Who is superior? The Prussian of Napoleonic era or some made up chinese guy from some country i never heard of.

>>17890620 (OP)
Like it seems to me that sun tzu is full of shit. Politics and war is one and the same. You need the guys to do the talking to stop the war. But here Sun Tzu says politicians need to fuck off and let generals do the warring. Fucking stupid. People read this guy?

>>17890621
> You need the guys to do the talking to stop the war.
> politicians need to fuck off
That isn't necessarily mutually exclusive.

>>17890622
Yes they are. If you have your fucking politicians telling your generals not to do this and that for better negotiation outcomes you lose the war according to Sun Tzu, despite the fact that you need to stop the war, not win it. Sun Tzu is a self contradicting retard.

>>17890620 (OP)
One lived off it's captured territory the other rivaled or even outdid roman's logistics
Oh and where is this Prussia?

>>17890623
>fucking politicians telling
For that absurd hypothetical, if your politicians simply repeat the demands of the enemy without achieving nothing then they're collaborators. They're supposed to be representatives of their own country not of the enemy.

>>17890625
Thats not how negotiations work. Read the art of the deal.

>>17890624
>Oh and where is this Prussia?
Bodied by France out of existence

>>17890627
Prussia won. They reunified German lands and became the German Empire.

>>17890625
>politicians call for ceasefire, completely ruining your momentum and you give up the initiative and the tempo
Nice fucking move, listening to clausewitz. Politicians need to fuck off and die in a fire. Let the soldiers do the talking with bullets and bombs.

>>17890628
Where is Prussia ?

>>17890630
It renamed itself to Germany.

>>17890621
>Soldiering is done by soldiers, diplomacy by diplomats
Seems pretty logical to me.

>>17890631
No it didnt

>>17890632
>diplomacy success, politicians agree to stop the war
>tell your generals to stop, peace is achieved
>they tell you no they are close to winning

>>17890620 (OP)
Clausewitz, it isn't even a question.
sun tsu wrote a basic primer to warfare for retarded courtiers appointed to head an army because the emperor liked fucking their sister(s)
Clausewitz wrote to not just explain how to wage war to professionals but how war as a tool sits in the toolbox of the state.

>>17890630
Where is Wú?

>>17890636
Sun Tzu came from Qi, like many other philosophers due to a university being there. Look it up.

>>17890633
>No it didnt

>>17890638
Prussia still existed afterwards

>>17890637
But he served Wu
>King Helü of Wu, having heard of Sun Wu's Art of War, summoned him to the palace and asked him to demonstrate his ability to train soldiers by training the king's harem of 180 concubines into soldiers. Sun Tzu was said to have divided them into two companies, appointing the two concubines most favored by the king as the company commanders, and proceeded to give them orders, which they ignored, instead breaking out into laughter. Over the king's protestations, Sun Tzu then had the two concubines executed, at which the rest of the "soldiers" began to behave at once, and the king appointed Sun Wu as a general. He went on to lead the state of Wu to victory against the much larger state of Chu during the Battle of Boju in 506 BC.

>>17890640
Well it doesnt matter seeing as every state during the spring and autumn and subsequent warring states era got absorbed into the Qin which collapsed later on.

Sun tzu was more about t lling retarded noble men how to conduct war while fucking their concubines. Don't know about the other guy but he is probably better only because he is from a more recent time

>guy 2200 years later has more nuanced take on subject
damn nigga for real?

>>17890643
People forget to actually read the art of war before talking about it. If you read it, it is clear that it is made to stop nobles from going into glory-fueled traps that get themselves massacred. Most of his shit is just "dont attack anyone unless you absolutely swarm them"

>>17890643
In the grand scheme of the subject that is human evolution, 2200 year is nothing. The Hwhite Man is better in the art of war than his counterpart in East Asia. This is also why the Empire of Japan was completely defeated by the ingenuity of Nimitz.

>>17890626
>Read the art of the deal
Is there a version by Trunp? I would read that.

>>17890645
Nimitz was worse than almost any japanese admiral, he just played in easy mode

>>17890644
If so basic, how did Russia ignore what he said and get themselves slaughtered in Ukraine? How did the US ignore what he said and bog themselves down in Iraq/Afghanistan/Vietnam for years and subsequently losing the latter 2 wars?
>"There is no instance of a nation benefiting from prolonged warfare."
>"When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men's weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be damped. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength."
>"In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns."
>"Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain."
>"Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win."
And for the Russia
>"The skillful soldier does not raise a second levy, neither are his supply-wagons loaded more than twice."
>"He will win who, prepared himself, waits to take the enemy unprepared."

