This relates to the Nobel-prize-winning game theory of Thomas Schelling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Schelling#The_Strategy_...), who argued that intentional handicaps could be strategically useful in negotiations.
Paradoxical Geniuses: “Let us burn the ships” (2017)
11–20 of 56 posts
Re: Paradoxical Geniuses: “Let us burn the ships” (2017)
#12How credible are each of these stories? Curious if they are well substantiated by the historical record or legends told about forebears (or enemies).
Re: Paradoxical Geniuses: “Let us burn the ships” (2017)
#13Ahh, a libertarian finding joy!
Re: Paradoxical Geniuses: “Let us burn the ships” (2017)
#14Burning the boat Doesn’t always work well ...”in a move much like that of Cortés, he set fire to his ships and forced his men to press on. In his case, this did not end with stunning victory; Julian overextended his front, was killed, and lost the campaign. Julian’s death shows the very real risks involved in this bold strategy.”
Re: Paradoxical Geniuses: “Let us burn the ships” (2017)
#15> “an adversary is more hurt by desertion than slaughter.”
And disease, starvation, and the general problems of the march. This is one of the things I learned from Clausewitz's discussion of Napoleon's march on Moscow, the one that produces the famous Tufte diagram.
The Grande Armeé numbered 422,000 per Tufte/Minard, 1 million per Wikipedia, the same as several large music festivals; and they almost all had to walk the ~3,000 kilometers to Moscow; and most of the food had to be locally sourced. This necessarily resulted in the force being spread out over a huge area, and every morning when it was formed up there would be slightly fewer men.
Edit: and speaking of burning boats, when they got there, the Russians had burned the food stores of Moscow, starving both the Invaders and the citizens.
Re: Paradoxical Geniuses: “Let us burn the ships” (2017)
#16This relates to the Nobel-prize-winning game theory of Thomas Schelling ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Schelling#The_Strategy_... ), who argued that intentional handicaps could be strategically useful in negotiations.
There's an example based on that work -- the game of Chicken, where you drive a car at another car, person who swerves loses.
Payoff table: Both swerve: both lose face Neither swerve: both die They swerve, you don't: you gain face, they lose it You swerve, they don't: you lose face, they gain it
So: you make it abundantly clear that you can't control your car, even if you wanted to. Tear out the steering wheel, or lash it down and jump onto the roof of the car. Now it changes your opponents options to:
Swerve: lose face Don't: die.
(It's a trolley-problem-like scenario, don't ask too many questions about the practicalities of tearing out the steering wheel)
Re: Paradoxical Geniuses: “Let us burn the ships” (2017)
#17Not mentioned in the article is that Caesar himself was inspired by a previous Roman general, Sulla. Sulla marched on Rome about 30 years before Caesar did, thus showing that it was possible. Caesar's march also gave rise to some expressions still used today: "the die is cast" and "crossing the Rubicon" - both of which mean "going beyond the point of no return." Sulla is generally seen as having set the precedent for…
Sure. But the key is reaching a certain workable point, before committing.
Re: Paradoxical Geniuses: “Let us burn the ships” (2017)
#18Another way of commitment was the devotio:
Re: Paradoxical Geniuses: “Let us burn the ships” (2017)
#19Now, rerun Cortes' landing a hundred times, and in what, maybe 98 times they all end up dead, or returning home in one ship. Yes the natives would still have suffered terrible losses from disease but some other leader than Cortes would have gotten the empire.
The secret to being a trader is to not risk it all, to be there tomorrow to claim tomorrow's profit. Or perhaps the secret to poker is to stay in till you have a winning hand then risk it all.
But We have made lottery winners our heroes - I fear this is entirely the wrong model.
NB Ceaser invaded Britain and definitely did not burn his ships - his mission was not conquest of Britain but political gains in Rome. Caesar may have risked it all - but when the odds on him where around 50:50, not at Cortes' level of risk. To me the difference is profound.
Re: Paradoxical Geniuses: “Let us burn the ships” (2017)
#20> “an adversary is more hurt by desertion than slaughter.” And disease, starvation, and the general problems of the march. This is one of the things I learned from Clausewitz's discussion of Napoleon's march on Moscow, the one that produces the famous Tufte diagram. The Grande Armeé numbered 422,000 per Tufte/Minard, 1 million per Wikipedia, the same as several large music festivals; and they almost all had to walk t…
The original graph is best, I think. It demonstrates this effect very well.
http://nowscape.com/images/map_napoleon_moscow.gif
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2F...
