>this book is so basic! Any idiot should know the stuff inside!>even now, loads of military leaders still fail to grasp basic concepts Why?
>>18226132Pride. Neglecting ancient wisdom in favor of their skittles university education
short attention spans
>attack when the enemy is weak, retreat when the enemy is strongancient Chinese “””””””wisdom””””””” everyone
you westerners still do not understand, it's not about the manual itself it's about military as a revolution, a historical document that captured the exact time and pace of the development of the soldier as a professionnobles vs generalsbody guard vs peasantskingdom vs stateget out of here with your racism,
>>18226170but it actually works
>>18226170The Art of War was written in China at a time when all of Northern Europe were illiterates. There wasn't a single book in Britain, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Netherlands.
>>18226132Its a good book anon. Read it every 5 years.
>>182261701. Pre-art of war bronze age warfare was often ritualistic where the two sides would intentionally throw all their strength against each other directly because the point wasn't just to win but to win by proving you were stronger. A "win by any means necessary" view of war and trying to defeat a stronger enemy through trickery instead of actual strength was a subversive idea.2. Even after the idea of "win by any means necessary" spread, still you'd see commanders consistently fall for the mental trap of "if I attack an enemy where they are strong I can directly and immediately destroy all their strength."3. There have also been post-art of war military thinkers who make good arguments against the idea of attacking where the enemy is weak based on the above idea of trying to destroy the enemy's strength as quickly as possible.
>>18226170Looking at the Ukraine war right now, I have lost count of the number of times this rule has been ignored.
