Left was written by a seasoned commander who conducted several successful military campaigns and won at least one great battle.

Left was written by a seasoned commander who conducted several successful military campaigns and won at least one great battle. Right was written by a glorified staff officer who never personally led a campaign or battle and was on the losing side to some of the most one-sided ass whoopings in military history.

And yet military "experts" will still tell you with a straight face that On War is a superior military treatise to the Art of War.

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    We don't actually know who Sun Tzu was, or even if The Art of War is the work of a single person as opposed to a hodgepodge of earlier texts (in the former case it clearly hasn't made it to today unmolested). Though if he did exist he failed to leave any lasting mark on history other than The Art of War, making it rather unlikely that he was a general of note.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >We don't actually know who Sun Tzu was
      It is Chinese though, whose modus operandi is, produce cheap knockoffs.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    This post has convinced me that Sun Tzu‘s works are indeed superior to Clausewitz riding on a horse looking like Bonaparte, and that we need to bow and submit to the yellow peril.

    John Smith, Texas 省

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Because this is Bonaparte crossing the Grand Saint Bernard, not Clausewitz.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        That’s the joke

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Reading these books are useless on their own with the ability to apply them. The reason why they are used so often in business school is because it is an accessible means to apply the knowledge within. Without reading them you would still execute many of the tenets anyways as it is obvious what the best direction forward is. These rules are implicit to the human psyche to a certain extent and does not need to be trained so long as your culture and upbringing is balanced.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Numerous homosexuals ignore Art of War as being baby's first war book every decade and get men killed in preventable deaths.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Other homosexuals read Art of War and learn that the correct solution to courtesans giggling during your army LARP is to put them to death.
        Balanced.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >he doesn't eat the courtesans during a siege
          Shamefur dispray.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Left was written
    >Right was written
    and yet, if you;re not a braindamaged geek eating chicken heas in the straw, both contain remarkebaly similar underlying philospohies and strategies of waging war and both are still studied side by side in war colleges around the world.
    who knew?

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Why not both, you fricking turboBlack person.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Be modern military officer in occupied Afghanistan.
    > Sun Tzu; burn your bridges behind you so your men can't retreat and fight harder.
    Yes I'm sure the US Army would have held Afghanistan if they'd just burnt all the C-5's and C-130's down.
    > Clausewitz - war is politics by other means, so instead of killing a few Taliban, work out what you are actually supposed to be achieving.
    Might have actually helped get some useful results.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      > Clausewitz - war is politics by other means, so instead of killing a few Taliban, work out what you are actually supposed to be achieving.

      Oh yeah, let's not forget throwing...I mean putting Osama's Corpse for Display in some secret American location.
      But yeah, we can works things out, until we want to bomb some sandBlack person hut for oil again

      >Clausewutz
      Good advice but not for your regular Dumbass Muricans.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Yes I'm sure the US army would have held Afghanistan if they'd just burnt all the C-5's and C-130's down.
      To be fair, they wouldn't have had any choice BUT to hold it if there was no way home in the foreseeable future, and when faced with the prospect of having to support themselves IN Afghanistan would begin committing to decisive actions instead of sitting on their hands for a decade.
      You'd see them fiercely defending friendly clans with their lives and obliterating unfriendly clans to protect their own resources, following in the steps of Alexander the Great who realized you had to pick and choose which parts of Afghanistan to align with, and which to sacrifice for the sake of stability.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >dude logistics are a crutch LMAO
        We're witnessing the birth of a bait singularity.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Yes I'm sure the US army would have held Afghanistan if they'd just burnt all the C-5's and C-130's down.

      Frick I wanna write a story where this happens:

      >USA is in Afghanistan
      >Nuclear war happens, all contact to America is gone
      >Not enough fuel to make it back, they find out USA is a smoldering wreck anyway
      >Modern weaponry helps them hold off the Taliban for a bit, but it needs a logistical tail and is gonna run dry soon
      >US soldiers slowly "go native", adopt local dress, take local wives, but still have a distinctly American ethos
      >Start to become a proper clan and an independent power in the region
      >Epilogue is their descendants making contact with the rebuilt USA which is a militaristic dictatorship now
      >New USA invades, descendants turn it into a guerrilla war, cycle of conflict start anew

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        What's funny is things like this happened in the past. There's a small group in Nubia and Egypt that is formed from the descendants of Hungarian soldiers sent there by the Ottomans. Nobody in Europe knew they existed until a Hungarian guy wound up there in the 30s and got weirded out that a bunch of Arabs were using obvious Hungarian place names and referred to themselves as Magyars (Hungarians). 500 years after the fact they're all Muslims and speak Arabic but tiny traces of their ancestors identity still remains.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I remember that story, buy weren't they leftover crusaders?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            similar stuff has happened in many different places

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          This them?

