5 ms·

Sun Tzu’s Art of War is one of the most overrated pieces of military advice. The writing is beautiful, the analogies are nice, and it is easily comprehensible t

Sun Tzu’s Art of War is one of the most overrated pieces of military advice. The writing is beautiful, the analogies are nice, and it is easily comprehensible to an outsider, but the advice is so generic as to be useless while sounding profound.

tempguy9999 7y ago
Finally someone said it. I thought it was just me.
- RealityVoid 7y ago
  If it was applicable to modern war, it would talk about logistics and technology, whereas it talks about merely tactics.
  - idoh 7y ago
    It's kinda applicable in a philosophical sense, obviously not in a literal sense. There is a lot of discussion of logistics in the book FYI.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > If it was applicable to modern war, it would talk about logistics and technology, whereas it talks about merely tactics. This is simply factually false; chapter 2 of tAoW is nearly entirely about strategy at a level which subsumes logistics, logistics itself, and economic considerations of conduct of war and their impacts on logistic concerns. The work says more about tactics, but that seems to be not because tactics are viewed as more important but because they are viewed as more amenable to detailed generic advice; the higher level rules are simpler to describe (but not necessarily to execute on effectively.)
  - rmah 7y ago
    Um, Art of War does indeed cover the importance of logistics and supply. And espionage (from using deception to spies to scouting). And morale (both yours and the enemies). And many other factors. Tech not so much because armies don't generally develop new tech in the field.
    - hinkley 7y ago
      I had a history teacher whose thesis was that advancements in information asymmetry attended nearly every major military upset in recorded history. Often that was improvements in, or exploits of, communication technology. See also Alan Turing, or radar (wasn't the carrots and nightvision myth started as misinformation to conceal the perfection of radar technology?)
      - joycian 7y ago
        Did the teacher write his ideas down somewhere? Could you point me to them?
      - dredmorbius 7y ago
        I'd really like to see more on this if you've anything to provide.
chrisseaton 7y ago
I disagree. You often see soldiers making mistakes that Tzu warns against. Some of what he says has only been put into practice over the last hundred years as we have developed doctrines like manoeuvre warfare. The advice sounds generic because it’s been given for so long! Everyone knows it - it turns out it’s difficult to have the discipline to apply it which is why it’s important to keep saying it. As a concrete example - Tzu bangs on about deception. Super obvious, right? Doesn’t need to be said? No - it turns out inexperienced commanders constantly forget to apply deception and need to be reminded. My tactical checklist says ‘use deception’ and many other things Tzu said.
- tempguy9999 7y ago
  Yeah, deception. > inexperienced commanders constantly forget to apply deception ... My tactical checklist says ‘use deception’ And what deception have you used in warfare? Or other spheres?
  - chrisseaton 7y ago
    For example I might use one sub-unit to conduct a feint to draw the enemy's focus and then use my other sub-units to conduct an attack in another area. If you don't have a checklist to think about that sort of thing almost everyone tends to go into tunnel vision and put all their units on a conveyor belt towards the objective. People still need to be explicitly told to use deception. It's specific useful advice that it turns out we need in practice - it isn't generic.
    - Waterluvian 7y ago
      I have to ask. I recall reading that Sun Tzu suggests the value of giving a formidable enemy a route to flee, lest you accidentally force them to fight despite being ready to rout. Is that practical advice in modern warfare? From the cheap seats that I occupy, it seems like the goal is to kill or capture and allowing an enemy to flee is a failure.
      - 7y ago
whalesalad 7y ago
Have you ever gone to war? Have you ever been the mastermind behind a war on another? How can you say it’s overrated? It’s timeless and simple for a reason.
- tempguy9999 7y ago
  Have you?
- RealityVoid 7y ago
  The issue with it is that Sun's writings are not used as guidance for war, it's used as guidance for X. There X is random action you're engaged in. If it was used as guidance for war, it would be popular in military circles, whereas I see it popular in entrepreneurial circles.
  - whalesalad 7y ago
    It’s helpful advice for any time you‘re leading one group of people against another. That’s why it’s popular in entrepreneurial circles.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > The issue with it is that Sun's writings are not used as guidance for war Yes, they are. > it's used as guidance for X. To the extent that's a problem (and for some values of X it is), it is not a problem with the writing, but with the use. > If it was used as guidance for war, it would be popular in military circles It (and newer works grounded in part in it and/or intermediary sources derived in part from it) is.
  - chrisseaton 7y ago
    > Sun's writings are not used as guidance for war You're ignorant - they are used as guidance for war. For just one example - British Army Doctrine Land Operations, the current core document for how the British think about fighting war on land, quotes Tzu: > The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/605298/Army_Field_Manual__AFM__A5_Master_ADP_Interactive_Gov_Web.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
danharaj 7y ago
It's abstract advice, not generic advice. You don't understand what is being said unless you can instantiate it in concrete situations.
- hinkley 7y ago
  Is it abstract, or esoteric? Conversations like this remind me of the phenomenon of books that people say have a lot of re-reading value. There was either too much going on the first time through. So you reread it many times and see things you missed. When you watch a professional athlete or a master of anything, you can only 'see' the things that are within your horizon of comprehension. If someone is narrating they can expand that horizon. Someone who is more advanced than you will always be learning new things, but if you see them doing something new, odds are reasonably good that it's you who changed, not them. Sun Tzu comes out of a culture that values intuition highly. Allusion and understatement are tools in that toolbox. You are meant to be spending time unpacking things, instead of being beaten over the head with them. If Lego came pre-assembled you wouldn't appreciate it as much.
  - danharaj 7y ago
    I personally think Sun Tzu is very readable and has layers of meaning. Some of its lines hit like lightning bolts but much of it is very subtle. I think a lot of Chinese philosophy of the era in this style is about how you approach, not what you're approaching. This is one of my favorite lines (standing in for the whole chapter). I don't think it's very obvious what it means or how to apply it but after taking it to heart it helps me avoid bad fads and bad orthodoxy alike: ... Thus the battles of the skilled are without extraordinary victory, without reputation for wisdom, and without merit for courage.

