
Who Was Sun Tzu’s Napoleon? - smacktoward
https://thestrategybridge.org/the-bridge/2020/2/11/who-was-sun-tzus-napoleon
======
rehasu
A point that was also enlightening to me: Chinese literature has two
components. One is the theoretical analysis like Sunzi Bingfa, Hanfeizi etc.
The other examples of application in different contexts, given in form of
stories. It's impressive how much more you can understand and learn if you
combine Sunzi Bingfa with Sanguo Yanyi for instance.

Also the story becomes more deep when you realize that there are story
elements where they act like the character would coincidentally slip into a
situation but actually was probably stupid on purpose to create a much better
outcome for himself. My favorite example being when Caocao fails to kill Dong
Zhuo who is laying in front of him sleeping. If you are a mass murderer like
either of these two there is almost no chance to fail to assassinate someone
laying in front of you sleeping. And yet Caocao did.

What happened due to this failure? The rebels took him in and started to
listen to his ideas, when before they ignored him due to his low background.
Also one of his biggest competitors, Wang Yun, who coincidentally is the owner
of the knife used in the attempted murder.

What would have happened if he had successfully killed Dong Zhuo? Lu Bu
probably would have killed him on the spot. Maybe he would go in history as a
small hero but he would have never become emperor.

~~~
ConfusedDog
Same goes with SiMa Yi and ZhuGe Liang, at least from the TV show
"JunShiLianMeng"(Alliance of Strategists). The famous SanGuo Yanyi story -
KongChengJi (Ruse of the Empty City). SiMa Yi did not enter the city even
though he know ZhuGe Liang was bluffing, and ZhuGe Liang knew that he knew.
Strategically, if SiMa Yi kills ZhuGe Liang, he would won the war against Han,
and CaoCao would have no use for a powerful strategist who has won people's
heart - SiMa Yi would surely be killed. It's a great modern TV show.

~~~
east2west
First of all, the popular empty-city story is made up by the author of
"Romance of Three Kingdom." It actually was Zhao Yan, a general in the same
faction as ZhuGe Liang, who pretended to have an empty fortress and repelled
an attack. Needless to say, there is no truth whatsoever to alternative
"truth" that drama speculated.

Second, by the time Sima Yi commanded a large field army, Cao Cao had died for
a long time. Sima Yi represented powerful large land-owners who would gain
monopoly on official positions during Cao Pi's reign, Cao Cao's son. It is a
recipe for weakening imperial authority and endangering emperors. Historians
argue that Cao Cao passed up the chance to become emperor because he would not
countenance such policy.

Third, that TV show is like so much of Chinese TV that is a wasteland. It is
melodramatic, ludicrous, and laughably bad acting. I am sorry, but it is
unwatchable, not just the show, even the trailer. Compare the stylized combat
and bloodletting to the realism of "Game of Throne" (yes, I am ware of the
irony of calling historical drama fake and fantasy real); there is no
comparison. Nothing there is believable, much like every word out of CCP's
mouth. It is sad, really.

~~~
ConfusedDog
I knew what you said just FYI. I wouldn't treat the book or show too
seriously... it's just entertainment, not history.

The show's main character is SiMa Yi, which is kind of new to me. It's like a
retold of "Romance of Three Kingdom" from a SiMa family and Cao family
perspective. Though I hated a lot of Chinese TV shows, this one I actually
like and would recommend. I can't remember any combat in this show though,
probably fairly average. I wouldn't compare it to Game of Thrones, maybe House
of Cards is a closer genre.

~~~
east2west
Sorry if I come across a bit strong. I am a something of a history buff, and
the liberty that some Chinese historical shows take is shocking to me. I am
like you, curious about different interpretations of familiar events.

~~~
ConfusedDog
I know it's just fyi. I understand the frustration that one of your favorite
parts of history is being stumped on by bad TV shows. Any kind of "YanYi" is
pretty just entertainment show. Some are not too bad, some are just aweful. In
recent years, these bad shows are just getting worse. I think
"JunShiLiangMeng" is better than most. Characters looked normal rather than
hair-dyed XiaoXianRou with no facial expressions.

------
the_af
My understanding about the article, which makes it interesting to me, is that
(according to TFA) a lot of what is generally understood about The Art of War
as general strategic concerns applied in very large scales or long timeframes
was actually way more _literal_ than people think. Always according to TFA,
when Sun Tzu recommends "attacking allies" he literally means attacking them
on the battlefield, because they are more likely to flee -- _not_ undermining
alliances prior to a war, as many people understand it. Likewise, when he
means "attacking the enemy's strategy" he didn't mean "undermining the long
term grand strategy of the enemy" but actually "acting to neutralize the
immediate battlefield plan" (as in "if the enemy tries to lay a siege, provoke
him into attacking"). Here strategy means "immediate battlefield plan", not
"long term nation-wide strategy".

Overall, always according to TFA, Sun Tzu's Art of Way is _way more practical_
and _literal_ , and less "hand-wavey overall strategy" than generally
understood. I think I actually like this because it more or less destroys its
appropriation by self-help/business gurus. After all, if Sun Tzu is literally
talking about killing your enemies while they are crossing the river, it's
less useful as a metaphor for startups -- a welcome side-effect.

~~~
jabl
> Overall, always according to TFA, Sun Tzu's Art of Way is way more practical
> and literal, and less "hand-wavey overall strategy" than generally
> understood. I think I actually like this because it more or less destroys
> its appropriation by self-help/business gurus. After all, if Sun Tzu is
> literally talking about killing your enemies while they are crossing the
> river, it's less useful as a metaphor for startups -- a welcome side-effect.

