http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/gthursby/taoism/suntext.htm
For anyone interested 🙂
http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/gthursby/taoism/suntext.htm
For anyone interested 🙂
Originally posted by The Omega
http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/gthursby/taoism/suntext.htmFor anyone interested 🙂
thats a way nicer version 😄
i cannot agree with the man on everything. be him even a military genius.
attacking might not be only a superabundance of strenth. it might be a desperate attack. or a strategic attack meant only to divert attention..etc.
as for defensive. don't agree with that either. you could just be waiting for things to unfold
I do not like Sun-Tzu. Sorry, but the man is staggeringly overrated. Just because the US military have a love affair with the Art of War and Western culture in general finds a mystique in ancient Asian culture, he gets a write-up way beyond the actual quality of his work.
Basically nearly all his statements boil down to the equivalent of obvious statements like "The guy who runs fastest wins the race".
Or the others, like "Know yourself, know your enemy, and you will never be defeated in a thousand battles" are simply a. trite and b. wrong.
😂 well the reason why he is famous because he was the first to write these ideals down on paper 😄 and the simplicity masks the complex ideas that may seem simple here but are very hard to consider in grand total on the battlefield.
by all means if you have a better tactician in mind please do not hesitate
Originally posted by RaventheOnly
😂 well the reason why he is famous because he was the first to write these ideals down on paper 😄 and the simplicity masks the complex ideas that may seem simple here but are very hard to consider in grand total on the battlefield.by all means if you have a better tactician in mind please do not hesitate
No, that's the reason he is known at all. The reason he is SO famous is because people have blown him out of all proportion. If you were doing a list of historical strategists, put him down as a notable early one. But he has been made into this quasi-God, which is just wrong.
"and the simplicity masks the complex ideas that may seem simple here but are very hard to consider in grand total on the battlefield."
No it doesn't; you're just saying that to make it sound better, The simplicity merely shows how frighteningly unimpressive the whole lot is.
You want me to name better tacticians? Or even strategists, seeing as Sun-Tzu talks almost nothing about tactics (certainly not what we call tactics throughout history and the modern day, anyway). What, throughout the whole of history? You'd lose count...
Originally posted by UshgarakNo it doesn't; you're just saying that to make it sound better, The simplicity merely shows how frighteningly unimpressive the whole lot is.
Its written like a Chinese Proverb. Proverbs are simple ideas that make a person think and consider many things.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
You want me to name better tacticians? Or even strategists, seeing as Sun-Tzu talks almost nothing about tactics (certainly not what we call tactics throughout history and the modern day, anyway). What, throughout the whole of history? You'd lose count...
Quote better tacticians here and we will consider thier quotes 😄 feel free this is a War College 😄 i just liked Sun Tzu's because it is easy to post a simple idea and allow others to elaborate on it but if you have others go ahead. we are talking about an advisor who just summed up the ideals of war in a simple book in like Chinese middle ages of course there are far more demensions to the battlefield now....firearms.... tanks air power ... nuclear... water assets... but one thing Tzu emphasizes that isn't noramlly is the use of spies 😄 The beuaty of his work is that it applies to something beyond himself and his generation, beyond the ideals of his age.
It doesn't matter how they are put; they have been given an importance they don't have.
I will repeat, btw, as you seemed to ignore me- Sun-Tzu was mainly a strategist, not a tactician.
"The beuaty of his work is that it applies to something beyond himself and his generation, beyond the ideals of his age."
Only because it is so uselessly basic. Like I say, 'the fastest guy wins the race' applies as much today as in, say, Greek times- that doesn't make it clever or profound.
He was a unconventional tactician, the use of spies and deception is profound throughout his work. His feild army tactics are very basic yet lasting, one must never overlook the basic becasue simple ideas overlooked have doomed armies. if you want to talk brilliant original strategies then Erwin Rommel can be an example or Dolittle with the airpower doctrine.... yet the truth is that they all learned from the same manual 😄 the Art of War. They sight quotes from this work.
A strategist is someone actually on the kings side issueing orders directly as an advisor while a tactician is a philosopher who developes ideals on subjects. Sun Tzu was both... he was an advisor to his king and a think tank.
Originally posted by Dexx
i cannot agree with the man on everything. be him even a military genius.
attacking might not be only a superabundance of strenth. it might be a desperate attack. or a strategic attack meant only to divert attention..etc.as for defensive. don't agree with that either. you could just be waiting for things to unfold
Thats why there are more then just one line and one ideal at play... all aspects must be acounted for.
Originally posted by RaventheOnly
He was a unconventional tactician, the use of spies and deception is profound throughout his work. His feild army tactics are very basic yet lasting, one must never overlook the basic becasue simple ideas overlooked have doomed armies. if you want to talk brilliant original strategies then Erwin Rommel can be an example or Dolittle with the airpower doctrine.... yet the truth is that they all learned from the same manual 😄 the Art of War. They sight quotes from this work.A strategist is someone actually on the kings side issueing orders directly as an advisor while a tactician is a philosopher who developes ideals on subjects. Sun Tzu was both... he was an advisor to his king and a think tank.
Err, you clearly know little of military thinking...
Strategy is the skill of fighting wars and Campaigns- it is about supply, logistics, troop movements, and objectives.
Tactics is the skill of winning battles- formations, fighting drill, field communications, manoeuvres.
Napoleon was a great strategist. Wellington was a great tactician. They were only average in the other field. Very few have ever been both.
What Sun-Tzu has to say on the second is very little indeed.
He was also not in the least unconventional- on the contrary, he was repeating conventional ideas.
But as you clearly know nothing of the basics of military thinking, it is rather difficult to take anything you say here seriously.
How many battles did Sun-Tzu win? Or Wars?
😂 i know everything from alexander the Great to Zukov 😂 of course there are far more ideals involved. Why are you so hostile 😬 trying to insult me? 😐
Tactics are advanced strategy 😬 thinking outside of the box and advancing the envelope of present ideals to create a more efficient fighting force.
Sun Tzu fought no battles he was not a general, he was a thinker observing. some of the greatest military thinkers never commanded troops or fought battles, only the famous generals are remembered ... except Sun Tzu.
Tactics are advanced strategy?
Sorry, that is simply incorrect. The definition I have given is the correct one. I am not being deliberately hostile, but if you do not even known the difference between tactics and strategy- page one of military thinking- then my regard for your knowledge of things military is zero.
And that, I believe, has a lot to say about why you should be wary of liking Sun-Tzu... he talked a lot, but he never DID anything.
I am not saying he was useless or should be ingored. I am saying he is vastly overrated.