Sun Tzu - The Art of War

[srirangan]

http://www.chinapage.com/sunzi-e.html

One of the all time military stratigic classics, do you think it is still a relevant text in the modern day scenario?

[corsair7772]

Sun Tzu only tells you what to do not how to do it. If warfare was judged according to this even a fool like me would make a great general. :)

[zulqarnain]

well well, hi srirangan, i think your topic raises another issue if i carefully read between the lines you have written. i think i will not be wrong if i rephrase your statement by excluding Sun Tzu. Then the question emerges, are the old historians and sagas of military history still influential in shaping the domain of tactics and strategy in the present and rapidly changing dimension of warfare? What do you all think, the lessons of the primitive military history are still applicable in the present day environment?
In my opinion, the lessons applicable to principles of war are still applicable however the manifestation of these through the tools available may not be applicable now. Because now we are done away with old Phalanx formations and use of old Horse Cavalry etc.

[gf0012-aust]

Please refrain from posting an entire response in red. Can you change it to something less dramatic and more traditional (eg blue or black)

Red is traditionally for emphasis, or for showing anger.

Thx

[srirangan]

zulqarnain,

Warfare above all is human behavior. Human behavior will not change no matter how much technology advances. So old strategies which rely and decipher human behavior will be still valid in some form or other.

[gf0012-aust]

The jewel that lies hidden in Sun Tzu is that the principles of war he espouses are still valid. The articles used "in" war are to some extent irrelevant. The articles "of" war are still relevant. There is a subtle difference.

[imported_Anonymous]

chinese tends to study the Sun Zi Bing Fa(Art of War) as a stragtegic guide rather than a tactical one, because most of the contents and attack formation it talk about is about 2000 years out of date. But it does gives a few tips on how to wage wars and stragetigic decision making.

my personal favourite quote: 不战而屈人之兵，善之善者也!
means a person who can suppress his opponent without waging war is the wisest amoung the wise.

[Pathfinder-X]

u can post message by using a guest account?? :?

[srirangan]

Was that you?

[Pathfinder-X]

ya that was me, i forgot to log in that time. but i still can post my reply.

[Deltared075]

The Art of War by Sun Tze only common sense to organize the country and army, Sun Tze famous just because he write it down and practice it and win some war. Most people know these common sense by it owns without reading the art of war.

[Shazzz]

the answer is no

[P1021]

ya that was me, i forgot to log in that time. but i still can post my reply.
have you read it?

[armage]

:roll always wanted to read it but never found the time............

[Stanislaw]

The art of war is an interesting book, I would not to go as far as to say it is 'brilliant' but that it does hold some merit. It favours a non violent victory, and I think is more focused on espionage rather than outright conflict, as was very popular in Europe at the time. If you get the Samual B. Griffith translation, there is a case presented about the legitimicy of Sun Tzu. There is some belief that he was not infact a real person, but perhaps a name used for a collected series of articles.

I believe that the book still does have merit in todays society, as it is still required reading in China, and is even utilized by many savy buisness men. The only downside is that it is not a how to guide, but merely a text presenting snipits of strategy.

[armage]

Hey guys I bought the book and is it suppose to be all quotes from Sun Tzu and other generals, plus a little extra chapters at the back? :help

[gf0012-aust]

Hey guys I bought the book and is it suppose to be all quotes from Sun Tzu and other generals, plus a little extra chapters at the back? :help

There are probably close to 20 publications of Sun Tzus Art of War that I've seen recently.

It pays to look at all of them before you buy one of them. The issue is interpretation etc... of the philosophies. Each author has a slightly different perspective.

[Stanislaw]

Indeed, it all depends on the personal interpretation of the translator, and some chinese characters are not directly translatable, so it really depends on the translators skill and discretion. If you have ever read anything directly translated from chinese you will realise that it makes little gramatical sense.

