Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Who Was Sun Tzu’s Napoleon?

thestrategybridge.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 67 posts

Re: Who Was Sun Tzu’s Napoleon?

#51

Post by ConfusedDog »

east2west wrote: post #40
ConfusedDog wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same goes with SiMa Yi and ZhuGe Liang, at least from the TV show "JunShiLianMeng"(Alliance of Strategists). The famous SanGuo Yanyi story - KongChengJi (Ruse of the Empty City). SiMa Yi did not enter the city even though he know ZhuGe Liang was bluffing, and ZhuGe Liang knew that he knew. Strategically, if SiMa Yi kills ZhuGe Liang, he would won the war against Han, and CaoCao would have no use for a powerful strate…

First of all, the popular empty-city story is made up by the author of "Romance of Three Kingdom." It actually was Zhao Yan, a general in the same faction as ZhuGe Liang, who pretended to have an empty fortress and repelled an attack. Needless to say, there is no truth whatsoever to alternative "truth" that drama speculated. Second, by the time Sima Yi commanded a large field army, Cao Cao had died for a long time. S…

I knew what you said just FYI. I wouldn't treat the book or show too seriously... it's just entertainment, not history.

The show's main character is SiMa Yi, which is kind of new to me. It's like a retold of "Romance of Three Kingdom" from a SiMa family and Cao family perspective. Though I hated a lot of Chinese TV shows, this one I actually like and would recommend. I can't remember any combat in this show though, probably fairly average. I wouldn't compare it to Game of Thrones, maybe House of Cards is a closer genre.

Re: Who Was Sun Tzu’s Napoleon?

#52

Post by anigbrowl »

east2west wrote: post #40
ConfusedDog wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same goes with SiMa Yi and ZhuGe Liang, at least from the TV show "JunShiLianMeng"(Alliance of Strategists). The famous SanGuo Yanyi story - KongChengJi (Ruse of the Empty City). SiMa Yi did not enter the city even though he know ZhuGe Liang was bluffing, and ZhuGe Liang knew that he knew. Strategically, if SiMa Yi kills ZhuGe Liang, he would won the war against Han, and CaoCao would have no use for a powerful strate…

First of all, the popular empty-city story is made up by the author of "Romance of Three Kingdom." It actually was Zhao Yan, a general in the same faction as ZhuGe Liang, who pretended to have an empty fortress and repelled an attack. Needless to say, there is no truth whatsoever to alternative "truth" that drama speculated. Second, by the time Sima Yi commanded a large field army, Cao Cao had died for a long time. S…

It is bad on many levels - inconsistent camera positioning is a rookie mistake and is wearing on the viewer, and much of the exposition is painfully heavy-handed, while much (most?) of the dialog is propagandistic.

On the other hand, GoT does the same sort of thing in reverse; technical polish and a realistic aesthetic are the vehicle for a different set of propositions about how the world works. One genre uses fantastical formalism while another relies on fantastical plots.

It's interesting to contrast these two with more subversive explorations of the same forms, like Shadow and Watchmen (the movie; I haven't seen the TV reimagining yet though people seem to be raving about it).

Re: Who Was Sun Tzu’s Napoleon?

#53

Post by baybal2 »

david_draco wrote: post #3

"The Art of War is traditionally attributed to a military general from the late 6th century BC known as "Master Sun" (Mandarin: "Sunzi", earlier "Sun Tzu"), though its earliest parts probably date to at least 100 years later." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_War#History

It's a long living speculation that Sun's clan warfare was a polar opposite of the book, and that them spreading their military methods was world's first examples of disinformation warfare.

They teach sons of all nobles the thing, and when the time comes to slash throats, they use them being "gridlocked" into their thinking against them.

Re: Who Was Sun Tzu’s Napoleon?

#54

Post by KaoruAoiShiho »

baybal2 wrote: post #53
david_draco wrote: post #3

"The Art of War is traditionally attributed to a military general from the late 6th century BC known as "Master Sun" (Mandarin: "Sunzi", earlier "Sun Tzu"), though its earliest parts probably date to at least 100 years later." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_War#History

It's a long living speculation that Sun's clan warfare was a polar opposite of the book, and that them spreading their military methods was world's first examples of disinformation warfare. They teach sons of all nobles the thing, and when the time comes to slash throats, they use them being "gridlocked" into their thinking against them.

Where can I read about this speculation.

Re: Who Was Sun Tzu’s Napoleon?

#55

Post by east2west »

rehasu wrote: post #30

A point that was also enlightening to me: Chinese literature has two components. One is the theoretical analysis like Sunzi Bingfa, Hanfeizi etc. The other examples of application in different contexts, given in form of stories. It's impressive how much more you can understand and learn if you combine Sunzi Bingfa with Sanguo Yanyi for instance. Also the story becomes more deep when you realize that there are story e…

The story I am familiar with emphasizes different aspects but illustrate the same point.

