View Full Version : Unimpressed with Sun Tzu
Sun Tzu's works on strategy are for teaching the fundamentals of battle to students only.
He only ever discusses a winning situation such as only attack from uphill of the enemy, only attack with a greater strength, know where and what your enemy is.
Quite ironically, before he runs off these words of 'wisdom' he is quoted as writing;
To lift an autumn leaf is not an act of great strength.
To see the sun and moon is not an act of sharp sight.
To hear a sudden thunderclap is not an act of acute listening.
Which is basically saying you dont have to be a genius to know how to fight a battle when you outnumber your enemy 10-1 and are sat upon a mountain with masses of archers.
What is needed to be discussed is how to fight from a bad situation when out numbered etc. (saying dont fight is not an answer).
Obviously the Japanese cant think much of his works or why did they go to war with america during WWII?
Obviously Napolean couldn't have thought much about him either as many of his battles were fought where napolean did the exact opposite of what Sun Tzu would advise, and came out victorious.
Germany started WWII 6 years too early, if Britain & France had opposed Hitler right at the beginning when Hitler broke his first restrictions, all the historians agree, he would have been beaten easily.
Need I go on....American war of independance ring a bell with anyone......
I believe the majority of wars and engagements begin or turn to be a fight from a disadvantaged position which the 'great' Sun Tzu seems to hide from the possiblity.
Lastly, if Sun Tzu was such a great battle strategist why was he constantly at war? and why was he never Shogun?
I understand this Sun Tzu bashing may offend people but please read and analyse what is not being said before flaming me.
Quote Originally posted by rshuck:
Lastly, if Sun Tzu was such a great battle strategist why was he constantly at war? and why was he never Shogun?
[/QUOTE]
That's just hilarious.
This is like asking: Why is Churchill never a supermodel? Why Monro never used plastic surgery?
Read more about Chinese history, kiddo. Sometimes, if you don't know anything, just keep silent.
Rshuck,
I think you need to re-read Sun Tzu. Many of the tactics used by Napolean could have come right out of the "Art of War". American War of Independance? Same thing.
You also have to remember that not everyone acts in accordance with the precepts found in the book. Politicians will still be politicians and their motivations will be political.
Read a bit more about the art of deception in battle and the use of ordinary and extraordinary forces. Striking where the enemy does not expect you, and the rest. Try to go beyond just the words that are written and consider the implications. Try to remember that the "Art" of war requires skill in more areas than just the battlefield.
Sun Tzu was never Shogun because he was Chinese and lived about 2000 years or more before the Sengoku Jidai (depending on which theory you want to subscribe to). Sun Tzu was not as you claim "constantly at war", and was extremely effective in increasing the power and prestige of his King. Read up on the histories of the era and the stories about Sun Tzu before making such claims.
This isn't meant to flame you at all, but rather to suggest that you do a bit more research and spend a bit more time gaining an understanding of the subject matter at hand before making posts of this type because you DO invite flaming in return.
------------------
Obake
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
theforce
11-13-2001, 02:34
I am advancing with tutrle formation towards your archers and l get close and chop em to pieces :P
------------------
Don't use only honour, use theforce, too.
http://lod.fateback.com
Sun Tzu is intended as a primer in Military Theory. The beauty of it IS indeed that is does not get overly specific, and is therefore almost universally applicable.
It certainly contains no instructions on how to dig a proper foxhole or array an attack formation with line infantry and grenadiers, nor is this the purpose of the text. Obviously one would not be able to be a real military theorist having read just this one book, and one would be foolish to try and apply it in inappropriate ways.
But even for the most experienced, the balance and order of the precepts and the way they are laid down could be most helpful.
And for someone who basically knows absolutely nothing, like yourself, rshuck, reading and understanding Sun Tzu's precepts is a must.
Matt
it is easy to forget the simple things, and base complex strategies on faulse precepts - Sun Tzu keeps one always in mind of the fundamentals - these things are necessary if we are to do anything
Sun Tzu is the way of Logic, the way of logic is the way of strategy...
Scotticus TheGreat
11-13-2001, 05:43
I've always thought that Sun Tzu's Art of War is what you SHOULD do. i.e. TRY to get up on a hill, but if you can't, oh well. I don't think he says that people MUST do what he says or start out on Mt. Everest, just that they should try to climb it.
Now wouldn't that be interesting...
No Dachi vs. Monks on top of Mt. Everest
------------------
Life doesn't seem through bad with Led Zepplin floating through the ears
Lord Toranoga
11-13-2001, 06:12
Even when Napoleon Bonaparte seemed to be breaking Sun Tzu's rule of only attacking if you have much superior numbers, Napoleon would defeat larger armies by dividing them, then destroying them seperately, thus complying with Sun Tzu's rule.