[redsoulja]

well one of my favorite Sun's quotes is soemthing like
"victory si guaranteed if you know yourself and the enemy"
this is still applicable in modern warfare

[armage]

:D Ah, I don't even have time to go on this forum with all the homework and pratices at school; I might not even read it until our next break.

[Stanislaw]

For those of you who don't wish to purchase the book there is a free copy at the lit network:
http://www.online-literature.com/suntzu/[/url]

[driftder]

For those of you who don't wish to purchase the book there is a free copy at the lit network:
http://www.online-literature.com/suntzu/[/url]

Overall, the contents are similar to http://www.chinapage.com/sunzi-e.html. The chinapage website is better as it has the orginal copy in Chinese for analysis. BTW, the English translation by Lionel Giles needs tightening. For e.g. the five constant factors or principles. The first concept Moral Law. In Chinese, its call Tao, it could be loosely translated as Mandate or Political Will.

A good comparison would be Clausewitz, the German miliatry philosopher.

[Stanislaw]

And then there is the Prince by Macheveli wich can be used as the political aid to the art of war. Clauswitz wasn't the best though, alot of his stuff involves man to man, not much artillery.

[driftder]

And then there is the Prince by Macheveli wich can be used as the political aid to the art of war. Clauswitz wasn't the best though, alot of his stuff involves man to man, not much artillery.

Artillery? Have you really read Clausewitz's work? Its more on battlefield decisions and the strategic aspects of war. The circumstances that lead to it, what to do when war is initiated, the aftermath etc. What does it have to do with artillery?

[Col.Gen.]

In my opinion Art of War seems to touch more on the psychological aspect of war. Some of its writing seems to be sheer common sense but most of it was not. So in that context the book will always be relevant unless human psychology changes drastically.

[driftder]

In my opinion Art of War seems to touch more on the psychological aspect of war. Some of its writing seems to be sheer common sense but most of it was not. So in that context the book will always be relevant unless human psychology changes drastically.

If you have tried reading it in its orginal context, you won't make such remarks. So just goes to show that you have not appreciated its full flavor. Just for starters, try to understand the first chapter. Quite an eye opener.

[VICTORA1]

Hi,

Anyone of you heard of or read anything by 'John Boyd'!

[driftder]

Hi,

Anyone of you heard of or read anything by 'John Boyd'!

Not at all - mind enlightening us with a a few insights? As in who the heck is John Boyd? And who is the other chappie who thought out armoured doctrine for the Brutish? Etc etc....

[VICTORA1]

Hi,

I can't do justice to the man just by writing a few line but if you go to the search engine---type John Boyd or -----USAF COL JOHN BOYD---Wallah---a multitude of articles would pop out. So Enjoy.

Here is a man who's IQ was 90, became a fighter pilot in the korean war, not a single combat victory to his name, but was a hell of a pilot. So he got sent to Nellis AFB where the AF proverb 40 second Boyd came into being. He would challenge any fighter pilot that within 40 second, he would be from a position of disadvantage to a firing position against any adversary or the winner gets $40. Not a single pilot at Nellis could win the challenge for as long Boyd was there and he was there for years. He is the originator of the OODA loop. The energy-maneuverability factor is his brain child. As a matter of fact, he is the father of the modern day aircraft dog fight strategy.

He is the person to take the design of the F X fighter to F 15 and was the originator of the F 16 fighter against all time adversity from the top brass of USAF. Even the ability, the range of the F 16 were not fully disclosed to the AF top brass due to political/strategic reasons till the funding to produce the fighter was procured. He was also involved in the design parameters of the F18.

Even the strategy for the assault in the first gulf war was his doing.

you guys got to read up on him.

[Col.Gen.]

If you have tried reading it in its orginal context, you won't make such remarks. So just goes to show that you have not appreciated its full flavor. Just for starters, try to understand the first chapter. Quite an eye opener.
Exactly what do you mean by your comment. I read the best copy I could get my hands on so from the translation that I read I deduced my answer. I never stated which translation that I read but the fact remains that the texts are still applicable, even today.