tempguy9999 7y ago

Finally someone said it. I thought it was just me.

RealityVoid 7y ago
If it was applicable to modern war, it would talk about logistics and technology, whereas it talks about merely tactics.
- idoh 7y ago
  It's kinda applicable in a philosophical sense, obviously not in a literal sense. There is a lot of discussion of logistics in the book FYI.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > If it was applicable to modern war, it would talk about logistics and technology, whereas it talks about merely tactics. This is simply factually false; chapter 2 of tAoW is nearly entirely about strategy at a level which subsumes logistics, logistics itself, and economic considerations of conduct of war and their impacts on logistic concerns. The work says more about tactics, but that seems to be not because tactics are viewed as more important but because they are viewed as more amenable to detailed generic advice; the higher level rules are simpler to describe (but not necessarily to execute on effectively.)
- rmah 7y ago
  Um, Art of War does indeed cover the importance of logistics and supply. And espionage (from using deception to spies to scouting). And morale (both yours and the enemies). And many other factors. Tech not so much because armies don't generally develop new tech in the field.
  - hinkley 7y ago
    I had a history teacher whose thesis was that advancements in information asymmetry attended nearly every major military upset in recorded history. Often that was improvements in, or exploits of, communication technology. See also Alan Turing, or radar (wasn't the carrots and nightvision myth started as misinformation to conceal the perfection of radar technology?)
    - joycian 7y ago
      Did the teacher write his ideas down somewhere? Could you point me to them?
    - dredmorbius 7y ago
      I'd really like to see more on this if you've anything to provide.

