5 ms·

I think you're misunderstanding Sun Tzu's "a battle should not be fought unless it's already won". He's not saying you shouldn't go into battle if you're not ce

I think you're misunderstanding Sun Tzu's "a battle should not be fought unless it's already won". He's not saying you shouldn't go into battle if you're not certain of the outcome - he's saying you should secure the victory before you engage the enemy directly. It's a subtle difference, but an important one.

JanezStupar 15y ago
To be exact Sun Tzu's point is that every battle is decided in advance. Because the more prepared side always wins, where "prepared" is broadest possible term and includes all five elements: Mission, Climate, Ground, Leadership and Methods. The lesson is that one should not rush into battle if circumstances are not favorable. Thank you for clarification - this is exactly what I meant, but English is not my primary language and thus my point didn't come across the way I wanted. And I indeed meant it to come across the way you put it.
- ArbitraryLimits 15y ago
  > the more prepared side always wins I'd say it's more subtle than that: the side which is more appropriately prepared always wins. Arguably the French were "more prepared" for WWII if you go by amount of effort expended - building the Maginot line wasn't cheap - but it didn't do them much good.
  - JanezStupar 15y ago
    They were more prepared only in context of Von Clausevitz's delusional view of military strategy. Bureaucracies that were European armies of that time had completely lost all touch with warfare and its tenets. Napoleon was one of the last great European Military commanders. Nowadays mobility is again rightfully viewed as most important property of an fighting force. Preparation is not about spending the most money - its like saying that 00's startups were way more prepared than nowaday's companies. No they only foolishly blew more resources. A great general (or businessman for that matter) needs to have a knowledge of art, history, psychology, rhetorics, economics, philosophy and lastly military strategy (and also needs to be physically fit). That is what Sun Tzu really teaches. Being well rounded in all life's aspects gives one sufficient power to rise to any challenge. Not some brutish spending of money and lives. Be it war or business. As Sun Tzu said: It is best to win without fighting. And if we return to the French - they could have won WW2 without fight - if their deluded politicians wouldn't load Germans with unfulfillable liabilities.
    - tome 15y ago
      Slightly off-topic: I've been reading Clasewitz's "On War" recently, so I'd appreciate it if you could say a little more about what's delusional about it.
      - JanezStupar 15y ago
        I haven't read his work yet. So my argument does not apply directly to his work. Thus my statement is misleading in this direct sense. What I have read of his work does make much sense - but is dangerous when taken out of context of his vast military experience - which is exactly what happened - what we have seen in western Europe from mid 19th century and culminating in WWI was predominantly fueled by Von Clausevitz's work. His delusion was trying to present his subjective life's experience in a scientific and absolute manner. And what happened was that people took his work and applied it literally.

JanezStupar 15y ago

To be exact Sun Tzu's point is that every battle is decided in advance. Because the more prepared side always wins, where "prepared" is broadest possible term and includes all five elements: Mission, Climate, Ground, Leadership and Methods. The lesson is that one should not rush into battle if circumstances are not favorable. Thank you for clarification - this is exactly what I meant, but English is not my primary language and thus my point didn't come across the way I wanted. And I indeed meant it to come across the way you put it.

ArbitraryLimits 15y ago
> the more prepared side always wins I'd say it's more subtle than that: the side which is more appropriately prepared always wins. Arguably the French were "more prepared" for WWII if you go by amount of effort expended - building the Maginot line wasn't cheap - but it didn't do them much good.
- JanezStupar 15y ago
  They were more prepared only in context of Von Clausevitz's delusional view of military strategy. Bureaucracies that were European armies of that time had completely lost all touch with warfare and its tenets. Napoleon was one of the last great European Military commanders. Nowadays mobility is again rightfully viewed as most important property of an fighting force. Preparation is not about spending the most money - its like saying that 00's startups were way more prepared than nowaday's companies. No they only foolishly blew more resources. A great general (or businessman for that matter) needs to have a knowledge of art, history, psychology, rhetorics, economics, philosophy and lastly military strategy (and also needs to be physically fit). That is what Sun Tzu really teaches. Being well rounded in all life's aspects gives one sufficient power to rise to any challenge. Not some brutish spending of money and lives. Be it war or business. As Sun Tzu said: It is best to win without fighting. And if we return to the French - they could have won WW2 without fight - if their deluded politicians wouldn't load Germans with unfulfillable liabilities.
  - tome 15y ago
    Slightly off-topic: I've been reading Clasewitz's "On War" recently, so I'd appreciate it if you could say a little more about what's delusional about it.
    - JanezStupar 15y ago
      I haven't read his work yet. So my argument does not apply directly to his work. Thus my statement is misleading in this direct sense. What I have read of his work does make much sense - but is dangerous when taken out of context of his vast military experience - which is exactly what happened - what we have seen in western Europe from mid 19th century and culminating in WWI was predominantly fueled by Von Clausevitz's work. His delusion was trying to present his subjective life's experience in a scientific and absolute manner. And what happened was that people took his work and applied it literally.