Napolean was a military genus!
He was a stickler for details.
But if he followed Sun Tzu's rules at Waterloo, he might not have lost that battle.
But by that time, his enemies learned his tactics, and adjusted.
Plus Napoleon was ill during the battle.
theforce
11-13-2001, 06:29
Well Sun mate is right http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
Things he sais apply even today. He speeks not only of how to wage battles but how to behave to people and how you must gain the people to win. How about 10.000 Spartans who won against 300.000 Persians. that a 30:1 ratio. Any general would say that it was impossible but yet again the Greeks showed the military wisdom. I am doing Greek Philosophy in school and there are many things like know yourself and things like that.
------------------
Don't use only honour, use theforce, too.
http://lod.nipogames.com/default.html
SlackerXS
11-13-2001, 06:50
My suggestion is to read further more to understand the whole meaning of his arts and also understand the background he was in back in couple of thousand years ago...
Sun Tzu provides fundamentals for you to expand on it. That's why different tacticians have their dif style of war arts yet have common ground in certain aspects.
------------------
SlackER ~ Extreme
This bring to mind something Jaeger said to me once...
Ok Ok, the bit about being constantly at war and shogun was the only bit I wasnt sure of when I wrote it. I had read that piece along side alot of Sun Tzu but it must have a quote from some other guy.
I have thought about why I find what he says is so unimportant and I have come to the conclusion that it need not be taught.
If you compare a bar room brawl with his guidelines, the people about to fight are not generals, have not read Sun Tzu, have not been taught battle tactics at some academy and yet, if they out number a guy 10:1 they will surround him, 5:1 flank him 2:1 attack.
If you take this to football fans fighting in the streets or race riots you will see a main force holding the attention and main brunt of the opposing force while other 'units' move round the sides or rear to flank and disorganise the enemy.
(sorry, only 2 more comparisons)
Pack animals like Lions and Wolves show the same sort of basic attack strategies.
Defenses even way back when man first made fire he would have a cave or something high above his enemies and attack from cover.
Perhaps I was expecting too much from something titled as 'The Art Of War' it seems to be more about what are the basics of war as opposed to 'How To Win At War'.
The napolean bit I was referring to (although not very fresh in my memory) was when he had his army sat upon a hill and before the enemy engaged he moved down to the valley on the opposite side of the hill. The enemy commander (probably taught in the art of Sun Tzu) then quickly took up position on top of the hill. Well one thing led to another and the general was forced to come down the hill as napolean didnt attack and his army subsequently got massacred in the fog.
Please post replies because I would like to have my view challenged so I may be able to see what I dont yet see.
Papewaio
11-13-2001, 10:02
Ah the subtle art of misdirection that Napolean used to draw his enemy down into his elite infantry...
now if I recall the opposing general didn't know that Napolean had marched reinforcements (further and faster then any of his contempories could of) to the battle.
also because of fog the opposing general didn't know he was getting his arse wooped by the elite infantry in the town below...
this is nice to do in shogun by getting enemy to charge into a wood full of monks, and the charging calvary around the side to wipe out muskets/archers... a lot easier to do in fog. (actually come to think of it this battle of Napoleans was like the one in Braveheart where the english left there superior position to attack the scottish mob, only to be confronted by a well equipped front line of spears, and have his superior postion overrun by calvary)
Have you read the complete Art of War or just parts of it?... not all translations are complete, some of it goes into what to do when you are outnumbered... hit and run, and to use a mix of arms.
So back to the bar room brawl, thats where Book of Five Rings comes into its own... when one man can defeat ten, one thousand can defeat ten thousand.
As for animals doing the right tactics... of course... evolution... all the animals the wolves that decided to attack bears one on one, uphill in the open... well they died and progressively the ones with better tactics have more offspring and live on.
The funny thing about wisdom is that once you recognise that something is true it seems so obviously simple.
Okay one of you Nap buffs out there could you describe the battle in a more accurate detail.
------------------
Victory first, Battle last.
Quote Originally posted by rshuck:
I believe the majority of wars and engagements begin or turn to be a fight from a disadvantaged position which the 'great' Sun Tzu seems to hide from the possiblity.
[/QUOTE]
I think you are wrong to say Sun Tzu hide from such possibility. How many battles or wars in human history turn out the way you said, winning from a disadvantaged position? You need me to count for you? And if you analyse these splendid victories (from disadvantaged situations), you may find factors on the victor/loser sides that fit Sun Tzu's principles on warfare.
