Sun Tzu's Art Of War

[ELITEOFKINGWARMAN8]

I always love reading The Art Of War by Sun Tzu. I think we should discuss it here. I think a lot of the stuff he wrote then could be applied now, not only in war, but in business, politics..... and even in games like TW .

[bushbush]

i thought it was pretty remarkable for a military man like Sun Tze to realize this:

Therefore one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the most skillful. Seizing the enemy without fighting is the most skillful.

It applies perfectly to today's world. While brute force is useful, using soft power to achieve your goal is actually more desirable.

[Homeros]

i thought it was pretty remarkable for a military man like Sun Tze to realize this:

Therefore one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the most skillful. Seizing the enemy without fighting is the most skillful.

It applies perfectly to today's world. While brute force is useful, using soft power to achieve your goal is actually more desirable.

That's not what Sun Tzu meant exactly, but you're close.

A good example is Napoleon's campaign in Russia. His Grand Armee was defeated without ever fighting the Russians (decisively). He was forced to retreat simply because they'd run out of supplies.

Damn Russians and their 'scorch the earth' strategy.

[bushbush]

That's not what Sun Tzu meant exactly, but you're close.

A good example is Napoleon's campaign in Russia. His Grand Armee was defeated without ever fighting the Russians (decisively). He was forced to retreat simply because they'd run out of supplies.

Damn Russians and their 'scorch the earth' strategy.

actually because he explicitly mentioned the high cost of military campaigns in lives and money, i think he meant that using diplomacy and various other means to pressure your enemies, if possible, into submission is more desirable than waging a destructive war.

[Homeros]

actually because he explicitly mentioned the high cost of military campaigns in lives and money, i think he meant that using diplomacy and various other means to pressure your enemies, if possible, into submission is more desirable than waging a destructive war.

What Sun Tzu really meant remains mysterious (and to some extent controversial).

I believe he meant that only the Taoist adept will be able to achieve this ideal, which presupposes a level of penetrating insight not given to ordinary mortals. It would be foolish to suggest that the history of warfare in China (or elsewhere) shows that this ideal was realized. Like all ideals, it lies at the limit of the humanly achievable; what is of real interest is that it is the proposed ideal. At least Sun Tzu does propose an alternative to the appalling brutalities of actual war.

This is what he said in The Art of War:

To subdue the enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence. Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy. Next best is to disrupt his alliances by diplomacy. The next best is to attack his army. And the worst policy is to attack cities.

[hellheaven1987]

That's not what Sun Tzu meant exactly, but you're close.

A good example is Napoleon's campaign in Russia. His Grand Armee was defeated without ever fighting the Russians (decisively). He was forced to retreat simply because they'd run out of supplies.

Damn Russians and their 'scorch the earth' strategy.

Na, what Sun Tze means was using diplomacy and other non-violent methods to solve problem before applying violent methods; it is not an idealism but actually existed as a law of Chou Dynasty (the dynasty before Spring and Autumn period).

It is a practical method during Spring and Autumn period, when warfare was largely limit to elites' chariots war (which contained a lot of Chou law, like under certain situation you cannot use bow or spear); however, it slowly became inpractical during Warring States period due to the introduction of massive conscription, general mobilization and improved logistic (not to mention the complete collapse of Chou tradition).

[Old_Scratch]

I find Sun Tzu's The Art of War to be a little basic. It lays down a decent primer for strategy, planning, and the management of people, but doesn't give deeper insight in my opinion. As a strategy manual I prefer A Book of Five Rings by Miyamoto Musashi. It is both simple and yet very deep and can be applied to any situation where there is conflict, not just battle.

I've also read Machiavelli The Art of War. It was interesting but I felt that it relied and referenced the classical period too much and wasn't very innovative in itself. It certainly gives an interesting view on the period and the tactics of the time though.

[Ummon]

I find Sun Tzu's The Art of War to be a little basic. It lays down a decent primer for strategy, planning, and the management of people, but doesn't give deeper insight in my opinion. As a strategy manual I prefer A Book of Five Rings by Miyamoto Musashi. It is both simple and yet very deep and can be applied to any situation where there is conflict, not just battle.

