

Founders: Burn Your Boats - scottbrit
http://www.venturebent.com/2011/08/burn-your-boats/

======
TomOfTTB
Well first the story about Alexander the Great is incomplete. When Alexander
the Great faced the Persians they had the most formidable Navy in the world.
So when his men wanted to retreat to get reinforcements Alexander the Great
realized they wouldn't make it by sea. THAT is why he ordered the boats be
burned. Because his men were so afraid he thought they'd use the boats to make
a run for it even without his permission.

That is also why I think the author's logic falls short here. It may be brave
to say "victory or death" but it is also kind of stupid. Especially if there's
a chance you could be defeated but escape to fight another day.

Conflict is about strategy whether it be in business or war. Winning means
using every resource you have available to you in the most efficient way
possible. So I don't see the logic in destroying resources as motivational
tools.

~~~
gruseom
How do you know that about Alexander? Googling finds me no source.

~~~
bh42222
_How do you know that about Alexander? Googling finds me no source._

I want to archive this comment as evidence that in the year 2011 Google and
Wikipedia _still_ were not as good as books and libraries.

~~~
saraid216
Okay, please cite the dead tree written by a credible historian. Near as I can
tell, there are tons of claims about famous conquerors who burned their ships
(Caesar, Alexander, Cortez), but the only reputable source I know about is the
_Iliad_. Which was a very lovely piece of fiction, but nevertheless fiction.

~~~
amackera
I believe it was the Trojans who burned the Greeks' ships in the _Iliad_.

------
JanezStupar
Taking your best shot has more to do with determination than with getting
yourself into a situation where failure is not an option.

If we're talking generals of old: Sun Tzu kept on stressing that one should
not fight a battle that has not been won in advance. That when outcome is
uncertain it is better to live and to fight another day. Patience and
resilience are even greater virtues than boldness.

That is a lesson that for example Alexander, Napoleon and Hitler failed to
learn.

But it is indeed hard to be wise, patient and resilient when you are an
narcissist on a rampage. If you learn from figures of old, please don't take
them out of context and bet your life to heavily on their philosophies.
Because it may cost you dearly.

Edit: Thus if you really want to do good. Prepare. Prepare obsessively and
when time comes execute with determination. This ability is one virtue that
all the truly great people I know of posses.

~~~
Shenglong
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
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
> 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
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
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
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.

------
rauljara
A counter example:

When the USSR was invaded in world war II, Stalin implemented the "not one
step back" policy. Officers and NKVD agents were under orders to shoot anyone
who so much as took "one step back" in the face of the german onslaught.
Officers would be shot if they ordered a retreat. He did it so that Russians
would fight bravely and to the death, and many did. But it also meant that
Stalin's generals were not allowed to maneuver away from the Germans, and so
the German army could move past them and cut off their lines of supply. The
order was rescinded because it hampered the Russians more than it helped them.

But I am dubious of any comparison between business and war. War analogies
seem to bring out the least productive alpha traits in people (Balmer wanting
to crush Apple springs to mind). There are some parallels, to be sure, but
they are pretty damn different, too. Confuse the two at your peril.

------
sunir
Alexander the Great won Persia, but only after 10 years of dire struggle. His
was unable to reproduce this success in India.

The meta lesson is that anecdotes are not wisdom. Smaller armies sometimes
defeat bigger armies, but they mostly don't. Over enough trials, there will be
some stories of success in the face of failure, some interesting enough to
become legends. You should make decisions against the aggregate data, not
selectively interesting data points.

Alexander is an epic exception, hence "the Great". Even though he succeeded,
that doesn't mean it was wise of him to risk death and possible subsequent
collapse of his civilization.

------
gruseom
Alexander didn't burn his boats. That was Tariq ibn Ziyad, the Muslim general
who conquered Spain (well, Gibraltar - which is named after him) in 711.
[http://books.google.com/books?id=L-6ghsWDMTAC&pg=PA85](http://books.google.com/books?id=L-6ghsWDMTAC&pg=PA85)

According to Plutarch, Alexander did burn some wagons, but that was because he
wanted to make his army lighter so it could move faster.

------
corry
Is anyone else tired of the contrived, amped-up metaphors we use to discuss
startup life?

Dying in battle != having a failed startup venture

I don't get what we gain by pretending that the joy and opportunities of
startup life is somehow analogous to fighting for our very lives.

What's our downside, really? That we're embarrassed when we fail? Or that we
forgo a few years of big-company paychecks?

That's materially different than Alexander's army's downside - suffering and
then death.