Sun Tzu (Sun Zi) was an advisor to his king on both political and military matters. His duty was to aid his King in ensuring the prosperity and survival of his state and people. It was during the period called "Spring and Autumn" in Chinese history. You don't take chance with your enemies by fighting them, for example, under-sized, hoping that by following some "principles on winning from a disadvantaged position", victories would be yours. The whole state and the lives of millions were at stake.
Sun Tzu layed out the fundamental a wise ruler and his generals should have/follow to ensure prosperity of the state, and that means winning on the battlefields. When you out-numbered, out-class and out-wit your enemy, the chance of victory would definitely be higher. Of course nothing is certain. But why talk about winning from a disadvantage position, when you can create a much more advantage situation before you engage in war? And the ultimate of all warfare is winning the war without a single battle.
Reading "The art of war" is not enough to appreciate the beauty of his words. It would be better to know the period and history. Read the "Spring and Autumn" and "Warring States". Another nice period I would recommend is "Romance of the Three Kingdoms".
.. there must be a reason why something last 2000 yrs, people are still learning, appreciating and employing it..
------------------
tootee the toothless warrior (aka goldfish shimazu)
------------------
Thanks for the reply I was very interested in your opinion and the comparison with braveheart was inciteful.
One thing I maintain though (albeit butchered) is perhaps the book is 'The Current Evolution Of War' as opposed to say...chess strategies.
What I am most interested in is how to best create surprise and organise a combined yet multi-faceted attack. These things still being very general are surely what the 'Art Of War' should be.
Papewaio
11-13-2001, 11:02
http://zhongwen.com/bingfa.htm
read either one... personally I go for the english one since I can't read chinese http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
Misdirection, surprise, getting your soldiers to fight to death and fighting on dangerous ground are all covered.
------------------
Victory first, Battle last.
Forget Sun Tsu! How about that fake Miyamoto Musashi and that Book Of Five Rings crap! One on One duels... SHEESH! Afterall who brings swords and spears and all that to a gunfight! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
You win, I have decided to find my inspiration elsewhere.
I have ordered books on napoleon, hannibal, alexander the great and some other great commanders in a hope to see it from a practical perspective as opposed to a theoretical one.
Also I think it is difficult to apply Sun Tsu's prose to battlefield strategy. He I believe is referring to war as a whole (campaign strategy map) not how you set up you missile troops in conjunction with your infantry.
There is opportunity for deception and suprize in multiplayer for instance but only if you play a map with actual terrain and your opponent isnt a camper. no Totomi with nine guns for instance...
Lord Toranoga
11-13-2001, 11:53
Sun Tzu's rules are excellent guidlines.
But there are times you can and should break those rules.
A good General will know.
For example, I attack with equal or lesser number of men all the time and win.
Because I know my units are equiped better, have more experience, and are led better.
His rules aren't written in stone, but his book is required reading at West Point.
BakaGaijin
11-13-2001, 12:39
If you want the nitty-gritty tactical stuff without getting into the fine details of trench-digging (although, come to think of it, those are in there, too!), I highly recommend Erwin Rommel's Infantry Attacks. It is an excellent study-through-narrative of infantry operations on the platoon and battalion level, and thus somewhat applicable to Shogun, despite its WWI setting. Almost every situation imagineable is covered within, and Rommel gives as many details as a military student could want and no more.
The Rommel Papers is also a good read, but it's a bit laboured and deals more with the operational view, which is not covered at all in Shogun.
Of less importance, but still decent, it's B.H. Liddel-Hart's Strategy, which was supposedly (though I think it's a blatant lie) the inspiration behind the development of German Panzer tactics for WWII. Like I said, I doubt that influence, but it is a fairly good read with a number of historical examples to block its main point, which concerns indirect means of defeating the enemy. In this sense, it is a good companion to Sun Tzu which may assist in increasing your appreciation for him, or at least give you something with which to build on Sun Tzu's foundation.
------------------
Disappear into the Darkness!!
Okay, I'm going to say this for the last time-- if you don't get Sun Tzu, that's fine, just know that you will never get war. It's not that friggin hard. But if you don't get it and why it is so good, you don't have a chance at real military theory.
Of course there is also a considerable trend to OVERvalue Sun Tzu and such works, so perhaps people like Rshuck are a healthy counterbalance.
But really it's just like Clausewitz (at least) has said-- that anyone seeking to learn about war for any purpose must have a strong respect for accepted thinking. This doesn't mean you have to sheepishly follow it wherever it may lead, but you do have to respect it and understand it before you have any business in questioning it.
On B.H. Liddel Hart-- I got his book, and found it to be excessively annoying. Now I can't pretend to be an expert cuz I didn't [couldn't bear to] read it all through, so feel free to zap me if I say something blatantly untrue.