[General_Conway]

I read Samuel Griffith's translation (with a forward by BH Liddell Hart). It seemed fairly accurate compared to the discussions and comments I have heard. Sun Tzu has to be one of the greatest strategists in human history for his works to still be used today...

[VICTORA1]

Hi,

Sun tzu----if you win a conflict, you will see that you applied the art of war strategy to it, or the opponent was dumb enough to have screwed it through and through and by default you became the winner.
Sun tzu's is a blanketed statements or directives, whatever one may want to call them. They are designed to fit all circumstance in which one force will be victorious. In other words, Sun tzu does not go out on a limb to say if you do this and this, your result will be victory.

[General_Conway]

Hi,

Sun tzu----if you win a conflict, you will see that you applied the art of war strategy to it, or the opponent was dumb enough to have screwed it through and through and by default you became the winner.
Sun tzu's is a blanketed statements or directives, whatever one may want to call them. They are designed to fit all circumstance in which one force will be victorious. In other words, Sun tzu does not go out on a limb to say if you do this and this, your result will be victory.

I would have to agree that his "principles" are blanketed...

[Berserk Fury]

Sun Tzu's principals are very basic though relating them to modern warfare is a bit tricky as the language wasn't as developed back then and he didn't plan us to be reading his writings either way. It really is a good read if you're bored or if you're waiting in the car. xP

[General_Conway]

Sun Tzu's principals are very basic though relating them to modern warfare is a bit tricky as the language wasn't as developed back then and he didn't plan us to be reading his writings either way. It really is a good read if you're bored or if you're waiting in the car. xP

I do not think any writter fully considers the possibility that people 3000 years later would be reading their works.

[Berserk Fury]

lol
It's amazing that the writings still lived through the ages...
not many books have other than the Bible.

[General_Conway]

lol
It's amazing that the writings still lived through the ages...
not many books have other than the Bible.

Funny you mention the Bible and Sun Tzu. BH Liddel Hart mentioned that both books survived the ages. It is interesting to think that both books changed many things for centuries. The Bible, for lack of a better word, influenced Christianity, and The Art of War revolutionized the way soldiers thought about the battle field.

[Berserk Fury]

True indeed though more people have read the bible than Sun Tzu.
^^

[driftder]

Exactly what do you mean by your comment. I read the best copy I could get my hands on so from the translation that I read I deduced my answer. I never stated which translation that I read but the fact remains that the texts are still applicable, even today.

Applicable in every respect, not just psychological alone. As for my comment, its just to point out that you are missing a big part of the gist when you read a translation. That's where most non-Chinese who read Sun-tzu get side tracked. That's why I suggest a more in-depth reading along with a understanding of the Chinese culture and psyche especially on the first chapter - which the main gist is don't go to war if you can help it but if you must, then make plans not to lose. Note the phrase is "not to lose".

Anyway what I am saying is not meant to be combative, just a observation that most non-Chinese who read Sun-tzu get side tracked. Case is point - ever tried Omar Khayyam in its pure unadulterated form? Thats what I am trying to get at.

[driftder]

Hi,

Sun tzu----if you win a conflict, you will see that you applied the art of war strategy to it, or the opponent was dumb enough to have screwed it through and through and by default you became the winner.
Sun tzu's is a blanketed statements or directives, whatever one may want to call them. They are designed to fit all circumstance in which one force will be victorious. In other words, Sun tzu does not go out on a limb to say if you do this and this, your result will be victory.

Well he did go on a limb sort of by stating that if you trust your conduct of warfare to any mention of luck or if you did not plan properly ie fighting in snow country without any warm clothing or being too rigid etc, you deserve to have your butt kick and your head handed to you on a platter :D.