>>17890647
>bodies the japs at midway
>bodies the nips at philippine sea
>effectively destroyed ijn at leyte gulf
Nah

>>17890648
*Psst* Linear time doesn't work like that. Just because you know that the Vietnam War lasted 10 years doesn't mean the people in 1963 did too.

>>17890650
>Just because you know that the Vietnam War lasted 10 years doesn't mean the people in 1963 did too.
I tell you what they don't know. The fucking point of the war. How many died for Mcnamara's war and for what? Achieved nothing. At least in Korea there was a peace. In vietnam there 0 goals other than a numbers game.

>>17890620 (OP)
>feed your army
>attack where your enemy is weak, not where they are strong
>feed your enemy bad intel
>if you can defeat your enemy without fighting, do it
>know the capabilities of your and your enemies' army
>be sure that you can win
Did chinks actually have to write this shit down?

>>17890621
Yeah like if sun tzu was such a good military strategist then why did china get conquered two times

>>17890651
Nice try at deflection there but you still have a toddler's understanding of time.

>>17890621
During Sun Tzu's period, there was no such thing as politics. You annihilated your opponent's armies, seized his city and then gave him a lordship to fuck off.

>>17890654
>ad hom
Explain to me why did Robert E Lee attack that hill some half dozen time in Gettysburg?

>>17890652
Yes because people like Hitler liked to sieging cities like Leningrad or Stalingrad. Sun Tzu would have called him a retard.

>>17890652
>Did chinks actually have to write this shit down?
Yes because its not intuitive. This is also why the US wasted time and resources retaking the Philippine islands instead of taking Okinawa's/Taiwan airfields straight away to bomb Japan.There is 0 strategic advantage in Philippines.

>>17890652
Soviets/maoist failed at most/all of them.

>>17890656
Little Round Top was as they say a very near run thing, and if it had worked he might have rolled up the Union flank. And the Battle of Little Round Top lasted a whole 90 minutes, it wasn't the Isonzo for fuck's sake.

>>17890660
Youre a dumb fucking cunt. Lee was a fucking retard that ruined the Confederates. He should have been lynched like the nigger he is. Longstreet should be remembered as a hero and Lee the fucking idiot. Imagine charging uphill against canister shot when you can literally bypass the hill. Fucking hell. FUCK LEE

>>17890660
>it wasn't the Isonzo for fuck's sake.
Worse than the Isonzo. Washington was right there but Lee decided to attack like a fucking retard against highly defensible positions. They might as well shout tenno heika banzai while they were shredded into bits by union cannons.

>>17890661
You don't need to piss and shit yourself just because you picked a bad example.

>>17890663
t. lee.
Read sun tzu.

>>17890652
>>attack where your enemy is weak, not where they are strong
>Somme
battle where allies attack the position the krauts had been fortifying for years.
>Cannae
Instead of following Fabian's advice, sacked him and sent 80k men to their deaths against Hannibal
>Gallipoli campaign
I think this is pretty self explanatory

>>17890662
>Why didn't Lee just attack somewhere that was less defensible?
>No I don't know what a topographical map is, why do you ask?

>>17890666
Longstreet suggested to go around gettysburg and to attack washington. Mind you the original intention of the confederate army was to attack washington. It was only hearing about a scuffle over shoes in gettysburg did Lee move the entire army over to gettysburg. There was 0 strategic value in gettysburg. Instead of doing as longstreet says, he told him to fuck off and sent his army up that hill to their deaths.

>>17890665
>Don't attack anywhere between Switzerland and the English Channel
>But don't attack anywhere else either
>run september_program.exe

>>17890668
Youre arguing in bad faith.

>>17890667
Again, I'd recommend you look at a topographic map of Maryland and Pennsylvania

>>17890670
Why are you sucking Lee's cock? He should never have even gone to gettysburg

Why did the Russians abandon Moscow to the Grand Army instead of fighting like a man?

>>17890620 (OP)
You won't find a military, or officer school that doesn't teach Sun Tzu. I bet you can find one that doesn't teach clausewitz. Though clausewitz is very popular.
Putin is making a number of mistakes from Sun Tzu's the art of war currently, like putting your enemy on death ground.

>>17890633
OK, you can say WW2 ended Prussia, but saying the German empire wasn't Prussia is straight retarded. Like read a fucking book.

>>17890635
You just described Sun Tzu's book when you described clausewitz, it's almost like they wrote aboilut the same thing. Just Sun Tzu did a few thousand years before.

>>17890652
So you know zero about military history. Because if most euro kings and generals had followed this, history would be 100% different. Most military strategy would make you think the general in charge was retarded. It's almost like hereditary nobles, and autocratic yes men weren't promoted for skill, or humility.

