Has /k/ read the art of war?
>>64398923it consists solely of pretensions truisms like that, makes me wonder how stupid an average person was 2500 years ago if this is what one of the best minds had to offer
>>64398934wisdom is to understand obvious things anon.the mitwit pretends he knows more by reading more.
it's the ancient text version of this guy
>>64398934"Soldier" was a career, "General" was a political office. Never underestimate an officer's ability to not know shit.
>>64398923yeah
I've read the Art of War, that About War book of von Clausewitz, the murphy's law on war and assault rifle's manual.
>>64398923I studied it.
>>64398934They were no smarter than the average guy today. Simple as.
>>64398923>ancient chinese philosophy, so advanced, so mysterious!>it's "ancient chinese warfare and basic state administration for dummies"Only bugs could write something like this and tout it as some great treatise, because bugs don't value human life.
>>64399106>retard can't understand the historical context of a philosopher
>>64399109>art of war>"no retard. it's philosophy"
>>64399121>retard thinks only europeans have philosophers
>>64398923>>64398934O B S E S S E D
>>64398923No. Reading is for faggots and so is art.
>>64398923>subdue the enemy without fightingoh i know, that's why I'm always racist towards other countries and people.I'm trying to demoralize them and reduce their efficiency.You think I'm racist for fun?
>>64399106How is this any different from European philosophers creating treatises for European administrators and lords?
>>64399122see >>64399121
>>64399192see>>64399122
64399163it is not philosophy and it is not an instruction manual for civil servants. it's a collection of platitudes from multiple authors that a bunch of butthurt losers like you try to pass off as proof of east asian intellectualism and masculinity. the same with your falsified documents porporting the invention of gunpowder, paper, rockets, and the compasseuropeans and their descents created the language and device you are attempting to use to communicate your superiority. you feckless worm
>>64399109>>64399122I don't remember Aristotle murdering a couple of Phillip II's favorite nephews in order to get hired as Alexander the Great's tutor.
>>64398923Siege is more useful
>>64399163For one, collective Western civilization isn't jerking itself off over 'De re militari' or trying to represent Aeneas Tacticus as being the greatest military thinker of all time.
>>64398934To this day people forget basic shit like "it is important to feed your army" and "don't attempt to ford a river while the enemy is literally waiting for you on the other bank".
>>64398934The average person was illiterate in 500 BC. Literacy didn't become the norm for the human race as a whole until after 1945. Make of that what you will.
>>64398923It's a very short book. I finished it in one afternoon at my campus library, between classes. 5/10 it was ok.
>>64399148Its okay buddy, I can't read either.
>>64398934The point of the thing is to be Conflict for Dummies 101, written to give random princelings and nobles a summary understanding of what warfare is like, so they don't run around fucking everything up for everyone else.It does that very well.
>>64398923>some chinese dude writes some insightful stuff thousands of years ago>insights get repeated until everyone's heard it quoted a million times>"dumb chink never said anything worth reading"Consider that the obvious stuff that he wrote is only obvious because he wrote it.
>>64398923Yes
>>64399035I really like how older US manuals had drawings in them showing how enemy formations looked like and so on.Very pleasing on the eyes.
How come pretentious faggots don't quote The Prince as much as Art of War?
>>64399640Because the prince is actually the level of drivel /k/ claims the art of war is.
>>64399358They kinda do over The Prince>>64399242What's with the racism? Mods?!
>>64399358>For one, collective Western civilization isn't jerking itself off over 'De re militari' or trying to represent Aeneas Tacticus as being the greatest military thinker of all time.Neither do the Chinese? The first thing a Chang will tell you about Sun Tzu is that we don't know the particular details of his life besides being an ancient General in warring states China. Plus the art of war isn't considered some genius text over there but a foundational treatise for basic military strategy. It is special in its basicness, which is the entire point of a primer on military strategyIf anything the "collective west" jerks of AoW more thanks to all the fucking boomer businessmen thinking its some super sekrit ancient knowledge. Something that nobody in Asia did as merchants were despised in Ancient China/East Asia and the book did not apply to business.
>>64399640The Prince has not aged well. The most meaningful lesson you could take from it would be something along the lines of>be a complete piece of shit and stab everyone in the backwhich, out of context, makes the entire book come across as utterly treacherous to most people. In the context of the Italian Wars it makes much more sense but it's still not palatable to most US/European readers.
>>64398923It's basically "War For Dummies", written by a man sick of watching petty princes get all their men killed through entirely avoidable logistical failures and falling for the simplest of traps. It's not particularly insightful for someone who actually knows what he's doing, but it's still considered foundational enough that it might as well be read anyway.
>>64399364Counterpoint: Russians aren't people.
>>64398999>Trips>Based reference>No repliesWhat a shithole this place has become
>>64398934To learn his teachings, you must first be taught to learn.