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magyarab_people

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >work out what you are actually supposed to be achieving.
      that was the question everyone was asking the bush administration both before and after the invasion

      turns out the goal was to invade iraq too

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      To be fair, Sun Tzu also reprimands the reader to be certain what the goals of a conflict even are.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >I presented this aphorism literally and out of context and it's DUMB
      >I expanded on this one and presented it in a favorable light and it's SMART
      quality post.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >>Be modern military officer in occupied Afghanistan.
      This is the one that always comes to my mind:
      >"If fighting is sure to result in victory, then you must fight, even though the ruler forbid it; if fighting will not result in victory, then you must not fight even at the ruler's bidding."
      But no, half ass it pretending to be their friends but bombing them now and again semi randomly and building stuff they don't want for people who have no faith in us and won't work hard for principles alien to them and eventually abandon the place and the sand fills in the shell holes and it's as if we were never there.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >This homie right here thinks he's smarter than Cortes

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Napo was informed by successful actions of the Corsican Republic. What he writes is still demonstrably good stuff.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >who are you going to believe: ancient qi cultivator techniques from wutong mountain or simplistic wectoid ground-and-pound entertainers

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >The Art of War

    It's basically a treatise on unrestricted warfare (weaponize everything).

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The great tragedy of history is that the books Pyrrhus wrote on war didn't survive to the present day. I feel that he would have proven greater than any other since he was an autist that only cared about war.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    90% of you have not read either of these. For the love of god, please fricking read anything so these shitposts can be about the books

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Art of War is like 50 pages with notations. A smart man could read the entire thing in an afternoon. The idea that 90% of anybody hasn't read it is kinda disturbing.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Literacy wasn't important to daily survival in the pre-industrial revolution times.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Fair, but in modern day? You could cover the entire book in a half dozen lessons. If you even need lessons to understand Sun Tzu. He wasn't being complex or verbose.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >an afternoon
        >50 pages
        that's a fricking hour at worst, Jesus Christ

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          This isn't some academia speed reading competition. I will read, re-read key sentences, and use my internal voice. That's how you digest content instead of just blowing through it and yelling DONE.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I've read both quite a bit, have my relative's copy of Clausewitz when he was tapped for mustang in the Pacific in WW2.
      What entertains me the most is reading risible comparisons of the two that utterly miss the fricking point both men were trying to get across: war is a means to an end. if you need it, you use it the most efficient way you can. if you don't, you get a day job--but war will come again so you'd better be good at it.
      that's it. that's the whole tweet.
      and yet half-sentient animals go online and fiddlefaddle about how Sun Tzu was always talking about war even during peace time and Clausewitz only talked about it when politics wasn't the answer NO REALLY???? YA THINK THOSE MIGHT BE RELATED IDEAS???

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Which translation was yours? I picked up the Howard and Paret one, but the Clausewitz fan site (it exists, literally just Clausewitz dot com) apparently suggests a different one. I've been meaning to reread it, since I stopped a while ago around the chapter on the Offensive.
        I wish the military-civilian gap wasn't so massive that nobody cares about war as a field of study. Everyone acts all sad and shocked about war even though it's older than fricking agriculture, but understanding how and why it happens is still an autistic niche, at least in modern discourse and academics.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >I wish the military-civilian gap wasn't so massive that nobody cares about war as a field of study. Everyone acts all sad and shocked about war even though it's older than fricking agriculture, but understanding how and why it happens is still an autistic niche, at least in modern discourse and academics.
          Unironically it's another example of
          >the industrial revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.
          You could even say that it’s an example of how the agricultural revolution was a disaster for the human race.
          The more that things advance, the more that people specialize. So instead of every able-bodied male being ready, willing, and able to go to war, only about 1% even join the military, and most of that is support roles and the military isn’t considered prestigious anymore

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The military was never prestigious for 99% of people prior to WW1. If you were an officer, things were different, but the vast majority of soldiers were viewed as brutish morons who couldn't get a job doing anything else.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Even for officers, military service was seen as more as an obligation and social networking opportunity. You spend a few years as a young man being an officer, make some connections among your peers and superiors, then get on with your life.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Which translation
          Col. JJ Graham, 1909 edition IIRC
          I think Howard and Paret is probably more faithful and has more context but the Graham version is more readable IMO.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >miss the fricking point both men were trying to get across: war is a means to an end.