>>17890620 (OP)
>GWEILO HAVE MORE MEN THAN OTHER AMRY THEN YOU WIN
>GWEILO IF YOU WEAK APPEAR STRONG
>GWEILO HAVE FOOD LIKE FOR YOUR DUDES LMAO
damn ancient chinese wisdom, Sun wrote one of the earlierst "trust me bro self improvement books) Clausewitz actually went indepth and BTFO that cannibal

>>17890660
Lee literally admitted shortly after the battle he had completely fucked it and submitted his resignation. Following Sun Tzu's rules makes one a strategic genius compared to most generals.

>>17890620 (OP)
Sun tzu's book thing is 'decent' at helping up and coming officers get a good idea of how to not fuck up in certain areas. Basically 'babies first war' the handbook. but that's about it.

>>17890679
Not fucking up means you're a stellar generals. Problem is, everyone fucks up.

>>17890679
People misunderstand this "The Art Of War is a beginner's book because it's so short". The Art of War itself is a collection of sayings. If you were a general in the periods where it was mandatory reading like the Song dynasty, you would read the annotated versions with commentary (the popular commentaries were written by up to 11 different people like by Cao Cao, Zhuge Liang etc). A single large book written by a person during this time was rare, most proper books were collections of scholarships aggregated over time. So if you want to read the actual art of war that a Song or Tang general would've read, you'd be read the commentary version, which includes much longer historical examples, explanations and deliberations.

>>17890620 (OP)
The art of war was written for complete retards with no understanding on the subjects or experience in real life who only knew it from fairytales.
The Prussian wrote something actually useful if you're not retarded.

>>17890675
t. Hasn't read the books

>>17890676
>Anon doesn't realize that hereditary nobility tended to produce the best generals in Europe in its nations worth caring about
Woooow

>>17890681
>the popular commentaries were written by up to 11 different people like by Cao Cao, Zhuge Liang etc
I don't claim to be an expert on this, but I thought Zhuge Liang wrote his 'own' Art of War style book called The Way of the General, rather than a commentary like Cao Cao? Maybe he did both.

>>17890673
>You won't find a military, or officer school that doesn't teach Sun Tzu. I bet you can find one that doesn't teach clausewitz
Other way around.

>>17890635
>>17890683
>>17890675
I actually have read both books. People get shit wrong about them, especially Clausewitz fans
>People read the wrong Art of War. Actual generals would've read the substantially larger commentary versions. At the time, writers were not prone to large authorships and most long texts were compiled over time
>Despite popular misconceptions from tv and forums, Chinese generals were not bureaucrats or courtiers. They came from military families and/or people who passed through military exams. This is broadly identical to Prussia, but Prussia had more strict systems. Virtually every Prussian general is from the Junkers nobility
>If you've actually read On War, you'd realise it is a very abstract and metaphysical text. This is because Junkers generals like Clausewitz intellectual foundation was philosophy. He studied Kant and other philosophers, like all Prussian generals, and it was too expected to be read by such people. There's extensive use of dialectical contradictions. For example, he says defense is strongest, but you need to attack to achieve your goals. But war is an extension of politics, and as often defense is the primary goal. Another reason there's such contradictions because is was unfinished
>Clausewitz contributed important ideas like fog of war, but many of his ideas are wrong. For example, there's no such thing as a center mass of a force today (it's a very arguable concept even during his time). And absolute wars/ideological do absolutely exist. Clausewitz largely envisioned armies as big columns of men marching down the field, which was the Prussian context at the time. This is ironically the same criticism made of Sun Tzu.
>Most of what Sun Tzu writes is straightforward because he was (probably) a general, and not prone to the philosophical aspects of war like Clausewitz. If you were to consider the less philosophical parts of On War, they are broadly the same (but Clausewitz is detailed, but sometimes wrong)

>>17890687
>For example, he says defense is strongest, but you need to attack to achieve your goals. But war is an extension of politics, and as often defense is the primary
How is that contradictory? You act offensively in order to maintain and not lose your position.

>>17890623
Sun Tzu was writing about how to engage in warfare to a hereditary aristocracy.
Yes you need to explain "listen to your generals" and "don't just randomly go to war, try to do some preparation first" and "war is pretty expensive and dangerous, try other resolutions first if possible" to some failson whose sole qualifications is who his grandfather was.

>>17890654
Generally you can be expected to have a theory of victory before you fight.
Eg, a photon torpedo through the thermal exhaust port will start a chain reaction, blowing up the deathstar, saving the rebellion.
Of course that still leaves actually implementing it. And the enemy may do things to hinder your plans or achieve their own goals. But if you're going to roll up your sleeves and fight, it's preferable that you know why you're fighting and how that gets you closer to your goals.