~~~
nasmorn
Even though you are tired of it, here is another one.

The root cause of Alexanders invasion as of Herodotus was the march of the
10000. The Persian army could not stop this ragtag band of Greek mercenaries
in all those months and so they had obviously grown weak.

So if you see a big market were at least one new entrant survived, you should
raise more capital than they did and conquer the peacock throne of your
market.

~~~
corry
I can't tell if you're joking or not... so I'll just reiterate my main point:
men fighting to prevent the suffering and death of their families is not even
remotely the same category of thing as startups (and business in general).

We can read in lots of fancy analogies, but unless we recognize that war (with
the possibility of real, major loss) is played at completely different stakes
(and therefore different strategy), it seems like a silly exercise. My $0.02!

------
StavrosK
Ugh, another article offering a platitude.

No, removing your options is never good. No amount of anecdotes can change
that. You will probably come to a point where you'll wish you had the option,
because everything's crashing down.

Removing _other people's_ options, like in the anecdote, might be good _for
you_ , though.

Am I the only one who's tired of these empty articles all the time? "I take
cold showers to prove myself", "I burn my boats to make sure I can't leave",
etc. I don't think they serve any purpose.

------
herge
For anyone wishing to repeat this anecdote without being made fun of by your
friends, Alexander the Great did not burn his ships upon arriving in Persia,
because, you know, there is not much of a sea between the Middle East and
Persia.

It was Hernán Cortés who burnt his ships off the coast of Mexico in 1519 to
eliminate any ideas of retreat.

------
chegra
Let me see... Consider the situation were you see your opponent burn their
boat. Given that you read the art of war, you remember never to corner your
opponent, but always to provide him a way of escape. So, you send your
messenger to their camp and say you will not harm anyone who surrenders.
Additionally, you make a public scene of the men who surrender eating happy,
you get the point.

What has happened is your opponent has now created a room for your escape, now
what?

It is similar with entrepreneurial ventures. But instead of your enemies
creating an escape, your family and friends will provide one. Your parents
will offer to pay grad school for you; your friends will hook you up with a
new highly paying job. Your resolve will be broken.

------
brlewis
This theme appears on VC blogs over and over: Don't hedge your bets; swing for
the fences.

Small successes don't help VC funds, so VCs will present it as universally
good advice. In reality, it's good advice for some entrepreneurs and bad
advice for others. You have to examine your own situation and make your own
choice.

------
ArbitraryLimits
I thought it was Cortes who ordered his boats burned once he landed in the New
World.

Source: <http://burningboats.com/about-burningboatscom/>

~~~
kelnos
Uh, your source _also_ claims that Alexander burned his boats as well.

------
cynusx
This is a tactic that works to give large organizations a sharp focus... I
fail to see the analogy or usefulness for startups.

~~~
Simucal
I think the analogy has some merit when relating it to startups. For example
you could say at some point a founder must quit their safe day job in order to
focus on their startup. They are removing the option of retreat and sharpening
their focus by quitting their job.

------
battlebee
This is a horrible strategy.

Full-tilting might be brave, but better players are always willing to fold.

------
ookblah
I think maybe some of you are trying to make the analogy fit exactly and
missing the general point...

There is a lesson in this especially for startups. I took "burning your boat"
as a way to take that first leap and not look back. Someone else mentioned
quitting your job. It's purposely creating circumstances that force you to
look ahead and prepare for the future.

------
jswinghammer
One thing that's true about our brains is that even if we fail having not
fully committed we will change our internal narrative to always say something
like this:

"That didn't work out but there's really nothing I could have done
differently. This outcome turned out great because of X, Y, and Z anyway so
who cares?"

------
CPlatypus
Here's a better strategy: burn the other guy's boats. Limit _their_ options,
put _them_ in a position where their backs are to the water, make _them_ take
on enemies or burdens at no cost to you. Burning your own boats is a poor
substitute for lack of discipline.

~~~
mindcrime
This reminds me of the old George S. Patton quote: " _"The object of war is
not to die for your country but to make the other guy die for his_."

------
georgieporgie
If there's one thing I've learned in my career, it's that people who don't
keep a plan 'B' (and preferably 'C' and 'D') in mind are the absolute worst to
work for. This attitude is nothing more than a lazy refusal to maintain a
complex strategy, poorly disguised as heroism.

------
jccodez
I have done discounted promotions in the past, but we did revenue sharing and
it turned out great. 100k free downloads is painful. I wonder if there is a
way to tell amazon to limit the free copies to the first 5k people who
download, then go into discount mode.

~~~
jccodez
posted on wrong thread.

