napoleon had failed in anything , it was his political efforts of an United European confederacy and his efforts to isolate England from the continent.

Grand strategy was at the very least something severely lacking in Napoleon's skill profile, if only compared to his tactical skill. This has nothing to do with the "outcome" of his plans. If he was not a poor grand strategist than he must have suffered from some sort of ADD. What kind of grand strategist nearly brings England to her knees with one kind of blockade, then changes the nature of this blockade at the last minute, allowing her to recover enough to be able to send Wellington to Spain, etc.? or has (how many hundred thousand men, horses, wagons, etc. was it?) sitting in port waiting to invade Britain for so long plague breaks out and Nappy the brilliant grand strategist is forced to disband his "Grande Armee"? What kind of grand strategist concocts a hair-brained idea to send most of the French and Spanish Navies on a trans-atlantic voyage to take Jamaica and the West Idies, then spread a slave rebellion among the English New-World colonies in the hopes of doing what his blockades failed to do, leading to near-annihilation in numerous storms, the loss of some French colonies, and defeat and humiliation in the battle of Trafalgar? And most of all, What grand strategist drains his coffers, foundries, barracks, and stables to gamble everything on a hopeless expedition into the wilds of Russia, especially when his subordinates warn him of the dangers?

Dont get me wrong, I greatly admire Napoleon for more reasons than I can count. Its just that there is overwhelming evidence that there was something up with his grand strategy. I think his crowning achievement was organizing his first place of exile (E-something?) into a powerbase from which he launched his glorious yet heartbreaking last stand which was very nearly a rebirth of Napoleonic Europe But the poor man just couldnt get it together with his grand strategy, and this led directly to his downfall

[Antigenes]

Oh yeah! U mean the one where God had tell Joshua to fake a retreat so God could slaughter the men of Ai with giant rocks? How silly of me to forget that golden piece of strategic maneuvering!

No. Yehoshua lured the defenders of the city into a sally, and a picked force of his that had been waiting in ambush on the other side of Ai moved into the city during their absence and overwhelmed the small garrison that was left. Ai was razed with virtually no casualties on the part of the Hebrews.

[Lord Claremorris]

All excellent books, but I think that Vegetius and Machiavelli should not be discounted, and even though many points in Jomini's works have been considered "archaic" there are still many points that are valid. As for Naval Strategy, of which you mentioned nothing, I would say (of course) Alfred Thayer Mahan, and E.B. Potter. Also there was a nice little book compiled that had several of Napoleon's maxims and ideas, which, though not necessarily influencing, nonetheless show the thoughts of the great French Emperor.

Oh and Legio, that island that the French Emperor was exiled to first was the Island of Elba, off the coast of Tuscany, Italy. I thought a Roman/Italian enthusiast such as yourself would have known the geography of the Appenine Peninsula and the Islands associated with it through and through.

[Lord Thesaurian]

No. Yehoshua lured the defenders of the city into a sally, and a picked force of his that had been waiting in ambush on the other side of Ai moved into the city during their absence and overwhelmed the small garrison that was left. Ai was razed with virtually no casualties on the part of the Hebrews.

Joshua 7


1But the children of Israel committed a trespass in the accursed thing: for Achan, the son of Carmi, the son of Zabdi, the son of Zerah, of the tribe of Judah, took of the accursed thing: and the anger of the LORD was kindled against the children of Israel.
2And Joshua sent men from Jericho to Ai, which is beside Bethaven, on the east of Bethel, and spake unto them, saying, Go up and view the country. And the men went up and viewed Ai.
3And they returned to Joshua, and said unto him, Let not all the people go up; but let about two or three thousand men go up and smite Ai; and make not all the people to labour thither; for they are but few.
4So there went up thither of the people about three thousand men: and they fled before the men of Ai. And the men of Ai smote of them about thirty and six men: for they chased them from before the gate even unto Shebarim, and smote them in the going down: wherefore the hearts of the people melted, and became as water.

-- any army who takes 36 casualties and routs cant be considered an army, let alone a great one!

6And Joshua rent his clothes, and fell to the earth upon his face before the ark of the LORD until the eventide, he and the elders of Israel, and put dust upon their heads.