By stopping the spread of communism here, we don't have to stop it closer to home. Okay, sure. How do we stop it?
Do we commit to forever spending blood and treasure to protect a corrupt and dysfunctional regime like it's Israel? Does killing everyone suspected of being a communist actually stop the spread of communism? Does propping up a corrupt, dysfunctional government actually help us prevent communism (or does it in fact make communism look better?)

"We're just going to support them forever because we're scared of commitment but don't want to be seen to roll over" is just the worst of both worlds. The USM can solve any military problem, but not all problems are military problems.

>>17890681
To me I've always taken it as a book 'with' lessons as opposed to being written 'as' lessons. The sayings themselves have potential lessons that the reader can glean from them to learn the basics of being an officer, but that's really it. Anyone who thinks it's some incredible treatise on how to wage war as mega level genius are the exact people who died so early and so pitifully that history likely never learnt their names.

>>17890688
If you're a general and an enemy is coming to invade your country, Clausewitz gives contradictory advice. Defense is stronger, so you should defend. But attack is needed to achieve goals, so you should attack. But war is an extension of politics, which suggests you should bleed him out in a siege because it'll cost the enemy the most, or some other political goal. It's the dialectic style of the time that things are written "A, but actually B, but actually C, etc", like he's arguing with himself. Sun Tzu's advice would be more shorter but straightforward, pointing out pitched battles in open field are costly so avoid that, spy on your enemy a lot, avoid unnecessary engagements etc.
>>17890686
Neither are taught seriously as military strategy. They are usually in some Military History course, or reading list. Much more modern readings are OODA loops, kill chains, tempo, etc. Frankly you're going to fail if you attack the center mass of an army, or think defending is more militarily advantageous than attack.

>>17890691
It's mostly important facts about wars. I do agree that taking it too far is hilariously misinterpreting it, like people who use it for running businesses or something. When he says wars are very bad, he literally just means wars are very bad. It is not some Machiavellian point about being sneaky and dealing with your opponents indirectly

>>17890621
Sun Tzu practically points out the cost of a war is often by far the most important consequence to a state. Very rarely will a war leave a country better than it started off in. So if you're going to start a war, it is vitally important that you do it quickly and with minimal cost.

>>17890623
His point is (and it's still really correct today) that whatever high minded political goals you have, it's probably not worth the cost of a protracted war. So the predominant correct political goal in a war is you either win it really fast or never do it at all.

>>17890634
He doesn't give too much of a shit about negotiation or policy, he just points out you should really, really know what you and the enemy want

>>17890648
Because reality of modern war dont always mesh with ancient china, plus hubris

>>17890642
>>17890644
>>17890682
>>17890689
Contrary to the myth that only Chinese armies were led by nobility, this was also the case in Prussia. And are generally more Chinese generals who worked their way up than Prussian generals. Frankly Clausewitz is largely read by politicians, philosophers and intellectual types today. It is not a serious book on modern warfare.

>>17890697
Actually in modern contexts, if we narrow it down to specifically their stance on whether to fight wars - Sun Tzu emphasizing the cost of war, the need for speedy victory and knowing yourself/the enemy, vs Clausewitzian war is politics by other means, Sun Tzu was right. Whatever clever goal you thought you had about your political war is probably going to be vastly overshadowed by the cost to your state of the war (Russo Ukraine, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc). The "good" wars were those which were really fast. Desert Storm, Iraq in 2003, Yugoslavia. Even the Sino Vietnam war - which you can argue China didn't exactly win - was successful in that it had a small cost to China. Which is far more than you can say about most wars these days

>>17890652
And yet military decision makers today still fuck it up.
>>17890659
Mao was a reasonably effective military commander, given the circumstances of China at the time. He was a failed statesman, but he fought wars against much more advanced, experienced and powerful opponents with reasonable effectiveness.

>>17890620 (OP)
>"Umm like make sure to feed your army, because people can't farm their own food when they're fighting a war."
>sheltered prince who can't even tie his own shoes: "THIS GUY IS A GENIUS!"