I've also read Machiavelli The Art of War. It was interesting but I felt that it relied and referenced the classical period too much and wasn't very innovative in itself. It certainly gives an interesting view on the period and the tactics of the time though.

Machiavelli is comparable to Sun Tzu (you have to read the Prince of course), but Musashi suffers from excessively detailed description, in my opinion. Also, you have to consider, that the message conveyed by ideographic texts is not fully translatable. The translation I possess, partially overcomes this difficulty by coupling literal translation with translation of the metaphoric fields involved with ideograms in their horizontal juxtaposition. This returns some of the original perfection.

[Homeros]

Na, what Sun Tze means was using diplomacy and other non-violent methods to solve problem before applying violent methods; it is not an idealism but actually existed as a law of Chou Dynasty (the dynasty before Spring and Autumn period).

This is what Sun Tzu wrote: "To subdue the enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence. Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy. Next best is to disrupt his alliances by diplomacy. The next best is to attack his army. And the worst policy is to attack cities."

He doesn't say how to achieve "supreme excellence", but he does say that its "of supreme importance to attack the enemy's strategy". I think Sun Tzu had a twofold meaning; to make strategic decisions and to defeat the enemy with strategy.

The battle of Kuanlin (354 BC)
General Pang Juan of Wei directed his army and surrounded Handan, the capital of Zhao. Zhao sent an emissary to Qi to ask for help. The sovereign of Qi summoned his generals and officials to discuss a plan to rescue Zhao. General Tien Ji proposed to sent an army to fight against Pang Juan to rescue Zhao from the siege. But Qi's military advisor, Sun Bin objected, saying that the best way of rescuing Zhao was to sent an army to besiege Dailang, Wei's capital. He pointed out that the crack troops of Wei were all sent to Handan, leaving Wei's capital an undefended city. When troops were sent to Dailang, Wei's sovereign would certainly order Pang Juan to come back and defend his capital. The siege of Handan would be avoided without a fight and when Pang Juan's troops were coming back to its aid, Qi's troops would choose a place to have battle with Pang's troops to defeat them.

This strategem was 'to attack where he [the enemy] is sure to come to its rescue'. It was a much better plan than Generals Tien Ji's plan to fight a battle with Pang Juan near Handan after a long and tiring march. When Qi's troops were on their way to Dailang, the sovereign of Wei, as expected, ordered Pang Juan to hurry back to Dailang with his army. The siege of Zhao was indeed ended without a fight. While the troops of Wei were retreating to Dailang, they came across Qi's troops at Kuanlin and were defeated.

In retrospect, we can conclude that General Tien Ji's plan to help Zhao was one of 'attack the enemy with strength', while Sun Bin's plan was 'to defeat the enemy with wisdom'.

Diplomacy
Before WW2, the Soviet Union tried its best to sign an agreement of mutual assistance with Britain and France in order to prevent the invasion of Nazi-Germany. But the British and French attempted to direct the scourge of Germany towards the east - the Soviet Union. Under the circumstances, Stalin could not have acted otherwise than to sign a non-aggression pact with Germany, which stopped the German advance for a while and thereby gave time for Soviet preparations. The British and French were not as alert as Stalin and suffered more immediately the force of Hitler's blitzkrieg. (Mao Zedong described this as "to lift a stone just to crush one's own feet").

Stalins tactic of delaying the attack by Hitler through diplomatic means, to gain time for preparation, was wise and desirable from a military strategic point of view.

The first example shows that 'attacking the enemy's strategy' to complete the primarily objective (lifting the siege) can be accomplished without the use of diplomacy. The second example shows the important role diplomacy can play on a military strategic level. Although Sun Tzu specifically labeled disrupting alliances by diplomacy the second best option, it however doesn't mean that they are mutually exclusive.

I find Sun Tzu's The Art of War to be a little basic. It lays down a decent primer for strategy, planning, and the management of people, but doesn't give deeper insight in my opinion. As a strategy manual I prefer A Book of Five Rings by Miyamoto Musashi. It is both simple and yet very deep and can be applied to any situation where there is conflict, not just battle.

The greatest strength of 'The Art of War' is its simplicity. Although war itself is highly complex, Sun Tzu has managed to write a 'manual' analyzing the nature of war and how victory may be ensured (using very few words).

