A question on Clausewitz's on war

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

My military course is split up into three parts with me doing great on two-politics on Northern Ireland and medieval and renaissance armies but i'm having problems with my theories of war lessons. For the next lesson i have to compare the ideas of on war by Clausewitz with that of the art of war by sun zi.

Do they represent opposing paradigms of war or do they share a fundemental stategic logic?

Any help would be helpful

regards BKB

[TinCow]

My military course is split up into three parts with me doing great on two-politics on Northern Ireland and medieval and renaissance armies but i'm having problems with my theories of war lessons. For the next lesson i have to compare the ideas of on war by Clausewitz with that of the art of war by sun zi.

Do they represent opposing paradigms of war or do they share a fundemental stategic logic?

Any help would be helpful

regards BKB

I have read most of On War and skimmed the Art of War. My general impression is that Sun Tzu's work truly is representative of war as an art form. It's lessons are generally free-flowing and allow for incredible flexibility and non-conventional strategy. Clausewitz is much more rule oriented. On War is a text that details rules and analysis of nearly every conceivable situation a post-Napoleonic era army could find itself in. Clausewitz did not strike me as an impulsive or inspired tactician. It seems that Clausewitz's idea of how to win wars was through supreme tactical and strategic maneauverings and proper preparation of terrain and forces. Sun Tzu, while certainly taking these factors into consideration, tends to rely more on sudden exploitation of weaknesses and opportunities than by sheer grinding victory of arms.

I'm not sure if this makes any sense, but it's my best effort. Take this with a grain of salt because I have only skimmed the Art of War, I have not read it in detail.

[lancelot]

Hey BKB, what course you on? Im on a military studies course in london next year..

[R'as al Ghul]

My comment as a layman (having read great parts of it out of curiosity) is that while Sun Tzu takes a rather philosophical approach, Klausewitz goes more into detail and develops Tzu's ideas further to apply them to contemporary warfare. Tactics and weapons had changed and he comments in great detail on this. Of course Klausewitz read Tzu, so there are a lot of paralells. I just found a site you may be interested in: Clausewitz Homepage

Then again, you're a student of that subject, so it may be that you know all of that.

R'as

[nokhor]

my intepretaion in the most simplistic of forms would be that clausewitz sought the decisive battle and sun tzu sought the psychological upper hand.

clausewitz was all about mustering the most amount of force and concentrating it against your opponents strong point, because if you defeat him there, all the other places will succumb. examples alexander, napoleon

sun tzu was more about attacking the enemy at his weak points, where he was vulnerable, so that there wouldn't be a need for a decisve battle at all. examples mao, modern special forces.

[ah_dut]

I dunno haven't read Clausewitz...soz about that but Sun Tzu is all about winning before the battle is fought as opposed to during it.