>>17890694
a very important Suntzuism that is usually overlooked
many similar textbooks for ruling (mirrors for princes, or specula principum) made similar points
(strangely enough, the wiki page for mirrors doesn't have Sun Tzu's Art Of War on the otherwise extensive list)

some might say "no shit that's basic knowledge" but since it appears the point escapes most people to this day, I'd say it's a principle that bears repeating
case in point,

>>17890693
the reason is because Sun Tzu is at times figurative and at times literal, but without knowledge of the idioms of the chinese culture, you can't tell which is which
>does he literally mean war is le bad?
yes
>does he literally mean never load your wagons twice?
no, it's a figure of speech

>>17890635
>sun tsu wrote a basic primer to warfare for retarded courtiers
>>17890642
>Sun tzu was more about t lling retarded noble men how to conduct war
>>17890701
>sheltered prince who can't even tie his own shoes
it's funny how fervently insistent this anon is about pushing this theory

firstly, Sun Tzu's book was the equivalent of classified doctrine manuals. like most written knowledge of the time, all the way up to the Renaissance (see above), it was meant to be classified, eyes-only for trusted general officers, usually princes. its contents were considered extremely insightful and not to be shown to enemies.

secondly, it's similar to the Biblical book of Proverbs (which by the way might also have been a speculum principum) in that some of its advice was written to be applicable to general leadership and management. just like Proverbs, even in antiquity, some of Sun Tzu's writing passed into popular idiomatic use. because it's just dead useful in general.

>>17890692
>Defense is stronger, so you should defend. But attack is needed to achieve goals, so you should attack. But war is an extension of politics, which suggests you should bleed him out in a siege because it'll cost the enemy the most, or some other political goal.
Defend your lands and slowly drain the enemy force though attrition while formulating a counterattack so you can go on the offensive
That doesn't really sound that contradictory

>le chinese warfare science man: "maybe you shouldn't attack where the enemy warlords wants you to attack, maybe instead attack where he really doesn't want you to, that would probably mess his army up bad"
>Chinese emperor who doesn't know hot water is just cold water that's been heated:
>"WOW THIS GUY IS TOTALLY BLOWING MY MIND RIGHT NOW!"

>>17890692
>Defense is stronger, so you should defend. But attack is needed to achieve goals, so you should attack
a classic dilemma
the 21st century manoeuvrist tactic that reconciles this is to seize key territory / objectives, dig in, and force the enemy to take the battle with defender's advantage on your side
actually, Caesar and Pompey tried this on each other in Africa

>But war is an extension of politics, which suggests you should bleed him out in a siege because it'll cost the enemy the most, or some other political goal.
that's a misreading however
in context, Clausewitz meant that it is essential that the military and political aims of a nation should be united, rather than pulling in different directions.
(Keegan notes, rather ruefully, that the Germans buying wholesale into this ultimately led to the two Totalenkriegs that destroyed Europe)
NATO (both sides of the ocean) are providing a fine example of why this lesson of Clausewitz is still very applicable, right now

>It's the dialectic style of the time
this is also true
and also a factor in Sun Tzu's writing

>>17890620 (OP)
von Clausewitz wrote an in-depth book about war theory
Sun Tzu wrote a primer for rich kids who were appointed officers so they wouldn't fuck up EVERYTHING with such profound wisdom as "be stronger than your enemy" and "make sure you have enough food and gear"

>>17890674
How about YOU read a fucking book you fucking retarded subhuman retard?
The German Empire came to be through the unification of Prussia and the southern states.
All of Prussia was part of the German Empire, but did not comprise its entirety.
You probably conflated them basically using the prussian constitution 1:1 for the Empire.

>>17890703
Or you could keep defending. From Clausewitz perspective, you'll suffer less losses while achieving your goals this way. It's not impossible to think of some plausible path of action that seems to follow Clausewitz, but this is very much reinterpretation.
>>17890705
It's not a dilemma but dependent on the technology and strategy of the period. The things which remain true for all wars are few

Yes and you kinda pointed out the problems with it. Unified is a vague word. Nazi Germany's political and military aims were unified. So is Russia. Despite being aimed at politicians too, Clausewitz does very little to advise on what the correct political aims are. Virtually all politicians in history would've profited with sticking to the more Sun Tzu-ian philosophy that war is only profitable if you win it quickly, and a huge loss otherwise.

Well not in the more meaningful sense of dialectic. He does start several sayings with questions and premises, but not the dialectic reasoning line that Clausewitz writes in.

>Chinese emperor who can't dress himself:
>"The enemy has ten thousand troops, so I'll send ten thousand to fight them."
>le asian war science man:
>"You know if you send more soldiers than what they have you'd have better odds at winning than them."
>Emperor who tries to become immortal by drinking mercury:
>"T-that sounds just crazy enough to work! Ministers! Send every soldier, every peasant, every man, woman, child and elderly to Pingpong Province to fight my mortal enemy General Tso!"
>le ancient HOI4 enthusiast:
>"Umm... if you send every soldier to one place, the others will be undefended from a surprise attack from your neighbors. Also you kinda need people where they are to do the non-war things. Like I'm pretty sure peasants make rice or something."
>Emperor who thinks the castrated boy concubine can give him a male heir:
>"WHOA, WHERE DID YOU FIND THIS GUY!"