        Is there a single person who thinks otherwise?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Is there a single person who thinks otherwise?
          NTA, but many.

          Most people render Clausewitz as saying "war is a continuation of politics" and think that he meant either that war is a tool of pragmatic "realpolitik", or as anon said, war is the final recourse after political action. John Keegan, and a couple of other commentators over the years, point out that this is a mistranslation and gross misunderstanding; the line is better rendered as "war is a continuation of policy, amongst other factors.” Just about every midwit who has trotted out this pithy snippet misses (or never knew) that Clausewitz went on to say that (paraphrased) war can even simply occur because of general ill-feeling by the people of two nations, but nonetheless, a good leader sets a realistic goal to win the war, and employs the strategies and tactics he describes to win it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I still find it hard to believe that people don't understand why wars happen. Of course the aggressor has to have an idea what the war will hopefully achieve. I can't bring up a single case where people ended up thinking that we are going to war solely so we can have a war. I think much smarter analysis breaks apart the reasoning of the benefits, own capabilities and enemy capabilities.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >I can't bring up a single case where people ended up thinking that we are going to war solely so we can have a war.
              As an outside observer I feel like that's kind of what the War on Terror was. A way for America to have a sandbox where they could keep their soldiers trained and sharp with live combat.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You have overdosed on cynicism. The goal of the war on terror was/is to prevent more 9/11 style attacks on the United States and allies. That was mostly accomplished by giving the people who would otherwise planning that stuff targets closer to their homes they can hit with less effort, and killing a large portion of the people that tried.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You have overdosed on jingoism. Iraq2Boogaloo was 100% a made up war for funsies and GWOT was a bake sale for the US MIC. all the preventative work was policing, intelligence and more policing.
                ISIS is a tossup tho, those buttholes needed to be murked, but honestly, we couldve just spanked them for operating in NATO until they left us alone and settled for dominating the Arab mudpeople

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The whole idea was to leave behind an environment where *the locals* did the policing for us. The cruise-missile-diplomacy of the '90s had clearly not had a deterrent effect, and about the only way to *make* it work was to drop a nuke or two, to encourage the others.
                It didn't work, of course; after scaring the pants off everybody for about a year (remember when Ghaddafi pre-emptively surrendered and gave us the A Q Khan nuclear secrets network that the CIA had completely missed?), the whole thing became a political football during the '04 elections, which convinced AQ and their supporters that the usual rope-a-dope tribal raiding strategy they'd been using for thousands of years would work just fine on the US.
                The big question right now is, have the guys who were funding and sponsoring the whole mess in secret gotten tired of throwing money at terrorists yet? If they haven't, then eventually we'll see another major attack. Then what? There's no appetite for trying to civilize anyone, at least not for another generation or two. Break out a nuke and call it a day?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >The whole idea was to leave behind an environment where *the locals* did the policing for us.

                It was called "Vietnamization" by LBJ.

                I still remember it when Bush Jr. tried that with Iraq and AfPak. Didn't work out really. Like history (and moral philosophy) was never learned from.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                "Vietnamization" was Nixon's policy, not LBJ's. And, it worked kinda o.k. until the post-Watergate congress refused to support South Vietnam and in fact threatened a constitutional crisis over war-making powers if Ford did anything to help them under his CiC authority, using the still-new new and uncertain authority of the War Powers Act.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                NTA but it worked in Germany, Japan, Korea, and to a certain extent, South America, one might even say the Middle East

                personally I feel that it's wiser to pull a Desert Storm and blast militant turdies into oblivion every now and then, but objectively there are large regions of the globe where this "soft empire" strategy works, so who am I to say otherwise really?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I know you're a dumbass because you think LBJ came up with Vietnamization. And I know you're a bigger dumbass because you think it didn't work when it was one of the reasons North Vietnam had to invade South Vietnam with tanks and planes and helicopters because their original strategic goal of having the Vietcong make a revolution and take down the South Vietnamese government didn't work.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >9/11 terrorists were all saudi arabians, following an extremist arabian subset of an arabian religion, with connections to the saudi embassy
                >counties invaded: iraq, afghanistan
                something doesn't quite add up

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I mean I don't think anyone misses Sandam

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Many people's analysis of why their enemies have chosen to invade them boils down to
              >our enemies are just moronic

