gamercube

The problem I have with Sun Tzu and Machiavelli is that both of them were pure theorists. They never actually implemented their ideas, and hence, IMO, while they make for good reading, they may or may not be effective in practice.

I would rather like to read Chanakya's Arthashastra. Here was a person who, having sworn revenge on a king, takes a farmer's boy as his disciple and turns him into a mighty monarch that manages to defeat Alexander's successor.

Chanakya is similar to Machiavelli in the sense that he talks about political strategies more than pure military ones, but the difference is that he talks out of experience.

__________________
Hasta la Victoria siempre!

Officer of Engineers

Sun Tzu was a General during the Warring Kingdoms period. He's seen action. If you have read Art of War, you will realize that it is a Field Manual telling you where to camp and how much logistics you need.

__________________
Chimo

gamercube

Ah, I didn't know that. I thought Sun Tzu was a nobleman/aristocrat.

Ironduke

Probably a nobleman, aristocrat, as well as a general.

I agree with the Colonel... The Art of War reads like a field manual. I don't recall anything in the work about asymmetrical warfare (which wouldn't be of use nowadays anyhow), but the general principles are of lasting value. I have a copy on my bookshelf, I think I'll have to give it another read soon (it's rather short).

Machiavelli's work is contemporary political advice, a published work meant to influence a certain Italian prince after he found himself in disfavor (IIRC) ... basically criticizing in retrospect the failures of the Italian princes, dukes, etc., that led to the diminishing of the once powerful Italian city-states... foreign armies on Italian soil, the use of mercenaries, etc.

__________________
The Buck Stops Here

zraver

I dissagree Sun Tzu reads more like a collection of staff essays. VC reads like a feild manual, geared much more on the tactical and operatrional levels vs Sun Tzu's couching terms and strategic grand vision/ politcal style.

Mak

Let us not forget that Clausewitz's Vom Krieg was an unfinished work, and his work on Friction in War was brilliant and still relevant today.

Swift Sword

Hi Guys,

Question: regarding Sun Tzu, which translations and/or editions do you prefer?

I have a box full of English editions of Sun Tzu and related literature I have read over the last decade and a half which I recently pulled out and went through.

I would have to say that in English, I have gotten the most of Oxford University Press' edition of Sun Tzu's "Art of War" translated and introduced by S.B. Griffith.

This edition is a great place for people to jump into the subject. It has a comprehensive introduction including The Warring States period, war in Sun Tzu's time, biographical information, Sun Tzu and Mao, etc.

Griffith's translation also includes some later commentaries, is copiously footnoted and has three useful appendicies.

Regards,

William

__________________
Pharoh was pimp but now he is dead. What are you going to do today?

Shek

William,

Are there many significant differences in the various translations, or do the various appendices/background material have significant differences leading to diverging thought on how to read Sun Tzu?

Thanks.

Shek

__________________
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

Swift Sword

Sir,

There are differences in translation.

Which is better or worse I guess is a matter of personal taste if you cannot read the original Chinese.

FWIW, the 1905 Giles translation is generally considered to be inferior by many English speaking students of Sun Tzu. I personally do not like it as much as Griffith's. I am taking another pass at R.K. Saywer's rendering of it right now and it is growing on me a bit.

One of the things I like about Griffith's translation as published by Oxford is the many footnotes where the translator offers and alternative rendering and/or explains why he rendered things a certain way which is illuminating and also inspires confidence in the author due to his candor.

As to the appendices in the Oxford edition, they are:

I. "Wu Chi's Art of War"
II. "Sun Tzu's Influence on Japanese Military Thought"
III. "Sun Tzu in Western Languages"
IV. "Brief Biographies of the Commentators"

I like these appendices because they add texture to the Sun Tzu experience (wow that sounds cheesy!). Too, they help put Sun Tzu in context.

I am a big beleiver in placing primary source material in context for you can always get more out of it if you know something of the time and place where it was written.