[driftder]

Sun Tzu's principals are very basic though relating them to modern warfare is a bit tricky as the language wasn't as developed back then and he didn't plan us to be reading his writings either way. It really is a good read if you're bored or if you're waiting in the car. xP

bored or waiting in a car? amazing... Btw which part of it gives the clue that the language was not as developed? And which ways should we be reading his writings? I'm all ears.

[Berserk Fury]

Applicable in every respect, not just psychological alone. As for my comment, its just to point out that you are missing a big part of the gist when you read a translation. That's where most non-Chinese who read Sun-tzu get side tracked. That's why I suggest a more in-depth reading along with a understanding of the Chinese culture and psyche especially on the first chapter - which the main gist is don't go to war if you can help it but if you must, then make plans not to lose. Note the phrase is "not to lose".

Anyway what I am saying is not meant to be combative, just a observation that most non-Chinese who read Sun-tzu get side tracked. Case is point - ever tried Omar Khayyam in its pure unadulterated form? Thats what I am trying to get at.


I am Chinese so if anybody can understand Sun Tzu better... It'd probably be me unless there's another Chinese person or even asian person here.

Btw which part of it gives the clue that the language was not as developed?
That's not a valid question. I meant that Chinese is more developed than English any day and that the Chinese language wasn't as developed as the Chinese language is now.

And which ways should we be reading his writings?

Preferrably get a translation by someone who's actually chinese and has experience in translating ancient text. You should read it carefully; that all I can say. :p:

[Darko Ribnikar]

Sun Tzu is fine ss long as you don’t forget Carl von Clausewitz.

[Berserk Fury]

Clausewitz is pretty good though I still like Sun Tzu a little better though it might just be personal preference or a cultural thing.

[driftder]

I am Chinese so if anybody can understand Sun Tzu better... It'd probably be me unless there's another Chinese person or even asian person here.

Being Chinese qualifies you to understand Sun-tze? Guess you need to inform Roger Ames, John Minford and the other non-Chinese who translated and wrote their texts and theses on Sun-tze. And FYI, no you are definitely not the only Chinese here :rolleyes:.

That's not a valid question. I meant that Chinese is more developed than English any day and that the Chinese language wasn't as developed as the Chinese language is now.

And you are not giving a coherent, sensible and valid reply to my question, so stick to the facts. And what the heck do you mean by "Chinese is more developed than English any day"? Are you trying to start a flame war here?

Preferrably get a translation by someone who's actually chinese and has experience in translating ancient text. You should read it carefully; that all I can say. :p:

And who might that recommended "someone who's actually chinese and has experience in translating ancient text" be - you? To paraphrase Charlie Brown - good grief :coffee

[Berserk Fury]

And you are not giving a coherent, sensible and valid reply to my question, so stick to the facts. And what the heck do you mean by "Chinese is more developed than English any day"? Are you trying to start a flame war here?


No I'm not trying to start a flame war.
Chinese is pictographic writing which means it can convey more ideas than English which is based on sounds etc. That's why translations from Chinese to English and vice versa are hard. Plus, Chinese has more idioms etc.
English is relatively simple to writing chinese as you can sound out your syllables while in Chinese the writing is in the form of miniature pictures.

And who might that recommended "someone who's actually chinese and has experience in translating ancient text" be - you? To paraphrase Charlie Brown - good grief

lol, I never said it'd be me. Actually, I know a few professors in Beijing who specialize in ancient text and have written good translations of the text.:kar :p:

[KGB]

Is there any evidence that Clausewitz was influenced by sun tzu? Is it moe than coincidence that both sun tzu and the soviets emphasized the role of politics in war? If I remember right sun tzu said that war is a continuation of politics and the soviets said that war must have a political goal in mind. Please forgive the very rough paraphrasing.

[Berserk Fury]

In my opinion, Clausewitz was influenced by Sun Tzu's writings. Clausewitz just expanded and modernized Sun Tzu's writings to make them more applicable. Of course, he did add his own opinions into his writings.