7And Joshua said, Alas, O LORD God, wherefore hast thou at all brought this people over Jordan, to deliver us into the hand of the Amorites, to destroy us? would to God we had been content, and dwelt on the other side Jordan!
8O LORD, what shall I say, when Israel turneth their backs before their enemies!
9For the Canaanites and all the inhabitants of the land shall hear of it, and shall environ us round, and cut off our name from the earth: and what wilt thou do unto thy great name? 10And the LORD said unto Joshua, Get thee up; wherefore liest thou thus upon thy face?

-- Notice here that God says, "dont come crying to Me you big fat baby (to put it mildly)! Youre My chosen people! Youve shamed yourselves and Me in front of all of Canaan!"

11Israel hath sinned, and they have also transgressed my covenant which I commanded them: for they have even taken of the accursed thing, and have also stolen, and dissembled also, and they have put it even among their own stuff......

20And Achan answered Joshua, and said, Indeed I have sinned against the LORD God of Israel, and thus and thus have I done:

21When I saw among the spoils a goodly Babylonish garment, and two hundred shekels of silver, and a wedge of gold of fifty shekels weight, then I coveted them, and took them; and, behold, they are hid in the earth in the midst of my tent, and the silver under it.
22So Joshua sent messengers, and they ran unto the tent; and, behold, it was hid in his tent, and the silver under it.
23And they took them out of the midst of the tent, and brought them unto Joshua, and unto all the children of Israel, and laid them out before the LORD.
24And Joshua, and all Israel with him, took Achan the son of Zerah, and the silver, and the garment, and the wedge of gold, and his sons, and his daughters, and his oxen, and his asses, and his sheep, and his tent, and all that he had: and they brought them unto the valley of Achor.
25And Joshua said, Why hast thou troubled us? the LORD shall trouble thee this day. And all Israel stoned him with stones, and burned them with fire, after they had stoned them with stones. 26And they raised over him a great heap of stones unto this day. So the LORD turned from the fierceness of his anger. Wherefore the name of that place was called, The valley of Achor, unto this day.


So basically God cursed Israel because one man looted some crap from Jericho, right?

1And the LORD said unto Joshua, Fear not, neither be thou dismayed: take all the people of war with thee, and arise, go up to Ai: see, I have given into thy hand the king of Ai, and his people, and his city, and his land:

2And thou shalt do to Ai and her king as thou didst unto Jericho and her king: only the spoil thereof, and the cattle thereof, shall ye take for a prey unto yourselves: lay thee an ambush for the city behind it. 3So Joshua arose, and all the people of war, to go up against Ai: and Joshua chose out thirty thousand mighty men of valour, and sent them away by night.

So basically God says, "Yeah, you guys are a bunch of girls, but dont worry, leave those meany old Ai men to Me!"

4And he commanded them, saying, Behold, ye shall lie in wait against the city, even behind the city: go not very far from the city, but be ye all ready:

5And I, and all the people that are with me, will approach unto the city: and it shall come to pass, when they come out against us, as at the first, that we will flee before them,
6(For they will come out after us) till we have drawn them from the city; for they will say, They flee before us, as at the first: therefore we will flee before them.
7Then ye shall rise up from the ambush, and seize upon the city: for the LORD your God will deliver it into your hand. 8And it shall be, when ye have taken the city, that ye shall set the city on fire: according to the commandment of the LORD shall ye do. See, I have commanded you.

Joshua says, "OK huddle up! Ill take a few guys and approach the city from the front, and the rest of you go to the other side of the city. When Ai comes out and pursues us, then you guys ambush the city from the rear and set it ablaze. Dont be scared, now children! God will strike fear into them and rout them for us!" -- Holy crap! This is pure genius

9Joshua therefore sent them forth: and they went to lie in ambush, and abode between Bethel and Ai, on the west side of Ai: but Joshua lodged that night among the people.

