The Art of War

[rocketboy]

Has anyone read the Art of War? if so, what did you think of it?

 

[vangelicmonk]

Which one?

There is the by Sun Tzu or the one by Niccolo Machiavelli??

 

[Douger]

I guess you're talking about Sun Tzu's? Well I've read bits and parts of it.
What do I think of it?
He was a pretty smart, logical guy. He put a lot of emphasis on the importance of using spies and infiltrators to give yourself as great an advantage as possible before any actual fighting happens.
He also talks about the problems of maintaining a large army. He gives an example of having 100,000 men on a campaign, and says that for this 100,000 man army, you'll have 1 million citizens back home (their families) agonizing over the well being of their men and not being productive citizens. Thus the importance of keeping campaigns short.
Basically the book is full of sound wisdom on all matters of military topics.

 

[rocketboy]

cool thanks guys..yeah i was talkin about the one by Sun Tzu. sorry about the confusion, i didnt know there were two.

 

[Kripost]

Compared to other chinese military writings, it is probably the most well known. One interesting thing is on the emphasis of winning with minimum loss, most preferrably through diplomacy. On a whole, it is it hardly mentions any specific military hardware of that time, and concentrates mainly on human factor, such as organization.

The original text in classical chinese is hard to read though, compared to modern chinese.

 

[Helo]

Its a good book, but alot of it is basic common sense. "Fight from the high ground" etc etc

 

[Illandur]

the most interesting contrast between it and european counterparts is the lack of chauvinistic ideologies. Sun Tzu's writings are completely based around practicality. There is no shame on kicking the man when he is down, exploiting his every weakness and, if the tables look turned, no shame in retreat. The lack of information on military technologies of the time were purposeful, which really makes the text transcend the temporal and cultural barriers. The work is universally applicable, something which few texts accomplish.

 

[Paladin Dave]

I agree with Illandur. In single combat or non-military life, the whole being chivalrous thing is great, but in war, screw giving your enemy a fighting chance; crush them however you can, while sustaining as little loss as possible. I loved the book, and I also like how some of Sun Tzu's little bits of military wisdom could be applied to normal life. He was quite skilled as a writer, with his choice of words. Maybe not as much as he was in tactics, but it was a pretty darn good read.

 

[armyman_83]

Man, I sure hope Illandur and Dave are not my foes!!! But like everyone else said its alright, but there is a lot about spies and other underhanded tricks!

 

[Illandur]

Underhanded tricks? The victors call them winning strategies and covert offences. In war, the defeated party is always wrong.

 

[NothingButTheBlood]

Sun Tzu covered basics really. What I found most interesting is his willingness to include the politics as important part of war and peace. He addresses as many political steps as he does military.

 

[DailyBlessings]

Well, I do wish that more of our leaders had read and heeded it. There is good advice in there about the psychology of warfare. Some of it may seem simple, from the armchair, but there is very little that is simple on a battlefield.

 

[Rygel]

Man, I sure hope Illandur and Dave are not my foes!!! But like everyone else said its alright, but there is a lot about spies and other underhanded tricks!

The first rule of a knife fight is to bring a gun.

It's a great book. I got it when I got my copy of The Prince.

 

[bigreat]

Hi,
I'm from China, of course, I have read the chinese version of it,
I don't think you can call some of its contents tricks, because from the ancient times, there had already been an clear line which divided the thing done-by-good-man from done-by-not-good-man. So I'd like to call them maneuver .