>>17890702
>Sun Tzu is at times figurative and literal
Yes but I think he fundamentally has a consistent point which is understandable without too much trouble. Clausewitz fundamentally writes with contradictions. So you can argue a lot about what he means.

Who would win, an army led by the average medieval chinese imperial court vs. and army led by Robert McNamara.

>>17890708
>Or you could keep defending. From Clausewitz perspective, you'll suffer less losses while achieving your goals this way.
I'm an offensive realist so my takeaway is that if you actually want to defend you'll inevitably have to take aggressive action in order to weaken your enemies and maximize your position

>>17890711
What kind of army?

>>17890713
Two ancient Chinese armies. They're both fighting a campaign to control the same province.

McNamara has enough abacus operators in his court to run his metrics, that they're no worse than a 1960's computer.

>>17890620 (OP)
Sun tzu. He explored more topics and taburized more situations, grounds, weakness in the commanders and how the general-officer-soldier dynamics would fail and types that are useful to reference later on. It offers a more complete view on the mechanisms in war for nation states and how to wage it. The ideas abstracts well into other problems in life.
>>17890621
Did he say that?
https://ctext.org/art-of-war/variation-in-tactics
He said the general take command from the sovereign to lead the sovereign's army (the rule). And as there are situations that certain actions are just mistakes, there too are commands from a sovereign that should never be taken (the exceptions).
From the second chapter he already laments the harm of prolonged total warfare on country which wages it, being the toil on the soldiers who fought in it and civilians who paid for it. He wrote the book so that leaders in the army has a check list in analying the situation, making plans and preparations, organizing and disciplining the army organization so that things will be decisive and fast when it counts instead of time consuming sieges, and uncalculated gambles.

>>17890620 (OP)
You really can't understand On War before reading Art of War. It would be like trying to figure out Trigonometry before basic Arithmetic. Clausewitz is definitely the better thinker, predicting Total War decades before it actually happened, but Sun Tzu is better at brevity and practicality.

>>17890714
Obviously McNamara would get dumpstered by your average Song dynasty giga veteran

>>17890716
>Predicting
He gives absolute war as an example of something that wouldn't happen, so he can set up how real wars are limited by objectives. The dude was completely wrong.

>>17890717
But the kill count metrics said there's a million enemy chinaman eaten/buried alive into the Great Wall every month!

>>17890708
>The things which remain true for all wars are few
well, nukes changed this significantly, but if we keep this conventional and land-based, the principle still holds true from antiquity to date

>Clausewitz does very little to advise on what the correct political aims are
if I remember On War right, he outright said that it wasn't his decision
and indeed that sort of thing is worthy of whole books of its own

>Virtually all politicians in history would've profited with sticking to the more Sun Tzu-ian philosophy that war is only profitable if you win it quickly, and a huge loss otherwise
quite

>not in the more meaningful sense of dialectic
Sun Tzu doesn't write in German-style debate, no
I meant that, just Clausewitz has to be read with his unique cultural background and style in mind, so does Sun Tzu

>>17890718
You completely misunderstand Clausewitz' concept of absolute war. Absolute war is a theoretical construct like von Thünen's "isolated state". It's a theoretical model which serves as a background for overlaying terrain, political will, technology, etc.

>>17890620 (OP)
>from some country i never heard of
Weak bait, or an actual admission of total retardiation?

>>17890621
>itt, retard doesn't understand delegation
Politicians need to decide WHAT needs to be achieved, and then let the generals figure out HOW to achieve it.

On War is dense. Really hard to read, and probably suffers from bad translation. Both are inferior to The Influence of Sea Power on History

>>17890658
That was due to Macarthur's egomania. How he didn't get shot for his defense of the Philippines I have no idea.

>>17890706
And yet, most countries including Europe, ignore sun Tzu's advice. So clausewitz seems useless as it's too advanced for most war leaders.

>>17890707
Being retarded isn't impressive. The German empires government. Was which countries government Prussias, which capital Prussias, which king Prussias, which first minister, Prussias, which military Prussias. Nations at the height of the more and longterm strategic planning don't delete themselves. Calling it the German empire was simply politics. It was the Prussian Empire, you drooling feckless imbecile.

>>17890711
McNamara never led an army.

>>17890725
He had his own personal propaganda team. So he was broadcasting the story he wanted real time. And seeing as he was in the Phillipines, nobody could stop him. Then it was too late. He had created a lie that disproving would hurt national moral, and call into question large parts of leadership.
But yes Macauther is the worst US general ever, who presided over Both of the US's greatest military defeats.