[Maverickjag]

Sun Tzu just gives us a basis, we have to expand upon it and create our own tactics, but he still tells us what principles to base our strategies around. I'd give it a yes, there's a reason why it's still read in Army ROTC...

[driftder]

Sun Tzu just gives us a basis, we have to expand upon it and create our own tactics, but he still tells us what principles to base our strategies around. I'd give it a yes, there's a reason why it's still read in Army ROTC...

thought its the jarheads who made it a requirement as bed time reading :p:. rotc huh? which class of and where? met a few from carolina once.

[Maverickjag]

thought its the jarheads who made it a requirement as bed time reading :p:. rotc huh? which class of and where? met a few from carolina once.
I'm not quite there yet, my dad went. I'm goin in a year or two. Hopefully be stationed in Tennessee, maybe go to Martin... Not sure yet just planning on goin.

[driftder]

I'm not quite there yet, my dad went. I'm goin in a year or two. Hopefully be stationed in Tennessee, maybe go to Martin... Not sure yet just planning on goin.

luck then. hear that you can choose your station and specialty after rotc. try not to get a cushy remf assignment :p:

heck why not join the jarheads? can jump from rifles to being a airedale :D (any jarheads around can ignore this statement).

[dioditto]

Well he did go on a limb sort of by stating that if you trust your conduct of warfare to any mention of luck or if you did not plan properly ie fighting in snow country without any warm clothing or being too rigid etc, you deserve to have your butt kick and your head handed to you on a platter :D.

As observed in Napoleon and Hitler's invasion of Russia :)

[driftder]

As observed by Napoleon and Hitler's invasion of Russia :)

ahem...I believe those 2 gents did not take the time to read Sun-tzu's classic. They are too full of themselves then hehe. I think Clausewitz came out arnd Napoleon's time right?

[crazypole]

Clauswitz was around during the Napoleonic era, but his works were not published until later, i think maybe around the 1840's (the date is a guess).

[spk]

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/awc-thry.htm#gen

[wassss]

zulqarnain,

Warfare above all is human behavior. Human behavior will not change no matter how much technology advances. So old strategies which rely and decipher human behavior will be still valid in some form or other.
i agree with you,although the technology can develop very quickly ,the basic strategies won't change too much,in chinese we call that万变不离其宗

[Strategos]

In my opinion, Clausewitz was influenced by Sun Tzu's writings. Clausewitz just expanded and modernized Sun Tzu's writings to make them more applicable. Of course, he did add his own opinions into his writings.
I hate to inform you,but they stessed oposite sides of warfare,Clausewitz recomended a pitched battle, not retreating (Lol),and favoured pincer strikes,Sun Tzu was the exact opposite, indeed he felt that a fight only broke out when a war party(or whatever)failed to acheive its goal through manauvere

[Lanz0r]

The only downside is that it is not a how to guide, but merely a text presenting snipits of strategy.

I've seen a "how to" version of the book, with all these drawing telling you how to move your men if the enemy does this in this scenario ect. Spent about 45mins kneeling on a book-store floor reading it.

[Analyst]

I personnally think Sun Tzu is a classic...heck, it's a materpeice. Unlike Machiaveli or Clausewitz, this text is still very relevent. It focusses on strategic perspective and analysis that are common to any conflict analysis. Furthermore, the text is much more focussed on attaining your objectives WITHOUT actually initiating combat : espionnage, sabotage, bribery, tradecraft and indirect warfare. Personnaly, I always tough that direct military confrontation is to be used only as a last resort. Military conflict is a waste of precious ressources (including $$$, human lives and diplomatic ressources) and should not be considered an end by itself. Indeed, it should be avoided up until the point where diplomacy and indirect warfare fail.

I think the analytical framework and paradigms presented in the book are still relevant today, even tough most armies don't fight with archers or pikemen anymore!