Cao Cao volunteered for assassination mission but asked Wang Yun for a renowned sword/knife as the assassination weapon. As he entered Dong Zhou's chamber he encountered general Lu Bu, a fearsome warrior and Dong Zhou's personal body guard. Cao Cao told Lu Bu that he wanted to try out a famously fast horse of Dong Zhou and asked the general to fetch it. When Cao Cao failed to kill Dong Zhou, he pretended that he was gifting the famous (assassination weapon) sword as a token of respect. Then he went outside and jumped on the famously swift horse general Lu Bu just brought at Cao Cao's request and fled, while Dong Zhou and Lu Bu were puzzled by Cao Cao's action.

I cannot vouch for the story's authenticity, but what a fascinating story.

Re: Who Was Sun Tzu’s Napoleon?

#56

Post by torben-friis »

rmah wrote: post #29
torben-friis wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it even disputed among experts whether Machiavelli's the Prince is satirical or not? I can't possibly imagine how one can both treat a source as holding profound and transcendent views and be uninterested or unsure of what the author meant when writing it; at that point it seems that the literary work is merely an excuse for the reader to project their own ideas into an authorative source, and the work is only…

As eru tersely pointed out, most contemporary literary analysis and criticism is no longer based on what the author meant, but instead based on how the work itself, irrespective of the author's intent or the context within which it was written. Thus, instead of a search for "the truth" as expressed by the author's inner thinking, the question instead becomes how work affects readers. This, obviously, bothers many peo…

I can understand the concept of "how the work affects readers" in terms of, say, literary value (for lack of a better word) of a novel, or poetry.

It's much harder to translate that idea to essays or educative works, though.

The art of war is basically a text book, so it's as literal as you can get. Biases should matter about as much as reading the package leaflet of some meds, or a math book.

It's pretty obvious that the reason it's popular has more to do with the ancient and exotic origin, the suggestive title and the opportunities for the reader's self image it provides than for its actual content -at least in the West. But considering this effect anything other than an expression of ignorance, and actually judging the work for its unintended ability to cause such effect, feels... I don't know,a travesty. Almost as superficial as judging the book for the covers' drawing or its usefulness as a doorstop.

Re: Who Was Sun Tzu’s Napoleon?

#57

Post by east2west »

ConfusedDog wrote: post #51
east2west wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First of all, the popular empty-city story is made up by the author of "Romance of Three Kingdom." It actually was Zhao Yan, a general in the same faction as ZhuGe Liang, who pretended to have an empty fortress and repelled an attack. Needless to say, there is no truth whatsoever to alternative "truth" that drama speculated. Second, by the time Sima Yi commanded a large field army, Cao Cao had died for a long time. S…

I knew what you said just FYI. I wouldn't treat the book or show too seriously... it's just entertainment, not history. The show's main character is SiMa Yi, which is kind of new to me. It's like a retold of "Romance of Three Kingdom" from a SiMa family and Cao family perspective. Though I hated a lot of Chinese TV shows, this one I actually like and would recommend. I can't remember any combat in this show though, p…

Sorry if I come across a bit strong. I am a something of a history buff, and the liberty that some Chinese historical shows take is shocking to me. I am like you, curious about different interpretations of familiar events.

Re: Who Was Sun Tzu’s Napoleon?

#58

Post by CamperBob2 »

the_af wrote: post #42
rmah wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As eru tersely pointed out, most contemporary literary analysis and criticism is no longer based on what the author meant, but instead based on how the work itself, irrespective of the author's intent or the context within which it was written. Thus, instead of a search for "the truth" as expressed by the author's inner thinking, the question instead becomes how work affects readers. This, obviously, bothers many peo…

You're right. And this projection is both inevitable and welcome. But you must admit it's at least a bit funny if when you read Sun Tzu's "attack your enemy's allies" you understand "work to undermine the alliance, maybe sow discontent so that they turn against each other" but wise old Sun Tzu actually meant "physically stab your enemy's ally with your sword. Right through the heart. That's what 'attacking' means, ri…

Oh, attack the enemy's allies (slaps forehead.) I get it now.

Reading your earlier post, I was trying to figure out how it could possibly be helpful to attack your own allies on a battlefield.

It's an interesting commentary on Sun Tzu that someone could even imagine him prescribing such a course of action.

Re: Who Was Sun Tzu’s Napoleon?

#59

Post by [deleted] »

claudiawerner wrote: post #49
diryawish wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calling reasonable inference pseudoscience while assuming to read the minds of men 2000 years ago and claim misogynic inspiration for their actions is such a fucking joke.

It's hardly "mind reading" when their actions are visible. Misogyny is not only a state of mind, can consist in a set of actions. From what we know about these ancient societies, they were heavily misogynistic. If you were to look at American in the 1950s, what would it take for me to convice you that society was a racist one? Would you say that any such claim means I am reading the minds of the people who enforced t…

[deleted]

Re: Who Was Sun Tzu’s Napoleon?

#60

Post by chillacy »

speeder wrote: post #5

This article about the context of Sun Tzu, made me remember my own discoveries about the bible (disclaimer: I am a firmly Christian) A lot of the passages that seem completely controversial now, can be understood if you think about what was going on. For example, saw a bunch of people saying it was proof of misoginy the fact the bible consider menstrual fluids "unclean", thing is, that law was enacted when they lived…

The stuff about not eating shellfish or pork is a pretty straightforward example of this: avoiding certain foods would probably increase your group's lifespan, and so gives an edge over other groups.
Post reply on HN