5 ms·
Finally someone said it. I thought it was just me.
by tempguy9999 7y ago
Finally someone said it. I thought it was just me.
- RealityVoid 7y agoIf it was applicable to modern war, it would talk about logistics and technology, whereas it talks about merely tactics.
- idoh 7y agoIt'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 agoUm, 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 agoI 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 agoDid the teacher write his ideas down somewhere? Could you point me to them?
- dredmorbius 7y agoI'd really like to see more on this if you've anything to provide.