Regards,

William

Grim

I have to vote for neither being more relevant today. I have a strong liking for the principles laid out in The Five Rings. Musashi described it as "a guide for men who want to learn strategy". I think he was right.

Bigfella

OK, I'm going to jump, and go with Sun Tzu. I'll admit to never having read either man in depth, but I have some familiarity with their ideas (even more after reading this excellent thread).

I guess it depends on what sort of war you expect to fight. I see Clausewitz as being better suited to more conventional, high intensity warfare, something which I think nations such as America have successfull come to terms with.

The current environment, however, will have a greater focus on low intensity conflicts. I believe that Sun Tzu's caution & focus on winning with minimal use of force is something western nations need to come to terms with.

Of course, both authors provide valuable insights on all aspects of war to those who have an open mind.

'Maybe that's why I've never actually read the full text of "On War" ,' - Shek

Shek, I had to laugh when I read this. There are some authors (a great many of them German) who just weren't made to be read in full. I remember asking an acquaintance of mine who was/is a hardcore Marxist how the hell he waded through the interminable turgid prose of 'Das Kapital' and related paperweights. He confessed "we didn't - we just read the dirty bits".

Shek

Zraver,

Thanks for your argument that ST provides better advice to rulers, and in re-reading it, I saw that ST does offer a lot.

However, I think you have VC wrong.

VC was quite misinterpreted by the German Army in the early 20th century, with their interpretation that once war started, then the politicians handed off the battle to the generals completely, and then re-engaged once it was time for peace. I may be wrong, but I think this is the interpretation that you are implying. I offer the following passage from Paret's essay "The Genesis of On War" that precedes the translation as evidence that there can be no dichotomy between politics and war.

Shek

This quote from Michael Howard's essay "The Influence of Clausewitz" jumped out at me on this topic.

Shek

Here's a couple of files I came across that provide some insight into either ST, VC, or how they both are similar and different.

Attached Files

	Clausewitz's Center of Gravity, Changing Our Warfighting Doctrine - Again! - Ecchevaria.pdf (120.5 KB, 4 views)
	Planning for and Applying Military Force, An Examination of Terms - Van Riper.pdf (69.9 KB, 3 views)
	LeeSLCTheories.pdf (72.9 KB, 3 views)

zraver

I disagree and think you misunderstood me, the passage you provided showed only that recognized the importance of politics in deciding to go to war and what strategy to pursue once the decsion to make war had been made. VC did not councel rulers on what course to take. Like a modern western professional he left politcal decsions to politicans rather than push the miltiary way of thinking into the politcal arena. While generals have often made good presidents or rulers becuase of their graps of issues, critical thinking skills, and deep under standing of the law of unintended consequences, not all generals make good rulers. VC clearly saw that the miltiary mind often has to few tools to make sound political decsions inside of the context of a nation vs dynasitc state. The hammer, scaple, and barred teeth all have thier role, but often you need softer tools and forms of thinking inorder to avoid war or even simple domestic politcal crisies. It is easier for a politican to borrow a military man's skills, that it is for a general to borrow concepts of give and take from a diplomat.

I do not dispute this, I simply assert that VC's advice was operational in nature not strategic.

War is not an independent phenomenom, but the continuation of politics by different means. Consequently, the main lines of every strategic plan are largely political in nature, and their political character increases the more the plan applies to the entire campaign and to the whole state. A war plan results directly from the political conditions of the two warring states, as well as from their relations to third powers. A plan of campaign results from the war plan, and frequently - if there is only one theater of operations - may even be identical with it. But the political element even enters the separate components of a campaign; rarely will it be without influence on such major episodes of warfare as a battle, etc. According to this point of view, there can be no question of a purely military evaluation of a great strategic issue, nor of a purely military scheme to solve it.

Notice he does not actually give advie on the politcal details, but if you look for advice on what to do when attackign or defending you will find it. Vc will tell you how to prepare the battle feild, how to manuver, what to aim for, how to concentrate, but not why to fight.