10And Joshua rose up early in the morning, and numbered the people, and went up, he and the elders of Israel, before the people to Ai.
11And all the people, even the people of war that were with him, went up, and drew nigh, and came before the city, and pitched on the north side of Ai: now there was a valley between them and Ai.
12And he took about five thousand men, and set them to lie in ambush between Bethel and Ai, on the west side of the city.
13And when they had set the people, even all the host that was on the north of the city, and their liers in wait on the west of the city, Joshua went that night into the midst of the valley.
14And it came to pass, when the king of Ai saw it, that they hasted and rose up early, and the men of the city went out against Israel to battle, he and all his people, at a time appointed, before the plain; but he wist not that there were liers in ambush against him behind the city.
15And Joshua and all Israel made as if they were beaten before them, and fled by the way of the wilderness.
16And all the people that were in Ai were called together to pursue after them: and they pursued after Joshua, and were drawn away from the city.
17And there was not a man left in Ai or Bethel, that went not out after Israel: and they left the city open, and pursued after Israel.
18And the LORD said unto Joshua, Stretch out the spear that is in thy hand toward Ai; for I will give it into thine hand. And Joshua stretched out the spear that he had in his hand toward the city.
19And the ambush arose quickly out of their place, and they ran as soon as he had stretched out his hand: and they entered into the city, and took it, and hasted and set the city on fire.
20And when the men of Ai looked behind them, they saw, and, behold, the smoke of the city ascended up to heaven, and they had no power to flee this way or that way: and the people that fled to the wilderness turned back upon the pursuers.
21And when Joshua and all Israel saw that the ambush had taken the city, and that the smoke of the city ascended, then they turned again, and slew the men of Ai.
22And the other issued out of the city against them; so they were in the midst of Israel, some on this side, and some on that side: and they smote them, so that they let none of them remain or escape.
23And the king of Ai they took alive, and brought him to Joshua.
24And it came to pass, when Israel had made an end of slaying all the inhabitants of Ai in the field, in the wilderness wherein they chased them, and when they were all fallen on the edge of the sword, until they were consumed, that all the Israelites returned unto Ai, and smote it with the edge of the sword.
25And so it was, that all that fell that day, both of men and women, were twelve thousand, even all the men of Ai.
26For Joshua drew not his hand back, wherewith he stretched out the spear, until he had utterly destroyed all the inhabitants of Ai.
27Only the cattle and the spoil of that city Israel took for a prey unto themselves, according unto the word of the LORD which he commanded Joshua. 28And Joshua burnt Ai, and made it an heap for ever, even a desolation unto this day

So this brilliant plan is carried out to the letter. When the Ai soldiers see their city ablaze, they lose all hope and rout (interesting...). Then 30,000 Israelite vets pursue and cut down all 12,000 men, women, and children of Ai. In short, 30,000 vets ambush 12,000 men, women and children and slaughter them all. Wow, this is a piece of strategic genius!

[Antigenes]

Homer did not write the Historia. Are you talking about Polybios or Herodotos? The former is admittedly a good read, but is mostly a political writer (with his famous discussion of the Roman constitution) and the latter is more of an ethnographer than anything else. The best of the classical Greek historians on military matters is Thukydides.

[Hookah Smoking Caterpiller]

Homer did not write the Historia. Are you talking about Polybios or Herodotos? The former is admittedly a good read, but is mostly a political writer (with his famous discussion of the Roman constitution) and the latter is more of an ethnographer than anything else. The best of the classical Greek historians on military matters is Thukydides.

From his discription, it appears to be Herodotus' writings. Thucydides is a better discriber of the battles in his books.

this suggest he has little knowledge of his sources and stratagies

[boofhead]

From his discription, it appears to be Herodotus' writings. Thucydides is a better discriber of the battles in his books.

this suggest he has little knowledge of his sources and stratagies

Give him the benefit of the doubt. No doubt it was just an error.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Homer did not write the Historia. Are you talking about Polybios or Herodotos? .

Yeah, Herodotos... my bad

So I don't think if you read them you're a strategist really. You're just more familiar with warfare and tactics of the time.

If there's one principal of warfare that hasn't change in it's entire existence it's the important and ability to flank, or envelop your enemy. That's been a constant no matter the age.

