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.

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

I'd not compare them against each other. When both are compared to the rest of all military writers, what they share overcome ther (limited) disagreement.

I am thinking more specifically of the importance of policy over military matters, of the importance of morale force, and of the training of the General's character over dogmatism.

But seeing the date of the topic, I guess I am a bit late

How did it go Blind King?

Louis,

[Beirut]

Military studies? Sounds excellent. I should have stayed in school.

For the limited amount I know, Clausewitz had his expression of "Let us not talk of Generals who conquer without blood." (Something like that) Whereas Sun-Tzu was much more for the indirect approach and looked to winning battles, preferably, without any fighting at all. Merely by superior craftsmanship in setting up the positions of his army and in their movements.

What kind of school teaches military studies? Military college?

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

I'm handing it in tomorrow, its alright but i'm more proud of my medieval question on how the knight came to be redundant by 1550 and my politics on Northern Ireland question about the IRA split in 1969.

Thanks for the help though lads

[Fragony]

Clausewitz is more interested in the polititcs behind the war, and sun tzu in well the art of war. Both horribly boring imo.

[lancelot]

Military studies? Sounds excellent. I should have stayed in school.

For the limited amount I know, Clausewitz had his expression of "Let us not talk of Generals who conquer without blood." (Something like that) Whereas Sun-Tzu was much more for the indirect approach and looked to winning battles, preferably, without any fighting at all. Merely by superior craftsmanship in setting up the positions of his army and in their movements.

What kind of school teaches military studies? Military college?

For me anyway..War studies at Kings college London.

[Crimson Castle]

Lucky you who can study military history at Uni level.

There are zero military history courses here in Australian Unis - well, the last I checked. Most of the history courses do the "more modern stuff" - like gender studies, worker's rights- marxist history, and of course "aboriginal history". Military history here is considered "so 1950s" that you get a sneer each time you mention it.

I did one course at La Trobe history - "French History 1930s-40s". The professor teaching the course - Bill Murray- refused to discuss WW2 and mocked any student who wanted to study military aspects of the war. His typical response was - "You like violence?"

Anyhow in answer to your question. Suntze - who was dealing more with civil warfare during his period - argued for indirect approaches to winning the battles and wars. The best result was when you didn't even have to shed a single blood - the enemy's or your's. And the best way was often to out maneuver your enemy's forces and forcing him to surrender.

Its an Asian way of thinking perhaps - look at games like GO where the object is to encircle your opponent.

SunTze's philosophy was also inspired from Taoist principles - ie the yin and yang- maintaining balance and harmony in the midst of chaos. So IIRC ST says - where his forces are strong- you will be weak, where his forces are weak - you will be strong. That basically draws a direct parallel with the Tao's idea of the Yin/yang.

Clauswitz on the other hand, who was fighting foreigners, took a more direct approach... ie to seek and defeat the enemy army. Maybe it draws more from the Christian zero-sum way of thinking, ie find the root of the evil and destroy it.

Ahh... its 2am... probably made a few mistakes. Ciao!

But lucky you.

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

Thanks for all the replys lads, i go to salford uni and study contemporay, military and international history. The uni ain't that great but its either that or aberwyswyth(sp) in wales, those are the only two which do it in Britain