StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Obviously, a more apt comparison would be Sun Tzu's work and Machiavelli's "Art of War," but since I have not yet read the latter, "The Prince" will have to suffice.

Personally, I think there is no competition, and I think most would agree that Machiavelli's work is superior. "The Prince" is far more practical (now as then) than "The Art of War", which is mainly an esoteric, theoretical excercise. Attack where the enemy is weakest? Well, duh. Try to fight swift campaigns? Yeah, but how?

Of course, I think if more politicians would read "The Prince", they'd be a bit more successful. Aristide, you idiot, never use mercenaries!

I read The Prince, and enjoyed it thoroughly. I've tried to read The Art of War on several occasions, but I've never been able to get into it. I agree that The Art of War is a bit too vague on many points, but I haven't read the whole thing, so I guess there might be stuff I'm still missing.

I enjoyed The Prince thoroughly and found it to make a lot of sense. Sun Tzu's work seems much more based on allegory and somewhat abstract reasoning.

I get the feeling that the easier readability is at least partly caused by the fact that it's probably just a lot easier to accurately translate Italian to English than whatever Chinese dialect Art of War was originally written in. I found The Prince readable when I was 12, but I've still never read The Art of War cover to cover.

PrinceofLowLight wrote:I enjoyed The Prince thoroughly and found it to make a lot of sense. Sun Tzu's work seems much more based on allegory and somewhat abstract reasoning.

I get the feeling that the easier readability is at least partly caused by the fact that it's probably just a lot easier to accurately translate Italian to English than whatever Chinese dialect Art of War was originally written in. I found The Prince readable when I was 12, but I've still never read The Art of War cover to cover.

the main problem with Art of War is translation. I get the feeling that the guy who did the predominant variant moved it towards running a buinsess, given some of the footnotes.

Zap Brannigan's Big Book 'o War

Lonestar wrote:Zap Brannigan's Big Book 'o War

Every commader knows the secret to victory is surprise. SURPRISE!
*pushes button*

I own both. I read the prince more often, and find it easier to apply.

Well The Prince is easy to apply when you realize that it is satire. Up until his exile from Florence (Or is it Venice gah can't remember) Machiavelli was an ardent Republican. He participated in the senate and was the minister of war for many years. When the government was overthrown a monarchy was established with a prince at the head of it. The first thing the prince did was to exile all of the former government officials. This included Machiavelli. After his exile he wrote The Prince. Now when one realizes that The Prince was written to reflect how the Prince overthrew the republican government and how he ran things.

I couldn't stand The Art of War. It just seemed like vaguely worded crap that should be obvious to anyone who isn't a total idiot. "Don't piss off the locals of an area you're trying to conquer." "Don't march through a swamp if you can help it." "Attacking your enemy's supply lines hurts their army." No shit. Give me something a little less mystical sounding, too.

Miyamoto Musashi.
A Book of five rings.

In what context are you referring to it being superior?



Sun Tzu art of war was orginally only 10 to 11 chapters long, with the fire chapter being added by later authors.
Due to the lack of paper, it was orginally written out in couplet form, so as to make memorising and writting it down on bamboo easier. Later editions during the Han probably changed the style even further, although it is impossible to determine through archaelogical work.

As for it being mystical, it was designed to fight against the onslaught of superstition prevalent in the Spring and Autumn Period, where the way to fight a war was to consult astrological signs in your favour.

Being a Chinese that can read chinese, I think art of war is an easier read....

While it does seem self evident at times, they are more universally applicable.....

Lonestar wrote:Zap Brannigan's Big Book 'o War

In the game of chess, you can never show your adversary your pieces.

Sun Tzu's work is more universally applicable, IMO.

The Prince is a good treatise about politics, and makes the actions of our pollies a little more understandable (no less stupid, from our perspective, but understandable). However Machiavelli is dated. I can only think of one main example where this is evident: Machiavelli absolutely detests mercenaries, calling them unloyal, treachorous, poor soldiers - in every way, inferior. He suggests the Prince never lower himself to hiring mercenaries, and that conscripts are even better (though there are still problems with those, too).

Now how is that applicable in today's modern military which is made up of professional soldiers? Machiavelli's principle reason for distrusting mercenaries in his day were due to historical precedent - someone trusted mercs and they ended up betraying him. However, his mercs and todays mercs are different (mainly because the nature of warfare is radically different).

I agree that The Art of War is vague and abstract, but that is precisely why it is favoured. It doesn't get trapped in a specific era like Machiavelli did. It is purposely vague and abstract because you can't catalogue all the possibilities that might occur on the battlefield, all you can do is give general advice. Furthermore Sun-Tzu is applicable in a number of ways that differ from war (just listen to DW quote Sun-Tzu when giving dating tips ). I also recommend Musashi's Book of 5 Rings, although if you though Sun-Tzu was vague you ain't seen nothin' yet.

On the mercenaries: Aristide relied on mercenaries, look where it got him.

HemlockGrey wrote:On the mercenaries: Aristide relied on mercenaries, look where it got him.

Hence why I said it was dated.

Er, I took it to mean that the advice was no longr applicable.

HemlockGrey wrote:Er, I took it to mean that the advice was no longr applicable.

It kind of isn't though. When something is said to be 'dated' it usually means that it was applicable back then. I'm not sure Machiavelli's ideas are universally applicable because he specifically writes for his time frame.

Note: I'm not saying the Prince is false or bad etc. I'm just saying I find the Art of War more applicable to me.

Mastery of 'The Prince' will make you a politician, a very scummy one.

Mastery of 'The Art Of War' will make you a General, one who never loses.

I'd say the latter will endear you to more people, though admittably becoming a master of it would be damn near impossible.

Too many people read the Giles translation of Sun-Tzu; I prefer the Griffith.

Yes, Sun-Tzu's writings highlight a lot of simple and obvious rules, but these rules are not always followed. Human emotion plays an unmeasurable variable in how war is conducted. Keeping Sun-Tzu's advice on hand would be helpful to a general, even if it gives no specifics, because that general will always keep in mind the base truths of war.

Machiavelli wrote for his time, and the mercenaries he spoke of were not the modern paid soldiers of a Nation-State but rather bands of troops that were paid by States to fight on their behalf. They were generally unreliable. Neither is The Prince satire; it is an essay by Machiavelli directed to the Medici ruler of Florence to give advice on how to eventually unite Italy and drive out the Spanish, French, and other foreign influences. Just look at the final chapter of the work.

Steve wrote:Too many people read the Giles translation of Sun-Tzu; I prefer the Griffith.

Yes, Sun-Tzu's writings highlight a lot of simple and obvious rules, but these rules are not always followed. Human emotion plays an unmeasurable variable in how war is conducted. Keeping Sun-Tzu's advice on hand would be helpful to a general, even if it gives no specifics, because that general will always keep in mind the base truths of war.

Machiavelli wrote for his time, and the mercenaries he spoke of were not the modern paid soldiers of a Nation-State but rather bands of troops that were paid by States to fight on their behalf. They were generally unreliable. Neither is The Prince satire; it is an essay by Machiavelli directed to the Medici ruler of Florence to give advice on how to eventually unite Italy and drive out the Spanish, French, and other foreign influences. Just look at the final chapter of the work.

Hmmm.... I wonder which translation I have... Seriously, I was looking for a Thomas Cleary translation, but couldn't find one, so I went with the one with the most footnotes...

I have the Prince, and every year I pick it up, look at it, say "You know, I've been meaning to read this," put it down, look at it a little more, then grab the latest Turtledove book (three new one this week!) and forget about it for another year.