71–80 of 211 posts
After all, even the word "tactics" came fro his name[1].
https://wiki.lspace.org/Callus_Tacticus
[1] Please don't believe this; read the Discworld books instead; Jingo is the one with General Tacticus quotes.
I’m not sure how Sun Tzu is complete garbage when his strategies were vague and often not specific, so you can adapt them according to the situation To me the problem is that the study of war, like the study of economics or any other social study; isn’t a real science. There is no repeatable theoretical model, including The Art of War. There are no universal laws that always hold true in all situations.
There are some. An army marches on its stomach. For war, you need three things: money, money and money. Except in a guerilla war maybe. Maybe you're right after all.
I’m not sure how Sun Tzu is complete garbage when his strategies were vague and often not specific, so you can adapt them according to the situation To me the problem is that the study of war, like the study of economics or any other social study; isn’t a real science. There is no repeatable theoretical model, including The Art of War. There are no universal laws that always hold true in all situations.
I've got great news for you! There are universal economic laws that always hold true in all situations.
For example, "man acts". You can't deny that, because denying it would be an act in itself, leading to a (performative) contradiction. From this law, and just a few others of a similar kind, you can build a whole structure of logically provable theorems that have profound implications for economics and the social sciences in general.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The main point of that quote is that a battle is a negative-sum game. Reaching the same ultimate outcome without a battle is better than fighting for it, because both sides will suffer losses in the battle. Trying to achieve a lasting peace through a decisive victory rarely works, because people don't work like that. In a more likely outcome, you are simultaneously not aggressive enough to prevent future conflicts an…
Agreed, and to add, I never understood that the old "war texts" were supposed to be detailed workflows for war and more just stating in plain language from people who've fought wars knew for the general public to understand. I've not read the old war texts since I was forced to in High School, but my takeaway from books like Art of War and The Prince was the authors trying to shatter the concept of Romantic wars with…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It wouldn't still be mandatory reading at war colleges the world over if it didn't still have merit, or if it had no merit to begin with. Spoken like someone with absolutely no idea how mandatory reading is chosen.
Okay let us suppose there are three probable reasons for such a book to be chosen as mandatory reading: because it is right, because it is wrong, or because it is historically important as a landmark in the history of military thought. I believe it is the first of those three. Many books have been written since that are now outdated, while The Art of War is not.
> I believe it is the first of those three.
I believe it's fairly obvious it's the third. It's a landmark because it's the first. It's read for the same reasons people care about Plato and Aristoteles. Not because they were correct about everything, but because that's what everything since then builds upon.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Modern militaries don't seem to enjoy the freedom to act and maneuver that a classic general enjoyed in the field (for good reasons). Modern requirements for transparency and democracy, and the interest of the military industrial complex don't help when you try to "appear weak when you are strong" or to "disguise a plan". For a mid-level army officer these things are probably even less applicable. I still think there…
> Modern militaries don't seem to enjoy the freedom to act and maneuver that a classic general enjoyed in the field (for good reasons). Modern requirements for transparency and democracy I think modern democracies do a much better job of separating military and civilian leadership than dictatorships do. Putin seems to be too personally involved in micromanaging his war, insisting on conquests that are simply not poss…
That only seems useful if you want to lure the enemy into an attack in order to ambush him"
No, it is also good (necessary) for preparing a good offensive. If the enemy thinks you are weak in some area, he does not expect a push from that direction.
Ukraine did just that last fall very succesfull. Show off force and big noisy preparation of a offensive south and starting it loud. And then push hard, fast and unexpected in the north, after the enemy already moved more troops further south.
And then confusion and panic among the enemy, so a relativly small force could conquer vast lands.
I’m not sure how Sun Tzu is complete garbage when his strategies were vague and often not specific, so you can adapt them according to the situation To me the problem is that the study of war, like the study of economics or any other social study; isn’t a real science. There is no repeatable theoretical model, including The Art of War. There are no universal laws that always hold true in all situations.
> There are no universal laws that always hold true in all situations. There are some. An army marches on its stomach. For war, you need three things: money, money and money. Except in a guerilla war maybe. Maybe you're right after all.
As both a former army officer as well as someone who appreciates historical Chinese, it pains me to say that I found it underwhelming. I’m not saying that any one on here is like this, but in my experience it def attracts a certain type who, among other things, have a zero sum, “business is war” mindset that’s a tad creepy. Unlike everyone I know who has actually served .