>>17890652
>Did chinks actually have to write this shit down?
You do realize that the default war planning inclination of an untrained human is unga bunga tier "Me am tribe is strongest. Victory over other weak tribe garunteed by swamp god. WAAAAAAUGH!" tier thinking? On a societal level, "common sense" only exists if you bother to record shit and pass it on. And even then the capacity of people's retardation shouldn't be underestimated. A military manual wanting to emphasize the basics is entirely reasonable. Especially in the 5th century BC of all time periods, before paper was even a thing.

Clauswitz being more technically detailed probably makes sense if you view him as writing for more professional officers (not the idiot offspring of some nobles 3rd favorite consort). Though it's also probably worth considering he was was writing for a society that had the printing press. Meaning a turbo autist could more freely go into full detail about every aspect of his field of expertise. Sun Tsu leaning on brevity makes sense when you consider a how time consuming it is to hand transcribe copies of a really long text.

>>17890653
it was more than twice, and China has never won a war against a foreign enemy.

>>17890698
>Contrary to the myth that only Chinese armies were led by nobility, this was also the case in Prussia.
Are you fucking retarded? Is this your retarded headcanon? Literally every european army up until the second world war was led by nobility, like, absolutely everywhere, and everybody knows that, including your grandma who doesn't even care about war stuff. You fucking retard.

>>17890732
>Everybody knows that
Then why are people even in this thread repeatedly writing that the art of war is for nobles, when on war was written for the same nobles?

>>17890687
>>17890692
>writing this much just to expose yourself as a brainlet
Actually funny.

>>17890698
>Contrary to the myth that only Chinese armies were led by nobility, this was also the case in Prussia.
????????????
Where is that myth from and how would that be in favour of non-nobles when Prussian generals were far,superior to chinks?

>>17890733
because they both were???

>>17890733
>ESL chink can't parse basic English sentences
Lmao
Anon, the emphasis isn't on the Chinese generals being nobles, it's on Chinese generals being retarded.

>>17890620 (OP)
There is literally 2300 YEARS between the two men YOU DUMB PAJEET. Sun Tzu's contribution is codifying "common sense" into a text book for standardizing military education. This meant generals and officials of different ethnicities, backgrounds, locations from far flung regions of the Empire could easily work together because they have the same framework. This was revolutionary for its time. And as we have seen recently by Russia, common sense is not so common.

>>17890709
AWWW DID SOMEONE GET BURIED ALIVE AND HAVE THEIR GAY LITTLE SCROLLS BURNED??

>>17890731
I dont know man. We got our shit kicked in in Korea. Though thats mostly McArthur's fault.

>>17890737
European generals were also retarded seeing as they got completely obliterated by Napoleon and instead of doing the Sun Tzu thing which was to deny Napoleon decisive battles, they fed it to him nonstop until the Russians burned down their own capital to freeze french ass.

>>17890741
Historylet cope
European generals were head and shoulders above their Chinese counterparts, both literally and figuratively.

>>17890741
...are you saying that there were no nobles in Napoleon's army?

>>17890743
No, worse.
>European generals were also retarded seeing as they got completely obliterated by Napoleon
Implies there were no european generals in napoleon's army and napoleon must have been non-european too

>>17890742
implessive

>>17890743
those same nobles marched all the way to moscow, stayed there for a month, marched back home to paris. Lost i think more than half their men. Very good general.

>>17890648
Because he wrote it for China, and the main truth of the Chinese military is that casualties will be astronomical because those in charge literally could not give a singular shit about the chinese phonebook going from 11 million chins to 7. It's all fine and dandy to say war should be "to the last" until you have to accomplish something outside your own nation and people. The art of war doesn't work outside of China and in the minds of retards on the internet with more fake balls than fake brains. "Fight only where you can win" and "Don't lose" aren't revolutionary takeways the need Sun Tzu's book, that it's main use in modern times is with with business majors larping as cutthroat robber baron's should be telling enough.

>>17890747
If so obvious, why did McNamara spend years in Vietnam shooting at ghosts?

>>17890744
The French are not European, in fact they are not human

>>17890748
War is an extension of politics not the other way around. Your General's need to be competent enough to accomplish your ruling body's goals and your ruling body needs to be smart enough to know what the goals are and which are feasible for your military. Sun Tzu's book stating they need to get out of the way and let the generals do as they please is exactly why you get retards playing whack-a-mole trying to demoralize a foreign people into complete submission.

>>17890743
Not officially. The french revolution abolished noble titles and executed aristocrats left and right. Claiming you were a noble was a good way of getting to experience the Guillotine first hand.

>>17890748
>>17890750
Are you two arguing or agreeing?

>>17890751
Until napoleon, as emperor, reinstated the nobility.