But frankly the impression I got from it was that he's just beating one principle and one principle alone to friggin death like a motha. Be indirect. Be indirect. Indirection is the ONLY way to victory. Indirection will gain you triumph on the battlefield, clean out the toughest stains, and prolong your orgasms. VIVA LA INDIRECCION!!
I got sick of this after like 100 pages. He does do a pretty nicely thorough run-through of the whole of military history, but looking only through his little "INdirect, INdirect, INdirect, INdirect" lense so that I frankly was forced to doubt most of his interpretations.
Professional criticisms I've heard of the him is that really B.H. Liddel Hart really did do a great deal for the development of modern armor theory and the bringing about of the mechanization of war, but that his book "Strategy" is a load of total crap that has less to do with sound doctrine and more to do with faint-hearted reactionism to the horror of WW1. One specific criticism I've heard which is particularly incisive is of how Hart deals with the American Civil War:
He derides Grant with his costly direct tactics, and offers the counterexample of Sherman as a smart and indirect general. This of course is a colossal load of horse manure, because Grant and Sherman's two policies were integral and interdependent parts of the SAME STRATEGY. Grant engaged and harried Lee at all cost in the North, thereby ALLOWING Sherman to do his little "indirect" thing in the more Southern regions. B.H.L.H. is simply and undeniably dead wrong on this one at least.
I dunno, I was simply UNimpressed with Hart, but what I have read of Clausewitz impressed me thoroughly. I really must make the time to get back and finish reading his 700-page masterpiece.
Anyway, if you're a Hart-o-phile, feel free to flame away.
Matt
[hmm, that's interesting. My post doesn't show up, just like a few others in the past week (one of which I just confirmed took like 5 days to finally be visible). But I double post and everything is peachy. Weird. Anyway, this was a double post.]
[This message has been edited by Khan7 (edited 11-13-2001).]
Scotticus TheGreat
11-13-2001, 23:56
You know, I've got this feeling that Osama probably hasn't seen "The Art of War" (The book, not the crappy movie with Weslie Snipes). Or else please tell me WHY he is attacking an enemy 10 times his size? Maybe if we all sent him a copy of it he would learn the error of his ways.
------------------
Life doesn't seem through bad with Led Zepplin floating through the ears
Many reasons, Scotticus. The fact that we're all big and bad means nothing.
His dire miscalculations have more to do with his political viability, which has fallen significantly short of his estimation. He may still have a few tricks up his sleeve-- but as of now he's as good as finished.
He may also have believed that such a horrific attack would more scare than anger us, as this has been our pattern in the past.
It's also good to note that he may not have had totally specific knowledge of the attack, though he obviously provided some go-ahead and funding.
But really that's an overapplication of Sun Tzu, Scotticus, as 10 to 1 isn't even an issue in this case.
Matt
a little l8 rath m8 but here goes http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif
"Sun Tzu was a know it all bastard"
------------------
FORTITUDINE VINCIMUS
BakaGaijin
11-14-2001, 06:27
Khan: Actually, I agree absolutely that Strategy, and Liddel-Hart in general, is basically a one-trick horse. However, it's a pretty good trick when applicable. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif Personally, I tend to skip past the historical info on re-readings and go straight to his conclusions. These are significantly more interesting and somewhat less repetitive than the rest of his work.
The main reason I present Liddel-Hart is that he is a good companion to a more thorough knowledge of direct tactics. As much as Sherman would not have succeeded without Grant, Grant probably would not have succeeded without Sherman, for example, which was basically your conclusion. The direct and indirect means are very much intertwined, and Liddel-Hart is worth reading if for that reason alone. It's also good to see that, if I'm not mistaken, the more recent editions of the book (revised after WWII) reject the concept of strategic bombing campaigns as viable means of conducting war in and of themselves. So I suppose you could say that WWII knocked a little sense into Hart, in that respect.
------------------
Disappear into the Darkness!!
It appears that what has been causing the confusion in our new member is that he has mistaken the "Art of War" as a manual of tactical battle doctrine rather that a strategic guide to the battlefield and for protecting and enhancing the prosperity of the state.
Baka caught it finally and suggested more appropriate texts. There are several others as well, including "Art of War".
Papewaio along with others mention the "Book of Five Rings" and in particular paraphrases Musashi's discussion regarding the Way of Strategy being such that the size of the engagement means nothing and that as 1 man can defeat 10, so can 1000 men defeat 10,000 if lead by one who knows the Way of Strategy.
