World's greatest Philosopher?

[Lazarus Plus]

What's your justification for that? We know very little about Sun Tzu the man, after all. And much of the great "victories" of the Romans were won by the efficency of their soldiers in closed-rank fighting and the conducting of siege warfare...

 

[John Uskglass]

Roman Victories are no diffirent from Chinese victories; works of logistical and efficency that boogle the mind.

Frankly, Sun Tzu is the kind of vauge bricker-brack that manages to survive in popularity because they are so vauge, formless and ultimatley meaningless that everyone quotes them to make other people sound stupid.

Take this:

"To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy...Keep your Friends close and your Enemies closer."

Uh...this is kind of counter intuitive. When has this worked, exactly? Where the Romans victorious over the Barbarians by becoming Barbarians? Where they victorious because they let Attila into their borders?

Nonsense. From a historical perspective, this is utter nonsense.

"There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare."

Not really true. Nations can maintain stability through the threat of an outside enemy. The Romans maintained discipline through the threat of barbarian invasion.

"Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win."
Also probably
"Winning Strategists are certain of triumph before seeking a challenge. Losing Strategists are certain to challenge before seeking a triumph."

Gross oversimplification of obvious truth. Was Japan victorious over America because they had been preparing for a war against America for 50 years? Bullhonkey.

If these three sayings where ever reasonable, they are clearly not now.

 

[Lazarus Plus]

Roman Victories are no diffirent from Chinese victories; works of logistical and efficency that boogle the mind.

Frankly, Sun Tzu is the kind of vauge bricker-brack that manages to survive in popularity because they are so vauge, formless and ultimatley meaningless that everyone quotes them to make other people sound stupid.

Something can seem simple and yet remain profound.

Take this:

"To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy...Keep your Friends close and your Enemies closer."

Uh...this is kind of counter intuitive. When has this worked, exactly? Where the Romans victorious over the Barbarians by becoming Barbarians? Where they victorious because they let Attila into their borders?

Nonsense. From a historical perspective, this is utter nonsense.

I think it's clear that they don't mean culturally BECOME the enemy. More like, understand the enemy? Think like the enemy? The only thing to fear is the unknown, after all.

"There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare."

Not really true. Nations can maintain stability through the threat of an outside enemy. The Romans maintained discipline through the threat of barbarian invasion.

Ridiculous. The Romans LOST to Barbarians, and went through three distinct phases of defense to accomodate their declinging strength and the increasing waves of barbarian attacks. (Preclusive, elastic, defense-in-depth, if you were wondering.)

Eventually the Empire became one vast logistical base for the sole purpose of keeping the army stong enough to deal with the ever-growing threat from across the Rhine and Danube.

"Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win."
Also probably
"Winning Strategists are certain of triumph before seeking a challenge. Losing Strategists are certain to challenge before seeking a triumph."

Gross oversimplification of obvious truth. Was Japan victorious over America because they had been preparing for a war against America for 50 years? Bullhonkey.

If these three sayings where ever reasonable, they are clearly not now.

To win, one must have the means and the method in place. One does not attack and hope to win without seeing the enemy's dispostions. One does not prepare for a long siege by selling grain at the market. Preparation and discernment allow a general to defeat the enemy before the battle has begun because the outcome was never in doubt. Warfare on a small scale is tactics. On a medium scale it is strategy. On a grand scale it is logistics. Sun Tzu tries to teach these in such a way that they can be applied to more than simply war, however.

 

[Dapper Dan Man]

I liked "The Art of War", but Sun Tzu *does* have a tendency to cite tautologies as "wisdom". Sure, some of the things are useful, but the fac tthat his quotes can, as CCR said, be taken out of context in order to apply to really anything is a legitimate problem with vagueness. Tactics don't necessarily equate with politics.