chrisseaton 7y ago

I disagree. You often see soldiers making mistakes that Tzu warns against. Some of what he says has only been put into practice over the last hundred years as we have developed doctrines like manoeuvre warfare. The advice sounds generic because it’s been given for so long! Everyone knows it - it turns out it’s difficult to have the discipline to apply it which is why it’s important to keep saying it. As a concrete example - Tzu bangs on about deception. Super obvious, right? Doesn’t need to be said? No - it turns out inexperienced commanders constantly forget to apply deception and need to be reminded. My tactical checklist says ‘use deception’ and many other things Tzu said.

tempguy9999 7y ago
Yeah, deception. > inexperienced commanders constantly forget to apply deception ... My tactical checklist says ‘use deception’ And what deception have you used in warfare? Or other spheres?
- chrisseaton 7y ago
  For example I might use one sub-unit to conduct a feint to draw the enemy's focus and then use my other sub-units to conduct an attack in another area. If you don't have a checklist to think about that sort of thing almost everyone tends to go into tunnel vision and put all their units on a conveyor belt towards the objective. People still need to be explicitly told to use deception. It's specific useful advice that it turns out we need in practice - it isn't generic.
  - Waterluvian 7y ago
    I have to ask. I recall reading that Sun Tzu suggests the value of giving a formidable enemy a route to flee, lest you accidentally force them to fight despite being ready to rout. Is that practical advice in modern warfare? From the cheap seats that I occupy, it seems like the goal is to kill or capture and allowing an enemy to flee is a failure.
    - 7y ago

whalesalad 7y ago

Have you ever gone to war? Have you ever been the mastermind behind a war on another? How can you say it’s overrated? It’s timeless and simple for a reason.

tempguy9999 7y ago
Have you?
RealityVoid 7y ago
The issue with it is that Sun's writings are not used as guidance for war, it's used as guidance for X. There X is random action you're engaged in. If it was used as guidance for war, it would be popular in military circles, whereas I see it popular in entrepreneurial circles.
- whalesalad 7y ago
  It’s helpful advice for any time you‘re leading one group of people against another. That’s why it’s popular in entrepreneurial circles.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > The issue with it is that Sun's writings are not used as guidance for war Yes, they are. > it's used as guidance for X. To the extent that's a problem (and for some values of X it is), it is not a problem with the writing, but with the use. > If it was used as guidance for war, it would be popular in military circles It (and newer works grounded in part in it and/or intermediary sources derived in part from it) is.
- chrisseaton 7y ago
  > Sun's writings are not used as guidance for war You're ignorant - they are used as guidance for war. For just one example - British Army Doctrine Land Operations, the current core document for how the British think about fighting war on land, quotes Tzu: > The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/605298/Army_Field_Manual__AFM__A5_Master_ADP_Interactive_Gov_Web.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

danharaj 7y ago

It's abstract advice, not generic advice. You don't understand what is being said unless you can instantiate it in concrete situations.

hinkley 7y ago
Is it abstract, or esoteric? Conversations like this remind me of the phenomenon of books that people say have a lot of re-reading value. There was either too much going on the first time through. So you reread it many times and see things you missed. When you watch a professional athlete or a master of anything, you can only 'see' the things that are within your horizon of comprehension. If someone is narrating they can expand that horizon. Someone who is more advanced than you will always be learning new things, but if you see them doing something new, odds are reasonably good that it's you who changed, not them. Sun Tzu comes out of a culture that values intuition highly. Allusion and understatement are tools in that toolbox. You are meant to be spending time unpacking things, instead of being beaten over the head with them. If Lego came pre-assembled you wouldn't appreciate it as much.
- danharaj 7y ago
  I personally think Sun Tzu is very readable and has layers of meaning. Some of its lines hit like lightning bolts but much of it is very subtle. I think a lot of Chinese philosophy of the era in this style is about how you approach, not what you're approaching. This is one of my favorite lines (standing in for the whole chapter). I don't think it's very obvious what it means or how to apply it but after taking it to heart it helps me avoid bad fads and bad orthodoxy alike: ... Thus the battles of the skilled are without extraordinary victory, without reputation for wisdom, and without merit for courage.