Im not saying that if u read these ur a strategist, Im just saying that these are essential classics that no strategist goes without

About the unchanged warfare bit, Ive contemplated myself quite a few times. Why is it that the nature of warfare has changed so much (becoming more and more mobile (first with advanced cav, then good bows and arrows, then gun powder, then motor vehicles, etc.) but the essential tactical objective never changes: Rout your enemy, either through ruse, a flank/rear attack, and occasionally, break his center? I mean now of course there are highly advanced missile systems, air warfare, etc. but the basic rules of infantry vs infantry remain the same. Why is that?

The bible.

Ha! Thats's a good one! U know History Channel did a series called Bible Battles a while back. The strategies used by Biblical generals were pretty good, but nothing extraordinary. Besides, the Israelite military sucked, and they only won the battles they did because of a few great leaders. After those leaders died they were sold into slavery and their national ID was lost. This cycle was repeated until the Jews were assimilated into the Roman Empire as merchants, taxcollecters, etc., hence the ages old anti-Semetic rantings about the Jewish conspiracy to control global buissiness and rule the world

[manofarms89]

Ha! Thats's a good one! U know History Channel did a series called Bible Battles a while back. The strategies used by Biblical generals were pretty good, but nothing extraordinary. Besides, the Israelite military sucked, and they only won the battles they did because of a few great leaders. After those leaders died they were sold into slavery and their national ID was lost. This cycle was repeated until the Jews were assimilated into the Roman Empire as merchants, taxcollecters, etc., hence the ages old anti-Semetic rantings about the Jewish conspiracy to control global buissiness and rule the world

not true. the isrealites were returned to jerusalem by cyrus the great of persia.

[Lord Thesaurian]

not true. the isrealites were returned to jerusalem by cyrus the great of persia.

Then Jerusalem was almost razed by the Romans in 70 AD and thousands were killed or enslaved..... leading to my point in the previous post.

[Captain Jin]

I like military history a lot. But I try not to get too stuck on past strategies. It's good to be aware of them, because you may come along a point in time where such things would be useful. But the way modern warfare is now-a-days is so much different than any of the eras those were written in. So I don't think if you read them you're a strategist really. You're just more familiar with warfare and tactics of the time.

If there's one principal of warfare that hasn't change in it's entire existence it's the important and ability to flank, or envelop your enemy. That's been a constant no matter the age.

[bushbush]

a very good list i must say.

[hellheaven1987]

2. Strategy (B.H. Liddel Hart) This book has become a near-Bible of western strategy. The writings of Liddel Hart have influenced such great commanders as Erwin Rommel, Eisenhower, Montgomery, and even the tank ace of WWII, Heinz Guderian. This book is a must-have for any serious strategist, and contains both the basic rules of warfare and vital historical commentary by Hart himself.

Ha, I am pretty sure Monty did not learn anything from Liddell Hart because he rarely used "indirect approach" (not to mention Hart was critized the performance of Monty, stated he was "lack of mobility").

Eisenhower was a tough case as his involvement of actual combat was rare (as his original mission was to cooperate British and American force, not fighting); Rommel was largely applied his WWI mobile infantry doctrine into his armor doctrine, so it was also quite tough to say how much he was influenced by Hart.

The most interesting guy that was influenced by Hart was Winston Churchill, although apartly he did not like Hart very much.

For Liddell Hart I would suggest his books about Lawrence, Sherman, German Generals' Talk and WWII, as those books clearly provide example of how to conduct an "indirect approach".

3. On War (Karl von Clausewitz) This book is a commentary on the art of war compiled some 200 years ago by the strategist, Clausewitz himself. The book contains startling remarks, such as the infamous quote, "There is no victory without blood," and other rather linear statements. The book is, however, a valuble insight into the world of Clausewitz and the attitude of 19th century warfare. Clausewitz, just before dying of Cholera in 1832, said that he wanted his writings burned after he died, for they were unclear and not fit to be read yet, as Clausewitz had apparently not yet worked out all his theories. So, though skewed and misinterpreted, On War is another classic no strategist can go without.

Lol, that is such an irony that you list this book right after Liddell Hart's Strategy, as Hart was heavily critized Clausewitz's military idea.

[Nikos]

The Byzantine Emperor Maurice's work the Strategikon.
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/...trategikon.htm

[patrick1191]

The bible.