>>64399739How about you reply then, instead of complaining like a bitch
>>64399714>be a complete piece of shit and stab everyone in the backYou either did not read and are talking pit of second hand information on it or you are a hopeless dimwit if that was what you took out of itIf anything it tells you the opposite of that
>>64399720In the end he didn't even matter. Neither Qi, his birthplace, nor Wu, where he served, won. Legalism won and Qin conquered all other cities. You can have some wacky generals from the school of military or the best anti-siege masters from school of Mohism but at the end of the day, bureaucracy wins wars, not soldiers or castles.
>>64399779Every kingdom in the warring states had officers who read the Art of War actually. Sun Tzu lived during the Spring and Autumn Period (700s-500bc) before the Zhou Dynasty collapsed into warring states. He lived in a time when warfare was becoming way too common among the Chinese Dukedoms and increasingly being fought on a prolonged scale by mass armies fighting in practical terms instead of the chivalrous warrior class "Shi" which used to monopolize military service and skills in ancient China. By the time the warring states commenced by 400s BC everything Sun Tzu taught was common knowledge to officers of the era.
>>64399840And how comes there's no records of the supposed wars?
>>64398923Unironically yesIts garbagewhole book is literally "attack your enemy ahead if you are stronger, dont attack stronger enemy ahead if you are weaker, outsmart him"I have no idea why its praised so hard, probably because chinks were horrible leaders.
>>64399898>retard thinks a book written 5k years ago will have groundbreaking shit 5k years later
>>64399898It's profound because>attack your enemy ahead if you are stronger, dont attack stronger enemy ahead if you are weaker, outsmart himis commonly and constantly forgotten even by modern commanders. You can see it as overly simplistic and platitudes all you want, but the reality is that every single modern conflict has commanders and politicians who fail to understand and apply even those basic tenets.
>>64399014Good picture
>>64398934>hindsight man here to tell us all about how people in the past should have just did what we know nowthe reason everyone and their mom understands these concepts so clearly was because someone a long ass time ago decided to write it down and everyone passed it around thats why writing is so effective
>>64399332Holy shit how based
>>64399739I didnt understand the reference :/
>>64399109Dude, it's basic.
>>64399332I was said to have 30 inch cock. Believe me?
>>64398923I like the part where he teaches the importance of discipline in an army to the Emperor. He takes a group of the emperors whores, teaches them a drill to hold a spear and move in formation. The whores end up laughing at him, he then beheads one of them and the rest do the formation perfectly.
>>64399902Literal mongoloidWhen i read book titled "art of WAR" i expect advices and guids about how to:>properly flank your enemy>properly build fortifications>espionage>supply maintance>cost efficiency>etcand i get literally if you are 4, and enemy is 5 5>4, dont attack
>>64400216>and i get literally if you are 4, and enemy is 5 5>4, dont attacksome people need to hear that
>>64400220>some people need to hear thatI completely agree with this statment, but how about you dont title your book "Art of WAR" and go for something like "how to not do retarded shit"
>>64400230>and go for something like "how to not do retarded shit"then the retard won't read it. you have to hype it up so they think it's something cool.also, the other think you wanted are not easy to put down on paper because they change all the time. there probably were books about that, but they are lost to time because they are irrelevant now.
>>64400230The original title in chinese is just "Military Methods, by Sun Tzu"."Art of War " was the marketing name given to it by western translators going hard on orientalism and muh mysterius far east
>>64399614They should make this a coloring book
>>64400255This. Its a basic manual. >dont cross rivers to attack directly >logistics are important >dont fight avoidable warsPeople talk about it because modern armies still fuck these basic things up.
karl von clausewitz on war is better
>>64398923I have. It was written as a primer on war for sheltered and possibly inbred princes living in gilded cage palaces without even the idea of war even being a thing, and it does a pretty good job in that regard. It's not some mysterious ancient grimmoire of Eastern knowledge, but it's better to market it as that so that our own modern version of those sheltered inbred princes take the time to read it.>>64400191Based
>>64398923https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SN5nLHysKhs
>>64398923Yes and it is a classic. It is complete in its breadth, and has just enough depths to be tangible than life philosophy, making it generalizable in all problem solving, competition and organization. Reading the annotated and commented version is a complete waste of money, time and mind that only benefits bookstores and publishers.Take notes. Many paragraphs are suppose to be organized as tables. The writing style focus on breadth: the book list out all the scenarios, then in the following paragraph, listing the identifiable traits of each scenario, then the best action for each scenario. These paragraphs needs to be read again in 90 degree so that you can connect the causal dots inside each scenario vertically, then you can ask the important comparative question of why is this not that horizontally again?These tables, once compiled by you, are the most important takeaway from this book and will be frequently looked up before natural memorization and recitation. You will seek for completeness in your future exploration, analysis and composition, than dive into the deep end, came out too late with too little importance dug out.
>dude, encircling your enemy is good>don't attack your enemy headon>use rivers as defense>an army marches on its stomachno shit sherlock
>>64400294>>64400370you say that is dumb, yet there's very recent examples of factions at war failing to follow these simple rules...