The key to understanding the meaning here is to apply Musashi's understanding to the "Art of War". While the scope of the book appears to be grander than is appropriate to what you seek rshuck, breaking down and examining the principles found within the "Art of War" from the perspective of an individual rather than an army and you will see that the same principles of strategy that govern large-scale combat, also govern small scale, or even individual combat. Or to put it in Musashi's terms, just reverse the process, it only a matter of perspective. Both men, although 3000 years apart, are talking about the exact same thing. They only appear different to you because you have not experienced it for yourself.
By all means, continue your tactical studies rshuck. Increase your knowledge continuously and remember to apply what you are reading in your efforts (relating to Shogun I'm hoping). As you gain the experience of your knowledge, you will come to see what it is I'm talking about.
In the meantime I would suggest that you go take a look at Sonshi.com (http://www.sonshi.com) It's a great site about the "Art of War" with excellent information regarding how to apply its lessons in your daily life. No I'm not affiliated with the site in any way, it's just a little node in cyberspace that I feel holds value in the mostly "content-free" world of the Internet.
------------------
Obake
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
Scotticus TheGreat
11-14-2001, 06:47
Quote Originally posted by Obake:
so can 1000 men defeat 10,000 if lead by one who knows the Way of Strategy.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Do you think that there was a little bit of self-promotion in the Art of War and the Book of five rings? I mean if I was an author, I'd be all promoting my own book.
------------------
Life doesn't seem through bad with Led Zepplin floating through the ears
Papewaio
11-14-2001, 08:21
Yes I can see it now;
An ageing cranky samurai, with long messy hair, a relative distain for personal hygiene compared to his peers, a fondness for a remote cave as a domicile, and a nasty habit of duelling with anyone who wants to learn from him… deciding to do a book promotion so he to can be seen in literary circles shoulder to shoulder with Sun Tzu and Sei Shonagon.
------------------
Victory first, Battle last.
Doesn't Sun Tzu answer some questions at the very end... about Negative circumstances... and how to overcome them...
I pretty sure he does.
In fact... Im Damn sure he does.
"Shaka Zulu was a student of Sun Tzu."
------------------
Where the D1255 and D720?
Tachikaze
11-14-2001, 11:24
I think this thread is very valid. When I first read Sun Tzu, I said, "Is that all there is?" All the way through, I was thinking, "Well, duh!" This is just common sense!
One thing to consider when reading Sun Tsu is that there was no systematized manual of strategic warfare before his and the other six great works of Chinese binfa. Warfare at that time consisted of much ceremony, macho dueling, and mob brawling, and little logical planning. Sun Tzu's work made a practical science out of the politics and strategy of war.
Also, as someone mentioned above, its usefulness is ensured by its general nature. It can be applied to business, team sports, and firefighting as well as battle.
It's remarkable that so many generals and politicans since the work was written have failed to follow its common sense precepts. Thus, we must remind ourselves, occasionally, of simple principles. It is easy to lose sight of common sense when conducting serious business. If you have a strategy in mind, skim through The Art of Warfare and see if the plan adheres to its basic logic.
The I-Ching is just as vague, by the way, and has also survived 2500 years.
ROTFLMAO!!! Priceless!
Quote Originally posted by Papewaio:
Yes I can see it now;
An ageing cranky samurai, with long messy hair, a relative distain for personal hygiene compared to his peers, a fondness for a remote cave as a domicile, and a nasty habit of duelling with anyone who wants to learn from him… deciding to do a book promotion so he to can be seen in literary circles shoulder to shoulder with Sun Tzu and Sei Shonagon.[/QUOTE]
------------------
Obake
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
Krasturak
11-15-2001, 00:52
Gah!
Sun Tzu's work is excellent, inspirational reading.
Krast thinks, how wonderful that it is so clearly applicable to the game.
If you not see the connection, you need more ... life experience, maybe?
ReturnOfTheJordi
11-15-2001, 01:54
Rshuck writes :-
"What is needed to be discussed is how to fight from a bad situation when out numbered etc. (saying dont fight is not an answer)."
I think Sun Tsu is saying exactly that "don't fight" (in a bad situation) IS the answer! Sun Tsu teaches what are good and bad situations and how to convert one into the other.
The book is a masterpiece and applicable to many more areas of life than just military. IMHO.
Tachikaze
11-15-2001, 03:26
I forgot to mention in my last post:
One reason a general may go against Sun Tzu's precepts is to be unpredictable.
A simplistic example:
If I'm up against an opponent and we are aware that we both know Sun Tzu, he will expect me to take the high ground as he approaches a valley. He will approach the valley prepared to accept an attack from the high ground.