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >midwit who has trotted out this pithy snippet misses (or never knew) that Clausewitz went on to say that (paraphrased) war can even simply occur because of general ill-feeling
            violent flashbacks to people misquoting Karl Popper to make their smug idiotic "punching teh natzees is correct and good" tautology without even considering Popper was talking about them.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This is probably bullshit but it's also written in such an old style of font I believe it happened, just more 19th century than 16th.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >this is probably bullshit
        The same scenario plays out on the internet a thousand times every day, it's human nature.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Art of War is a tactical 'How-To' handbook for dipshit aristocrats that don't want to humiliate themselves and get killed in their first outing. On War is a strategic treatise about when and why and how war happens

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    On War is more in depth than Art of War. Art of War is basically a handbook and primer for the typical privileged noble who has never seen mud in his life. You could carry the whole thing in your pocket and break it out when you're feeling conflicted.

    On War is more of a scholarly text, describing the relationship between war and politics. It's really something you assign to a military science student who has Art of War memorized. On War tends to drag on for a bit and it's really meant to be studied over a semester or five.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because it is.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The Art-of-War just teaches you to use common sense. That's it.

    Don't tell me that common sense wasn't common back then.

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Yes, the campaigns 1812/13 where one of the most onesieded aswhoppings in history, producing roughly 750k French casualties and destroying the napoleonic empire in a little over 15 months. Clausewitz was on the winning side, though.

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Ah, yes. Such bountiful and insightful knowledge.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >he doesnt see the value in writing down a lot of commonsense knowledge so that people dont forget

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Fair point. It WAS written in China.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >insightful knowledge.
      Imagine you're Pootin.
      >I can take Kiev in three days
      Imagine where you're now

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Fair point. It WAS written in China.

      If common sense was common, then dumb wars like Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, or Ukraine wouldn't have happened.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      “Common sense” isn’t all that common.

      >t. Real Life Experience Enjoyer

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >“War is nothing but a continuation of politics with the admixture of other means.”
    >Carl von Clausewitz, On War

    >"If it is to your advantage, make a forward move; if not, stay where you are."
    >Sun Tzu, Baby's First Battle

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    One was written by a German officer, the other was written by an ancient Chinaman. Simple as.

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >DAE know this niche book called the art of war which is common information now but wasn't when it was written??? Xd
    your kids don't deserve literacy and your rights should be trampled

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Losers learn a lot about winning

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Semi-related to the thread, but something that really rustles my jimmies is people repeating the quote about "le professional logistic, le dumb tactics" without any thought, if you don't know the mechanics of warfare you don't know shit, the tactics inform the logistics.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      At the same time, Strategy determines Tactics and Logistics shapes Strategy. It's really a giant feedback loop.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >tactics inform the logistics.
        while there is an element of feedback involved at all stages to the point that you can call all the elements interrelated, generally speaking, the tactics you adopt are constrained by resources and how those resources are deployed

        for example, in WW2, Germany didn't build U-boats because they were superior U-boat tacticians. Germany built U-boats because of a logistical constraint; it didn't have the resources to build a Mahanian battle fleet. This shaped their strategy, which was to attempt interdiction of the British isles. In order to carry out that strategy, they developed various U-boat tactics, such as the wolfpack.

        Logistics > Strategy > Operations > Tactics.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      At the same time, Strategy determines Tactics and Logistics shapes Strategy. It's really a giant feedback loop.

      policy > grand strategy > strategy > operations > tactics > martial arts

      the bigger scope is always more important than the smaller scope, but all are still important nonetheless.

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Both are merely introductory readings, and repeated endlessly by pseudo-intellectuals. Clausewitz idea of war is much more modern and defined than Sun Tzu's, Sun Tzu's book is unironically filled with absolutely simple advice like "Kill more of your enemy than he kills of your men", "attack where they don't think you're coming from", "bluff where you can".

    This is not a dig at Sun Tzu, he lived in a time where this wasn't considered normal thinking behind military strategy, and the average man had no more complex a thought than a basic ambush.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Sun Tzu's book is unironically filled with absolutely simple advice
      and yet throughout the history of mankind, the absolutely simple advice of "make war only if you can afford it" continues to be ignored to this day. So it seems the "absolutely simple" is not really that simple.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        No Black person, it is absolutely, stupidly simple advice. People fail to take in simple advice, this does not make the advice not simple.

        People can manage to frick up "What is 2+2?", this doesn't make it a complex question. "Don't rob that liquor store" is simple advice, yet hordes of Black folk manage to do it anyway.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Robbing a booze store is beneficial if you don't get caught. The risk calculus just differs from race to race and that's why we see those chimpanzee africans ruining their lives because they miscalculated.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Robbing a booze store is beneficial if you don't get caught.
            and this is why Sun Tzu had to write that book. >you should read it again

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I don't believe either of them had a good grasp on quadcopter drone warfare and social media battlefield tactics.

