13 ms·
Who Was Sun Tzu’s Napoleon?
- earthboundkid 7y agoWho was Chairman Mao's Julius Caesar? Who was Sun Yat-sen's Alexander the Great? Who was Laozi's Descartes?
- Accujack 7y agoWho is President Trump's Mickey Mouse?
- whateveracct 7y agoHis term limit of course!
- jcranmer 7y agoThe questioner is asking whose military escapades influenced the development of this Chinese classic on military theory. Napoleon's escapades probably strike the longest shadow on military theory books--both Clausewitz and Jomini wrote their books based on their experiences in the Napoleonic Wars. It's actually an interesting question, given that the book is usually studied in striking divorce from its historical context, especially in popular analysis.
- chungus_khan 7y agoThe real question of who was Jiang Jieshi's Incitatus goes yet unanswered.
- carapace 7y ago<Clausewitz> is to <Napoleon> as <Sun Tzu> is to <[people in] the "Zuozhuan">.
- mcv 7y agoI can't help but think you completely missed the point of the article with a response like that. Clausewitz and Sun Tzu both reacted to the ideas of other generals. Napoleon, in the case of Clausewitz, and apparently this duke of Song for Sun Tzu. Understanding this can help us understand his writings better. So according to you, who responded to Julius Caesar in a way that's relevant to what Mao did? What did Sun Yat-sen do that requires a comparison to Alexander in order to better understand him? Or are you just listing random names without having read the article?
- david_draco 7y ago"The Art of War is traditionally attributed to a military general from the late 6th century BC known as "Master Sun" (Mandarin: "Sunzi", earlier "Sun Tzu"), though its earliest parts probably date to at least 100 years later." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_War#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_War#History
- baybal2 7y agoIt's a long living speculation that Sun's clan warfare was a polar opposite of the book, and that them spreading their military methods was world's first examples of disinformation warfare. They teach sons of all nobles the thing, and when the time comes to slash throats, they use them being "gridlocked" into their thinking against them.
- KaoruAoiShiho 7y agoWhere can I read about this speculation.
- speeder 7y agoThis article about the context of Sun Tzu, made me remember my own discoveries about the bible (disclaimer: I am a firmly Christian) A lot of the passages that seem completely controversial now, can be understood if you think about what was going on. For example, saw a bunch of people saying it was proof of misoginy the fact the bible consider menstrual fluids "unclean", thing is, that law was enacted when they lived in a mobile tent camp, if a person with a blood-transmissible disease washed on the middle of the camp water source for example, it could quickly infect everyone. Or Paul in New Testament saying men should NOT cover their heads, make a lot of sense when you find out people at the time decided to adopt a fashion from some roman nobles that started to use robes with head covering during religious events, with the intention of appearing more spiritual.
- thechao 7y ago> For example, saw a bunch of people saying it was proof of misoginy the fact the bible consider menstrual fluids "unclean", thing is, that law was enacted when they lived in a mobile tent camp, if a person with a blood-transmissible disease washed on the middle of the camp water source for example, it could quickly infect everyone. This is just purely ex post facto pseudo-scientific rationalism of rampant misogyny. If you want to be true to the statements made in historical sources (e.g., the bible), try to put yourself in their shoes -- in this case, imagine that you are a patriarch in a deeply misogynistic society that views women and children as property and not people. The reason for the law is thus completely justified to such a person: to them, menstrual fluid is gross and just another example of why women clearly do not have the full rights of a "real person".
- leftyted 7y ago> We need to stop untethering the text from the historical and cultural milieu of its origination The reason we still read these people at all (Thucydides, Machievelli, Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, etc) is because their work transcends "the historical and cultural milieu of its origination". Time (and the accumulation of human opinions) is the real judge here and in the case of all of these writers, time has judged that they are, in fact, saying something eternally true about politics and fighting wars that transcends their historical circumstances. If you want to delve into their historical backgrounds, that's great -- and perhaps it will lead to new, valid intepretations. But it isn't wrong to read them as political philosophy, which is what we generally do.
- kace91 7y agoIsn't it even disputed among experts whether Machiavelli's the Prince is satirical or not? I can't possibly imagine how one can both treat a source as holding profound and transcendent views and be uninterested or unsure of what the author meant when writing it; at that point it seems that the literary work is merely an excuse for the reader to project their own ideas into an authorative source, and the work is only valued for its prestige.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- eru 7y agoCompare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_the_Author https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_the_Author
- leftyted 7y ago> I can't possibly imagine how one can both treat a source as holding profound and transcendent views and be uninterested or unsure of what the author meant when writing it; at that point it seems that the literary work is merely an excuse for the reader to project their own ideas into an authorative source, and the work is only valued for its prestige. What I've found is that, in critiques of an earlier philosopher, the most common attitude is an acceptance of key insights, but debate over their implications and the extent of their application. So, whether or not you see The Prince as satire, it is valued for its skepticism of abstract ideas and insistence on realpolitik. That is the transcendent perspective of The Prince, and that isn't really debated, as far as I know. When I read Machievelli in school, we learned that he was a republican but that The Prince was really, truly advice for autocrats. There's no contradiction here because Machievlli is a realist and he understands that autocracies happen and sometimes they might even be necessary (hey, we in the US have martial law for a reason).
- rehasu 7y agoA point that was also enlightening to me: Chinese literature has two components. One is the theoretical analysis like Sunzi Bingfa, Hanfeizi etc. The other examples of application in different contexts, given in form of stories. It's impressive how much more you can understand and learn if you combine Sunzi Bingfa with Sanguo Yanyi for instance. Also the story becomes more deep when you realize that there are story elements where they act like the character would coincidentally slip into a situation but actually was probably stupid on purpose to create a much better outcome for himself. My favorite example being when Caocao fails to kill Dong Zhuo who is laying in front of him sleeping. If you are a mass murderer like either of these two there is almost no chance to fail to assassinate someone laying in front of you sleeping. And yet Caocao did. What happened due to this failure? The rebels took him in and started to listen to his ideas, when before they ignored him due to his low background. Also one of his biggest competitors, Wang Yun, who coincidentally is the owner of the knife used in the attempted murder. What would have happened if he had successfully killed Dong Zhuo? Lu Bu probably would have killed him on the spot. Maybe he would go in history as a small hero but he would have never become emperor.
- ConfusedDog 7y agoSame goes with SiMa Yi and ZhuGe Liang, at least from the TV show "JunShiLianMeng"(Alliance of Strategists). The famous SanGuo Yanyi story - KongChengJi (Ruse of the Empty City). SiMa Yi did not enter the city even though he know ZhuGe Liang was bluffing, and ZhuGe Liang knew that he knew. Strategically, if SiMa Yi kills ZhuGe Liang, he would won the war against Han, and CaoCao would have no use for a powerful strategist who has won people's heart - SiMa Yi would surely be killed. It's a great modern TV show.
- east2west 7y agoFirst of all, the popular empty-city story is made up by the author of "Romance of Three Kingdom." It actually was Zhao Yan, a general in the same faction as ZhuGe Liang, who pretended to have an empty fortress and repelled an attack. Needless to say, there is no truth whatsoever to alternative "truth" that drama speculated. Second, by the time Sima Yi commanded a large field army, Cao Cao had died for a long time. Sima Yi represented powerful large land-owners who would gain monopoly on official positions during Cao Pi's reign, Cao Cao's son. It is a recipe for weakening imperial authority and endangering emperors. Historians argue that Cao Cao passed up the chance to become emperor because he would not countenance such policy. Third, that TV show is like so much of Chinese TV that is a wasteland. It is melodramatic, ludicrous, and laughably bad acting. I am sorry, but it is unwatchable, not just the show, even the trailer. Compare the stylized combat and bloodletting to the realism of "Game of Throne" (yes, I am ware of the irony of calling historical drama fake and fantasy real); there is no comparison. Nothing there is believable, much like every word out of CCP's mouth. It is sad, really.
- the_af 7y agoMy understanding about the article, which makes it interesting to me, is that (according to TFA) a lot of what is generally understood about The Art of War as general strategic concerns applied in very large scales or long timeframes was actually way more literal than people think. Always according to TFA, when Sun Tzu recommends "attacking allies" he literally means attacking them on the battlefield, because they are more likely to flee -- not undermining alliances prior to a war, as many people understand it. Likewise, when he means "attacking the enemy's strategy" he didn't mean "undermining the long term grand strategy of the enemy" but actually "acting to neutralize the immediate battlefield plan" (as in "if the enemy tries to lay a siege, provoke him into attacking"). Here strategy means "immediate battlefield plan", not "long term nation-wide strategy". Overall, always according to TFA, Sun Tzu's Art of Way is way more practical and literal, and less "hand-wavey overall strategy" than generally understood. I think I actually like this because it more or less destroys its appropriation by self-help/business gurus. After all, if Sun Tzu is literally talking about killing your enemies while they are crossing the river, it's less useful as a metaphor for startups -- a welcome side-effect.
- jabl 7y ago> Overall, always according to TFA, Sun Tzu's Art of Way is way more practical and literal, and less "hand-wavey overall strategy" than generally understood. I think I actually like this because it more or less destroys its appropriation by self-help/business gurus. After all, if Sun Tzu is literally talking about killing your enemies while they are crossing the river, it's less useful as a metaphor for startups -- a welcome side-effect. If you read Sun Tzu, at least you can then claim to have read one of the classics, and know a little bit about ancient warfare. Even if it's not directly applicable to running a startup. Which is certainly more than can be said of the pointless waffle that fills the self-help/business shelves in the bookstore.
- the_af 7y agoOh, yes, agreed! And of course it's worthwhile to read The Art of War, because it's an interesting book. But note I was talking about those worthless derivatives "The Art of War for Business", "The Art of War for Entrepreneurs", etc. Those rely on Sun Tzu's work being generic enough it can be applied to whatever, so it's hilarious to find out it maybe wasn't... exposing those derivative books as the trash they truly are.
- azurezyq 7y agoZuo Zhuan is an awesome book with lots of stories about strategic thinking. The writing style is also very succinct and quite pleasant to read (require knowledge about classic Chinese for sure). One good example is the following piece which I read from my high school textbook. English translation: https://oastarod.wordpress.com/2016/02/19/zhu-zhiwu-causes-the-withdrawal-of-qins-army/ https://oastarod.wordpress.com/2016/02/19/zhu-zhiwu-causes-t... It describes how an excellent diplomat manipulated vulnerabilities between countries to turn down a conflict. It happened in 630BC, but still applies to today.
- justlexi93 7y agoA young Napoleon arrives on the scene with abook under his arm symbolizing his years of study of military history. He finds the French generals and leaders in a pub. Writing in The Art of War some 2,500 years ago, Sun Tzu postulated two dialectic forces: Zheng is the “ordinary” element that fixes the enemy in place.