Has anyone read The Art of War?

[Combined]

I read it, many years ago when I was in a mystical and deadly place called "boot camp".

At the time, I found it to be mostly useless and apart from a few well-put statements here and there, was not impressed with the content. Mostly, I do believe it was due to conflicting ideas on matters, seeing as I had very strong ideas of my own back then, which were later further expanded by military tactic manuals based more heavily on less... ancient authors and such.

Perhaps it's also the reason why I never read it again. It sits now on my lonely shelf, covered in a thick layer of dust.

[small]I prefer Tukhachevsky, Guderian and Von Moltke (the older one). I know, I'm a heretic for not appreciating classical authors upon whose ideas the modern military theory was founded more.[/small]

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

I know, I'm a heretic for not appreciating classical authors upon whose ideas the modern military theory was founded more.

Not really, not when you're after military theory applicable in modern warfare. Why bother reading the classics when you've got the writings of the people who've put those theories to the one test that counts, evaluated them and put their own twist on things? When you're dealing with the business end of things you really don't want your head crowded with the full evolution of military theory, you need the fundamentals and their modern adaptations.

 

[sharkinz]

I have read The Art of War. I wouldn't say that it drastically changed my perspective on anything but it has helped me when I play strategy games.

 

[icyneesan]

I played Dynasty Warriors, does that count?

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

EDIT: I don't take much literal interpretation from Machiavelli's The Prince seeing how he wrote that out of spite while he was in exile. Reason being: I think he was being spiteful and sarcastic while passing it off as genuine literature. The greatest troll in history.

The political theory contained within has proven to be pretty solid, though.

 

[ace_of_something]

Had to for a class in college. It's just a massive list of general common sense. I thought.

 

[oxiclean]

I read it, and I loved it.

 

[Rylot]

I found the history of the period and the controversy around who Sun Tzu was more interesting than the actual text. Placing soldiers on impassible terrain just didn't seem to fit into my everyday life.

 

[Shirokurou]

We read it in the University along with Machiavelli's "Prince".

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

If you like Machiavelli, you should read his Discourses on Livy. What The Prince does for absolute rulers, the Discourses does for Republics. If you've ever wondered how nations make war, or how revolutions really happen, the Discourses have the answers.

I've always considered The Prince to be the Player's Handbook of Political Theory and Discourses to be the DM's Guide. The books of political ideologies serve as Monster Manuals.

What of Plato's Republic? Well, it makes a handy doorstop and if you're attacked on the way home from the library you'll hospitalise any fucker you brain with it.

 

[Del-Toro]

Yes. Sun Tzu was made of win and awesome. Lots of advice in there that would be really useful today. For example, the sovreign (King, Prime Minister, President, Fuerher) ought to stay out of the affairs of the generals. If you need an example, Hitler got right up in the persecution of wars, over-riding the decisions of generals and such, and that really hamstringed the german forces. If he hadn't pulled rank of Rommel, for example, Fritz' main force would have been waiting for the Allies on D-Day, instead of at Pas-De-Calais. Dick Cheney being basically Darth Vader in the Iraq War is another example. Generals may be stupid (hence why the Montgomerys and Rommels get as famous as they do) but they tend to know a bit more about war than some elected civilian.

The basic message seems to be, "In order to be successful you have to be a duplicitous bastard."

He was probably on to something there.

I guess we would call him the Machiavelli of ancient China if it weren't more fair to call Machiavelli the Sun Tzu of Renaissance Italy.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

I found the history of the period and the controversy around who Sun Tzu was more interesting than the actual text. Placing soldiers on impassible terrain just didn't seem to fit into my everyday life.

Maybe you should have checked out Opium Warlord on Career Day, then.

 

[Atmos Duality]

EDIT: I don't take much literal interpretation from Machiavelli's The Prince seeing how he wrote that out of spite while he was in exile. Reason being: I think he was being spiteful and sarcastic while passing it off as genuine literature. The greatest troll in history.

The political theory contained within has proven to be pretty solid, though.

Sadly, yes.

Though when applied to a modern context, I'm beginning to wonder if it became a self-fulfilling prophecy. Historically, few rulers were as cruel as Machiavelli claimed (or prescribed, depending on how you take it). His use of discontinuity (that is, citing examples from several periods of history, including recent in his day) to drive his point home was genius though.

 

[ALuckyChance]

I haven't read the book, but I have gotten an unabridged audiobook. It really is incredibly interesting.

Funnily enough, a big reason why I got it was to see if I'd do better at the Total War games. I'm so going to use those tactics when Shogun 2: Total War comes out.

 

[Midnight Crossroads]

I'm a cadet, yes, I've read it.

 

[iFail69]

I have, it single handedly changed my views on certain aspects of life, a REALLY good read in my opinion (a must read in fact)

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

The political theory contained within has proven to be pretty solid, though.

Sadly, yes.

Though when applied to a modern context, I'm beginning to wonder if it became a self-fulfilling prophecy. Historically, few rulers were as cruel as Machiavelli claimed (or prescribed, depending on how you take it). His use of discontinuity (that is, citing examples from several periods of history, including recent in his day) to drive his point home was genius though.

Self-fulfilling prophecy or life imitating art? Either way, I suspect there's something (well, more than just something) to it. Once people started adopting his ruthless, pragmatic theories they found they worked and, for the most, worked very well... in the short term if nothing else. Then you get success breeding success, so to speak, making his theories more popular and wide spread... and so on until, a few centuries down the line, you get things like Thatcherism and Straussian neo-Conservatism.

 

[Gilhelmi]

People, you can find it on Project Gutenberg [http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page]. The site compiles works that are public domain. Many of them are made to be E-reader ready, and almost all that I've seen have at least a PDF form. Have a feast of knowledge.

Yummy knowledge, thank you for the link I forgot about my tasty friends at Project Gutenberg [http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page]

 

[Summerstorm]

OF COURSE i have read it. A few times actually. It is one of the books i always have by my bed.

 

[Prince Regent]

Yeah I read it. I remember the central message being: Make sure wars don't last long or it will cost you a lot of money. Wich was kind of disapointing.