But I will hide my force behind a stand of trees in the floor of the valley (and put a decoy force on the hills, if possible). I will give up the advantage of high ground to give me surprise and a flanking approach to my opponent's force.
This, by the way, is another principle of Sun Tzu.
Tachi's example raises what I consider to be one of the key teachings in the "Art of War", that of the ordinary and extraordinary forces and the ability to have the two switch at a moments notice.
Another fine illustration of the concept can be found in the Shingen and Kenshin's battle at 4th Kawa.
Kenshin had his army encamped in a strong position on a mountain. Shingen chose to split his forces in two with the ordinary force (which Shingen wanted to use as his extraordinary force) waiting in the valley below with his extraordinary force (which Shingen wanted to appear as ordinary) flanking Kenshin on the mountain and forcing him down to the plain below.
Kenshin, supsecting a trap turned his entire army into an extraordinary (in this case unpredictable) force by moving away from his camp and attacking Shingen's main troops in the valley below.
Shingen was only saved by the arrival of his extraordinary force causing Kenshin to withdraw.
Japanese history is replete with these types of examples and the work of Sun Tzu was well known to the Sengoku Daimyo.
------------------
Obake
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
I have used a similar tactic before and it yielded good results. I have been toying around with custom battles to see how an approach which steers as far away from Sun Tzu as possible fairs. Now while some of the battles were truly disasterous a few gave remarkable results which I would never have expected.
As to Sun Tzu's 'Art Of War', the more general and non-specific something said is the harder it is to attack as a good attack has to be a bit more targeted. For example if I said that the key to the universe can be found in peace, prove me wrong, for if you say I am lying then I can just say you haven't found it or you do not have an open mind.
Tachikaze
11-15-2001, 04:58
I think Sun Tzu would put peaceful rule as the pinnacle of political policy. The Art of Warfare is one big "However if . . ."
Alright Rshuck-- your arrogance can only stand in your way.
If you want to learn a bit of humility is in order. But if you want to continue to sabotage your own educational efforts with that attitude of yours, it only hurts you.
And that's all I'm going to say. Someday, probably years from now when you've come full circle and reinvented the wheel, you will grasp the truth of my words.
Matt
Papewaio
11-15-2001, 07:30
Rshuck I'm curious to which tactics that were antithesis of Sun Tzu performed well under custom battle and which did not, also I would like to know which engine you were using.
------------------
Victory first, Battle last.
qwertyuiop
11-15-2001, 08:32
.... ..... .... heh http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
Max Payne
11-15-2001, 10:33
Quote Originally posted by Obake:
Tachi's example raises what I consider to be one of the key teachings in the "Art of War", that of the ordinary and extraordinary forces and the ability to have the two switch at a moments notice.
Another fine illustration of the concept can be found in the Shingen and Kenshin's battle at 4th Kawa.
Kenshin had his army encamped in a strong position on a mountain. Shingen chose to split his forces in two with the ordinary force (which Shingen wanted to use as his extraordinary force) waiting in the valley below with his extraordinary force (which Shingen wanted to appear as ordinary) flanking Kenshin on the mountain and forcing him down to the plain below.
Kenshin, supsecting a trap turned his entire army into an extraordinary (in this case unpredictable) force by moving away from his camp and attacking Shingen's main troops in the valley below.
Shingen was only saved by the arrival of his extraordinary force causing Kenshin to withdraw.
Japanese history is replete with these types of examples and the work of Sun Tzu was well known to the Sengoku Daimyo.
[/QUOTE]
LOL, poisened by Sun Giz
This is a demonstration to the quote:
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
Quote Originally posted by Max Payne:
LOL, poisened by Sun Giz
This is a demonstration to the quote:
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.[/QUOTE]
Ah, this is a very nice quote indeed. I know Obake uses that.. is he the idiot.. err.. I mean the originator http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif ?
--tootee aka goldfish shimazu
Papewaio
11-15-2001, 14:49
Okay this is slightly off this topic... how are you guys doing the Quotes???
------------------
Victory first, Battle last.
Max Payne
11-15-2001, 15:58
Isn't it obvious?
Quite annoyed by the no. of believers of Sun Tsz, and those not knowing the incompetent side of his strategy and those explaining things with the laid out principles to even going deep about it.
Sun Tsz's ideas were rather general and the thoughts were not consistent and so there're situation out of the book.
What amuses me are those who have neither the inclination nor the capability to go beyond the surface of what Sun Tzu says and to truly attempt to understand the underlying meaning and precepts.
Rather, they seek to cover their lack, by attacking the work of someone who's been dead for almost 4000 years and anyone who has penetrated where they cannot/have not.