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    what are the best books for learning about strategy and generalship? I imagine that there is a course for this kind of thing at west point. does anyone know what textbook they use?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Pretty sure the DoD literally publishes the list of things that academy students should read. Though both Art of War and Clausewitz are always on the list. Which makes sense, considering they were literally written to teach new officers.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >he best books for learning about strategy and generalship
      start here and read it twice
      https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/combat-studies-institute/csi-books/fuller.pdf
      >In war it is almost impossible to exaggerate the evil effects of age upon generalship,

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Don’t uhhh fight your enemies in a swamp
    >Don’t forget to pay your troops and feed them
    >If your enemy is attempting to bait you into a blatant Loony Tunes-style trap, you can just not chase him like a moron
    >Order #14, Ginger Beef with Rice and Veggies, is good
    Wow, thanks Chinese War Guy!

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Remember, this was being written for incredibly moronic Chinese officials, of course it seems moronic to us.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      When you are one of the only experienced officers in an army where the commander would more often then not be a nepo baby who never even had to wipe his own ass, writing down the basics is pretty important.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Sounds like the Russians didn't read it.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      And yet armies across the world have failed to follow these basic rules for thousands of years.

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Left is written for lords that know nothing of war yet still command troops because of a moronic class structure. It covered only the very basics as you can see by how short it is.

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I dont see a seasoned staff officer who was in the shit and saw how war was run from all sides, as having no experience. sun rzu reads like every page was written by a different man.

  29. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Sun Tzu never existed. It's made up. It's just a bible of war.
    It's entire ideology was constructed to keep slaves in their place.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Has never read Art of War but has very strong opinions about it.

  30. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Seriously. The guy never existed. The only proof we find is "secret recently found CCP digs".
    It's a slave ideology. The entire thing.
    You start off with basic truths and common knowledge then build slavery in

    So that way people can go "well this part of the slave ideology makes sense so much the rest'
    It's just a slave bible. Most of it's pure esoteric nonsense.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >It's a slave ideology

      Sun Tzu never existed. It's made up. It's just a bible of war.
      It's entire ideology was constructed to keep slaves in their place.

      Pills, Alice. Now
      >It's made up
      just like the Bible. Yet some people occasionally read that book and seem to feel it is mildly important

  31. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The ultimate book on war.

    There is a lot of war in this book.

    It contains divine lessons on warfare from God.

    יהוה איש מלחמה יהוה שמו

    The Lord is a man of war: the Lord is his name.

    Exodus 15:3

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch! 'Tis one of the sacred relics Brother Maynard carries with him. Brother Maynard! Bring up the Holy Hand Grenade!
      ARTHUR: Consult the Book of Armaments!

      BROTHER MAYNARD: Armaments, Chapter Two, Verses Nine to Twenty-One.

      SECOND BROTHER: And Saint Attila raised the Hand Grenade up on high, saying, "O Lord, bless this Thy Hand Grenade that, with it, Thou mayest blow Thine enemies to tiny bits in Thy mercy." And the Lord did grin, and the people did feast upon the lambs and sloths and carp and anchovies and orangutans and breakfast cereals and fruit bats and large chu—

      MAYNARD: Skip a bit, Brother.

      SECOND BROTHER: And the Lord spake, saying, "First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then, shalt thou count to three. No more. No less. Three shalt be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shalt be three. Four shalt thou not count, nor either count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in My sight, shall snuff it."

  32. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Two different books, two different purposes. Sun Tzu has lessons that were once practical but are now allegorical about combat and more generally about how to treat adversaries and allies. Clausewitz is a treatise on mass warfare, or total warfare, conducted by nations, hence the aphorism of it being a continuation of politics. Both are still applicable but the ideas have to be adapted to the present to be useful in a military sense.

  33. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Clausewitz is just better and the fact you keep making these troll threads is proof of that fact living rent free in your coping and seething head.

  34. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    art of war is more abstract and philosophical while on war is more grounded and specific, both are good reads but right is more practical for any officer than left

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It's actually the reverse. Art of War is a very practical guide on how to avoid a military disaster. On War has more to do with why war happens and how it relates to diplomacy and national grand strategy.

  35. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >and was on the losing side to some of the most one-sided ass whoopings in military history.
    you know you often learn more from losing than winning

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *