Why you shouldn't read The Art of War

[Bean]

Agreed, with this and with your overall argument...but is this really a necessary point? Are there a lot of people quoting Sun Tzu in a way that's not a marginal, superflous metaphor?

Not that I've seen. But there are a lot of people quoting Sun Tzu in a way that is marginal and superfluous metaphor--and I think it's useful to provide a counterpoint to that.

[DarkLink]

I can agree with you that any specific strategy book isn't that important. It's just important to pick up strategy somewhere, and books like the art of war is a decent place to start. At least, I'm assuming. It's got some cool quotes, but I've never actually read the whole thing. And I bet there are some more modern books that do a better job.

[PalinMoonstride]

If I recall, David had a little bit of "help" as well.

Ever seen what a sling can do to someones face? That show where the collected data on old weapons and made up simulated fights between warriors from different eras tested out a sling and it was ridiculous how much damage it did. It really changed my idea of the whole David vs. Goliath thing.

[thecactusman17]

Agreed, with this and with your overall argument...but is this really a necessary point? Are there a lot of people quoting Sun Tzu in a way that's not a marginal, superflous metaphor?

I was copy pasting that. It is metaphor. It was explicitly written as metaphor. For an audience that like most of us had no prior experience with real warfare in any capacity and from a different culture. Reading the rules is important but the rulebook doesn't explain how to use those rules to achieve victory. A small bit of transliteration takes us from metaphor to simple, tested truths. Given the response i suppose i could add in a bit more context: The art of war was written for people who insisted that they knew better than an experienced general despite no formal training or prior experience. That is where the pretentiousness comes from, to fit into the expectations of princes.

[Nabterayl]

Ever seen what a sling can do to someones face? That show where the collected data on old weapons and made up simulated fights between warriors from different eras tested out a sling and it was ridiculous how much damage it did. It really changed my idea of the whole David vs. Goliath thing.

The David vs. Goliath fight was a lot more balanced than people generally give it credit for, true, though it was still an uphill battle. On the one hand, you have a huge man who is clearly a seasoned soldier, fully armed and armored from head to toe in bronze (and this was smack in the middle of the dark age, remember, so that much bronze would have seemed more like somebody armored head to toe in mithril). On the other hand you have a merely well-built man who is highly proficient with the deadliest ranged weapon of his age. David was hardly defenseless. On the other hand, it's telling that he only picked five stones. Essentially what he was saying was I'm either going to kill you in five shots, or you're going to cut me to pieces.

[thecactusman17]

The David vs. Goliath fight was a lot more balanced than people generally give it credit for, true, though it was still an uphill battle. On the one hand, you have a huge man who is clearly a seasoned soldier, fully armed and armored from head to toe in bronze (and this was smack in the middle of the dark age, remember, so that much bronze would have seemed more like somebody armored head to toe in mithril). On the other hand you have a merely well-built man who is highly proficient with the deadliest ranged weapon of his age. David was hardly defenseless. On the other hand, it's telling that he only picked five stones. Essentially what he was saying was I'm either going to kill you in five shots, or you're going to cut me to pieces.

Actually it was five stones for five people. Goliath had four giants as bodyguards and shieldbearers.

[Nabterayl]

Only one according to 1 Samuel 17. Regardless, the impressive thing isn't so much that he could kill a man with a sling; the impressive thing is that he managed to kill a man in full armor on his first shot - but he clearly wasn't planning on getting many.

[thecactusman17]

Only one according to 1 Samuel 17. Regardless, the impressive thing isn't so much that he could kill a man with a sling; the impressive thing is that he managed to kill a man in full armor on his first shot - but he clearly wasn't planning on getting many.

Samuel 17:41 explicitly states that there is at least one shield bearer in front of him. Other accounts suggest that he had bearers for his weapons and armor as well, all armed.

Also full armor would not have been as we think of it today. Probably chain or scale chest at most with greaves and gloves or gauntlets for his hands. A helmet, if any, would have been relatively small and not covering the face. Plate armor and serious metalworking wouldn't be around for centuries or more yet.

[Nabterayl]

People lose their helmets last of all, but I'm aware of what fully armored meant in 1000 BC (or 600, depending on which way you swing). But the psychological meaning of "fully armored" has never changed, I think.

[Da Gargoyle]

I think your original argument is flawed and I am not entirely impressed with the rules of the tournament that Eurisko competed "?" in.

Apparently there were no rules in the tournament that required objectives, No advantages to movement. No limit to any specific type of vehicle, or apparently no range or power limitations on the weaponry systems. It appears to have been a flat clear playing board, otherwise use of cover would have left the computer stuffed. I believe an IG armored company would mimic Eurisko in what you guys call castling. A flat open field would play right into the hands of a force like this. The real failure was in the opponents who failed to change their tactics and who probably got hung up on the computer.

By comparison, in 40k, moral is a factor when casualties mount. Depending on a single weapon will result in you not being able to deal with all enemy threats. Multple compulsory unit choices mean that you simply can not mimic Eurisko. But the point is well taken that you need to know your rules and the game rules to compete effectively. I know I have been burned for not knowing them well enough.