If people don't like Sun Tzu, that's fine, they are entitled to that opinion, but by attacking those who find value in the work, all that they accomplish is to clearly demonstrate the inherent truth of the quote in my signature.
Having been there before (and on my own I might add), I have no desire to allow myself to be dragged back to that level again.
Papewaio, quotes are accomplished by beginning the text you want to quote with the word quote bracketed by []. To finish it you must end the text with /quote again bracketed by [].
You may want to click on the "*UBB Code is ON" link just to the left of the text entry box when you are writing a post.
------------------
Obake
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
[This message has been edited by Obake (edited 11-15-2001).]
Actually, in all reality Sun Tzu was only a fictional pen persona for the actual writer of the work, and the actual writer can not have been dead for more than about 2200-2300 years..
And even by traditional accounts Sun Tzu can't have been dead for more than about 2300-2400 years..
Anyway, notice my silence on the central issue of this thread. IMO we should all let the willfully ignorant wallow in their arrogance.
------------------
-Matt
Visit the Center for the Enrichment of Shogun Total War here (http://www.shoguntw.artshost.com/index.html).
BakaGaijin
11-16-2001, 08:43
He'll just be that much easier to beat when we seem him online (not that I ever play online, but that's for a different thread).
------------------
Disappear into the Darkness!!
Minamoto Yoritomo
11-16-2001, 09:12
Ack! People still keep reading Sunzi Bingfa (aptly translated the Art of WAR) hoping to find the Science of BATTLE. Don't you realize that the fundamental precept of winning a war, according to the author, is to secure your victory before you ever get to the battlefield?
Khan7,
I thank you for your comment on my arrogance which places me in such distinguished company as many of the great western commanders whom have been noted for their arrogance and self-belief.
If you don't attempt to fault something how do you know it to be true?
I am duly impressed by your silence, although I have heard quieter.
Papewaio
11-16-2001, 11:37
Rshuck
Could you please say which tactics worked that were the opposite of Sun Tzu on the custom battles.
I would prefer to see your evidence and I would also like to see the end results.
------------------
Victory first, Battle last.
Papewaio
11-16-2001, 11:45
BTW
Khan7
How is it that everyone who voices an opposite opinion to yourself is arrogant? It is not just this thread either.
You use logical arguments, augmented with examples and stick pretty close to the thread at hand.
Then you undo all this by belittling people who voice a different opinion.
------------------
Victory first, Battle last.
I am simply stating the facts..
Belittlement? He's taken care of that for himself.
------------------
-Matt
Visit the Center for the Enrichment of Shogun Total War here (http://www.shoguntw.artshost.com/index.html).
Scotticus TheGreat
11-17-2001, 00:40
This thread seems to be degrading... Who agrees with rshuck and who doesn't? I disagree, and do I really need to say why? Look at all the reasons overtly repeated by rshucks detractors.
------------------
Life doesn't seem through bad with Led Zepplin floating through the ears
BakaGaijin
11-17-2001, 10:11
Aye, it's not really going anywhere. Whatever.
------------------
Disappear into the Darkness!!
Max Payne
11-17-2001, 23:42
Quote Originally posted by Obake:
What amuses me are those who have neither the inclination nor the capability to go beyond the surface of what Sun Tzu says and to truly attempt to understand the underlying meaning and precepts.
[/QUOTE]
What's amusing to me is that if sun tsz's principles are to be given an assumption that it's wrong, what's the point to complusorily build up something that's at the false place? and the same with attempting to learn by reading throughly and understanding throughly of the content. some of us just prefers to learn from somebody rather than crystal with impurity.
ok sun tsz's right, and the rest are not worthy to be considered and we should all stfu; and think about what if this assumption is wrong... i'm unimpressed by the book. and some think i probably have not gone through that place to the place of truth. nevertheless, the book is an art and those who are not genius are free to admire, so as the rest free to be unimpressed.
BakaGaijin
11-19-2001, 14:51
You're misunderstanding completely. Disappear.
I think the "rules" mentioned of Sun Tzu's art of war are mostly intuitive.
Good military leaders know intuitively they have to be efficient, fast, surprising, and calm, etc. It is really nice to collect these concepts in a book (art of war) and systematically educate the (future) generals, but it would be going to far to treat the book like a Bible.
There is no rules for masters. Sun Tzu also says "We rest when the enemy moves, and we move when the enemy rests". The masters have good responses for the opponents' actions.
Anssi Hakkinen
11-20-2001, 05:16
Khan7-san, if you recall, this is not the first time you have been reprimanded for your failure to offer due respect to your fellow debaters. I am under no illusion that it will be the last, but at least I and others try to remind you every once in a while - courteousness is a very true virtue on a samurai message board.