[0N3]

hehe, i have it bookmarked so i can always read it

[gaius valerius]

I always love reading The Art Of War by Sun Tzu. I think we should discuss it here. I think a lot of the stuff he wrote then could be applied now, not only in war, but in business, politics..... and even in games like TW .

Indeed it is a lovely read... a poet and a general in one, can only mean he is Chinese :p. The book itself is indeed quite relevant for classic warfare. For not so classic warfare however...

[Homeros]

Indeed it is a lovely read... a poet and a general in one, can only mean he is Chinese :p. The book itself is indeed quite relevant for classic warfare. For not so classic warfare however...

Can you please explain why you believe it is less useful today?

The Art of War analyzes the nature of war, and reveals how victory may be ensured, and remains just as relevant today as it did the day it was written.

[gaius valerius]

Can you please explain why you believe it is less useful today?

The Art of War analyzes the nature of war, and reveals how victory may be ensured, and remains just as relevant today as it did the day it was written.

Which was what I said. What I said was that it is less relevant in non-classic warfare, like fighting terrorism.

[Homeros]

Which was what I said. What I said was that it is less relevant in non-classic warfare, like fighting terrorism.

"To subdue the enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence. Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy. Next best is to disrupt his alliances by diplomacy. The next best is to attack his army. And the worst policy is to attack cities."

I believe we can agree that the military operations in Afghanistan are to be considered as counter-terrorism.

According to Sun Tzu the worst thing NATO can do is to attack (bomb) Afghani towns and villages. Its better to attack the Taliban out in the open. Its even better to use diplomacy to lower / damage its local support. And the best way to defeat the Taliban is to attack its strategy. NATO should not concentrate on the Taliban, but on defending the locals. By doing so NATO will win respect and confidence, NATO will allow them [locals] to improve their living conditions and most importantly, if the Taliban attacks them [NATO], the Taliban will be the side that's hurting the locals.

This basically means using the Taliban strategy against the Taliban. That way NATO isn't bombing villages, but the Taliban are.

[gaius valerius]

This basically means using the Taliban strategy against the Taliban. That way NATO isn't bombing villages, but the Taliban are.

That's basically not what is happening though.

The chapter on spies.

I'll read it again when I get home.

[SonOfAlexander]

"To subdue the enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence. Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy. Next best is to disrupt his alliances by diplomacy. The next best is to attack his army. And the worst policy is to attack cities."

I believe we can agree that the military operations in Afghanistan are to be considered as counter-terrorism.

According to Sun Tzu the worst thing NATO can do is to attack (bomb) Afghani towns and villages. Its better to attack the Taliban out in the open. Its even better to use diplomacy to lower / damage its local support. And the best way to defeat the Taliban is to attack its strategy. NATO should not concentrate on the Taliban, but on defending the locals. By doing so NATO will win respect and confidence, NATO will allow them [locals] to improve their living conditions and most importantly, if the Taliban attacks them [NATO], the Taliban will be the side that's hurting the locals.

This basically means using the Taliban strategy against the Taliban. That way NATO isn't bombing villages, but the Taliban are.

EXACTLY- Thats what the British armed forces do... but the Americans ... Id rather not go into that

[AqD]

Which was what I said. What I said was that it is less relevant in non-classic warfare, like fighting terrorism.

But it's a good guide for terrorists actually

[Tiberius Tosi]

Indeed it is a lovely read... a poet and a general in one, can only mean he is Chinese :p. The book itself is indeed quite relevant for classic warfare. For not so classic warfare however...

I think just about everything he said then is still highly relevant today. Except for maybe arguably holding the high ground has become less important. Holding the high ground for seeing is even less important, but even then someone can apply that today as the high ground being satallites (sp?) which give you an edge over your enemy and give you the capability of tracking their movements like a hill did in ancient times.

[Homeros]

Snipers will prefer the high ground.

The Golan Heights are considered to be of great strategic value today.

[bleach]

Snipers will prefer the high ground.

The Golan Heights are considered to be of great strategic value today.

And more importantly, air superiority. Now that we have machines which travel higher than the ground, the sky is the high 'ground'.