>>17890747
I'm not sure you have even glanced through it. If there's one thing Sun Tzu keeps repeating, is that wars are extremely costly and ruinous. He advertises against most of what you claim to say China does. And you haven't completely mixed up the causation. He says the preparations decides the outcome of the war, and because of how costly a war is, preparation is the most imp thing

>>17890620 (OP)
>Clausewitz: Welcome to this post-graduate level course covering everything you will need to understand in order to become a competent military strategist. We will begin this introductory lecture with a discussion of the political and diplomatic factors affecting our craft. I'll hand out your reading lists and essay schedules after the discussion dies down.
>Sun Tzu: "Hey! Guys! Guys! GUYS! Did you know that swamps are wet? OMG! Mind = blown, right!? Also, I just realized. setting things on fire MAKES THEM BURN!!!!!!!!!!!"

>>17890750
You are misinterpreting Sun Tzu. It's clear from the context and commentaries his quote about how there are sovereign orders that show be disobeyed, he meant because they were bad military decisions. And no, Sun Tzu was the opposite for those kinds of wars. He has a straightforward philosophy that your goal is to subdue the enemy but minimize the cost for your strength. And there's a very long list of things he says you should do before even making this decision.

>>17890750
Lmao Clausewitz is the one shilling for war as a political tool. Sun Tzu says go in, fuck their shit up and get out. Because staying is never going to be worth it.

>>17890715
>Did he say that?
The famous "supreme victory is in defeating the enemy without fighting" alludes to it, but mostly philosophically

>>17890755
Clausewitz students all then proceed to ignore a swamp as its too basic to be a concern for such modern men, and cholera sweeps through their camp after a few units were forced to spend a night in the swamp and they lose the campaign. Like Bro, please list any campaign with a professional military where most of the mistakes arent covered in Sun Tzu's art of war. Nobles are shit leaders on average, because humans are shit on average.

>>17890620 (OP)
The Art Of War is literally just Wartime Leadership For Dummies, because Sun Tzu was sick of watching petty princes get all their men killed doing stupid shit because they couldn't even figure out basic logistics.

the napoleonic era is easily the most underrated point of military history in terms of aesthetics
not just militarily but in general too

>the largest armies at the beginning of the period were barely 70,000 men but near the end, in less than ten years, they were ten times that size
>the largest cavalry charge was at eylau with 10,000 cavalry troops; one of the largest cavalry charges in history
>the grande armee which entered russia was the largest army in the history of europe up until that point with over 600,000 troops
>but by the time the grande armee had exited russia, the number was in the low tens of thousands and to cover their final retreat across the bridge of a town, a marshal of the empire - the highest possible military distinction that could be achieved and the modern equivalent would be something like a five star general - grabbed a handful of muskets and defended the bridge ON HIS OWN against hundreds of russian troops charging at him (!)
there's so much more stuff like that which i can't even fit into a single post
this entire period of history is just gold covered in gems and dipped in liquid gold

>>17890761
Counterpoint; 1550s-1750s
That period is almost unknown in the public conscious

>>17890761
Ney later threw the waterloo by charging into squares by the way. Fuck him.

>>17890653
>china get conquered two times
this is what people who get their history from memes and history channel documentaries actually think LMAO

China has been wholly or partially conquered literally dozens of times. The barbarians just set up shop as a "latter northwestern zhang" dynasty that looks indistinguishable from the others on wikipedia.

in any case, Sun Tzu wrote in the Chinese warring state of Wu that lost and got conquered.

>>17890763
kill yourself spastic underage shitposter. but read an actual book about the campaign first.

>>17890661
It was a horrible decision but to blame Lee for the downfall of the Confederacy after all of his fucking miraculous victories.

Meanwhile, Joe Johnston in Chattanooga lol

>>17890765
>cavalry charge into the british without infantry support
>seize control of british cannons, dont spike them
>get 5 horses killed under him
>cavalry no longer was a factor as the french cavalry was decimated
All because of Ney.

>>17890761
>700,000 men
That is to say, the average Chinese army

>>17890767
>get 5 horses killed under him
Was he THAT fat?

>>17890768
>200 AD
>population of 12 million households, probably meaning 60-80 million
>conscript half of able bodied men to engage in brutal free for all civil war
China's history is /k/ as fuck.

>>17890770
>nonstop warfare and competition
Europe was peaceful compared to China

>>17890770
It's a small miracle that Cao Cao and Liu Bei managed to be two of the major players later on in the era, given how they're wedged between so many other bigger players at that point.

>>17890620 (OP)
>Prussian era
?

This isn't /his/ wtf. Send this to /k/

>>17890779
Where do you think it came from.
Mods being m*ds I guess