Granted, however, that goes for others as well. I recognize that this thread's very topic commits ad hominem against Sun Tzu concerning his imperfectly preserved legacy, but that is no reason to further personify a lack of respect for those opinions into those defending said opinions - or have any undue disdain for those who choose to disagree with those opinions. As is clear, this thread is about opinions, just as any other thread is. And all opinions can be discussed in a much more comfortable environment if the holders of those opinions can respect one another, even if they cannot respect one another's opinions.
Thus, courtesy. Surely my request is not excessive.
------------------
"There is something to be learned from a rainstorm. When meeting with a sudden shower, you try not to get wet and run quickly along the road. But doing such things as passing under the eaves of houses, you still get wet. When you are resolved from the beginning, you will not be perplexed, though you still get the same soaking. This understanding extends to everything".
- Yamamoto Tsunetomo: Hagakure
My opinion only, first, Strategy & Tactics are 2 seperate entities, both are similiar but are different in fulfillment. Basic Strategy & Tactics students are taught both concepts by all the master stategists & tacticians of history. This covers a wide range of time frames and one thing you learn, is that as times, weapons etc, change, both stategy & tactics must change but the basic principles remain, its just the implementation of those principles that need to be looked at and studied. Rshuck, good reading besides those already mentioned are Gudarians Tactics on Armored warfare, he is considered by many to be the father of armored warfare, Hannibal's battle of Cannae,
Rommel the Deserf Fox, and more. In reading you should see that the basic principles are usually similiar in concept as those who have gone before, the "implementation" is where the real difference lies. No good battle plan survives the lst shot, flexibility in war is vital to winning, and at times you must be willing and able to go against the basic teachings. How many battles have been won by those who went "against accepted rules of war" and thus creating their own or new strategies or tactics. But don't confuse strategy with tactics, both are needed together but both are different.
High honor to those who give honor Talon43
BakaGaijin
11-21-2001, 04:29
I've got one of Guderian's books, but I've never been able to finish it. One can only take so much "Got transferred to X, Captain Y is too old-fashioned." before going insane. The bits about the actual development of armour strategy are interesting, but there was just too much bloody fluff in there. I wish I could remember which book of his I had, so I could warn you all away from it specifically. =/
------------------
Disappear into the Darkness!!
The books do have fluff, but do have some good stuff, but like you, I found some to be tedious like those on Cesear and some others, but they have good stuff on strategy and tactics if you can get thru the other stuff, some interesting, some boring,
One way around, which I find more interesting, is to get and read up on various battles & wars in history. I think these actually give more insight to these areas especially with the master strategists and tacticians of history.
High honor to those who give honor Talon43
>Obviously the Japanese cant think much of >his works or why did they go to war with >america during WWII?
Actually, Sun Tzu was right about that as well - always give your enemies a percieved 'way out'. If you corner a dog, it will fight, regardless of the odds.
Japan was being bled of oil and production due to embargo. They felt cornered. It isn't that they didn't follow sun tzu, it is that America and the allies didnt.
Sun Tzu's book is very general and should be adapted to the times. For example, when he says use high ground, it doesn't mean use high ground literally. It just means use the ground to your advantage. If you fight the U.S. right now, you shouldn't use high ground but should remain hidden in low ground, or else it's, hi B-1, hi B-2, hi B-52. Because of guns, tanks, mortars and RPG's, yesterday's high ground is today's low ground. The objective now is not to be able to charge down faster or increase the range of your arrows, but to remain hidden where you can shoot at your opponent and your opponent can't shoot back. So, when he says use high ground, in a modern army, that means use low ground.
"The objective now is not to be able to charge down faster or increase the range of your arrows"
Apart from the fact that long range inter-continental balistic missiles have completely changed military strategy in the last fifty years, and super-sonic jet fighters really are the order of the day. Take the high position, well how about three miles above your position aiming a bomb at you.
Anyway, it seems to me that the thing is with 'wisdom', is that it often consolidates things which you already intuitively felt or thought anyway, but hadn't properly considered. Maybe this is why someone might be unimpressed with Sun Tzu. But for me, it's usefulness is in clarifying the muddy waters of intuitive thought.
Incidentally, I'm amazed by how many battles I don't have to fight in Shogun. I spend a lot more time on the strategic map playing glorified chess, than an RTS battle game (I like it that way though).
Subutai - Thief and Archer
ps - first post, Hi.
[This message has been edited by Subutai (edited 12-04-2001).]
MountainSoul
12-07-2001, 06:12
Our perception of what we see, read experience and do is all limited by one thing...imagination... its up to you to see what u want to see.And a man without imagination is a useless pitiful thing.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.