If you read Sun Tzu, at least you can then claim to have read one of the
classics, and know a little bit about ancient warfare. Even if it's not
directly applicable to running a startup. Which is certainly more than can be
said of the pointless waffle that fills the self-help/business shelves in the
bookstore.

~~~
the_af
Oh, yes, agreed! And of course it's worthwhile to read The Art of War, because
it's an interesting book.

But note I was talking about those worthless derivatives "The Art of War for
Business", "The Art of War for Entrepreneurs", etc. Those rely on Sun Tzu's
work being generic enough it can be applied to whatever, so it's hilarious to
find out it maybe wasn't... exposing those derivative books as the trash they
truly are.

------
david_draco
"The Art of War is traditionally attributed to a military general from the
late 6th century BC known as "Master Sun" (Mandarin: "Sunzi", earlier "Sun
Tzu"), though its earliest parts probably date to at least 100 years later."

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_War#History](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_War#History)

~~~
baybal2
It's a long living speculation that Sun's clan warfare was a polar opposite of
the book, and that them spreading their military methods was world's first
examples of disinformation warfare.

They teach sons of all nobles the thing, and when the time comes to slash
throats, they use them being "gridlocked" into their thinking against them.

~~~
KaoruAoiShiho
Where can I read about this speculation.

------
azurezyq
Zuo Zhuan is an awesome book with lots of stories about strategic thinking.
The writing style is also very succinct and quite pleasant to read (require
knowledge about classic Chinese for sure). One good example is the following
piece which I read from my high school textbook.

English translation:

[https://oastarod.wordpress.com/2016/02/19/zhu-zhiwu-
causes-t...](https://oastarod.wordpress.com/2016/02/19/zhu-zhiwu-causes-the-
withdrawal-of-qins-army/)

It describes how an excellent diplomat manipulated vulnerabilities between
countries to turn down a conflict. It happened in 630BC, but still applies to
today.

------
leftyted
> We need to stop untethering the text from the historical and cultural milieu
> of its origination

The reason we still read these people at all (Thucydides, Machievelli,
Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, etc) is because their work transcends "the historical and
cultural milieu of its origination".

Time (and the accumulation of human opinions) is the real judge here and in
the case of all of these writers, time has judged that they are, in fact,
saying something eternally true about politics and fighting wars that
transcends their historical circumstances. If you want to delve into their
historical backgrounds, that's great -- and perhaps it will lead to new, valid
intepretations. But it isn't wrong to read them as political philosophy, which
is what we generally do.

~~~
kace91
Isn't it even disputed among experts whether Machiavelli's the Prince is
satirical or not?

I can't possibly imagine how one can both treat a source as holding profound
and transcendent views and be uninterested or unsure of what the author meant
when writing it; at that point it seems that the literary work is merely an
excuse for the reader to project their own ideas into an authorative source,
and the work is only valued for its prestige.

~~~
rmah
As eru tersely pointed out, most contemporary literary analysis and criticism
is no longer based on what the author meant, but instead based on how the work
itself, irrespective of the author's intent or the context within which it was
written. Thus, instead of a search for "the truth" as expressed by the
author's inner thinking, the question instead becomes how work affects
readers. This, obviously, bothers many people, but is, IMO, a valuable
approach.

Thus, "project[ing] their own ideas into an authoritative source" is perfectly
fine if phrased a bit more nicely. Perhaps more like "adapt our understanding
of the source material in light of contemporary thinking". Not to say that
context doesn't matter at all, especially with translations. But in the end,
when analyzing works such as "Art of War", it's unavoidable that we project
our current context onto its text. As post-modernists point out, we cannot
escape our biases, so why pretend to do so?

~~~
the_af
You're right. And this projection is both inevitable and welcome.

But you must admit it's at least _a bit_ funny if when you read Sun Tzu's
"attack your enemy's allies" you understand "work to undermine the alliance,
maybe sow discontent so that they turn against each other" but wise old Sun
Tzu actually meant "physically stab your enemy's ally with your sword. Right
through the heart. That's what 'attacking' means, right? What do you mean
'undermine', anyway?".

~~~
CamperBob2
Oh, attack the _enemy_ 's allies (slaps forehead.) I get it now.

Reading your earlier post, I was trying to figure out how it could possibly be
helpful to attack your own allies on a battlefield.

It's an interesting commentary on Sun Tzu that someone could even imagine him
prescribing such a course of action.

------
justlexi93
A young Napoleon arrives on the scene with abook under his arm symbolizing his
years of study of military history. He finds the French generals and leaders
in a pub. Writing in The Art of War some 2,500 years ago, Sun Tzu postulated
two dialectic forces: Zheng is the “ordinary” element that fixes the enemy in
place.

------
speeder
This article about the context of Sun Tzu, made me remember my own discoveries
about the bible (disclaimer: I am a firmly Christian)

A lot of the passages that seem completely controversial now, can be
understood if you think about what was going on.

For example, saw a bunch of people saying it was proof of misoginy the fact
the bible consider menstrual fluids "unclean", thing is, that law was enacted
when they lived in a mobile tent camp, if a person with a blood-transmissible
disease washed on the middle of the camp water source for example, it could
quickly infect everyone.

Or Paul in New Testament saying men should NOT cover their heads, make a lot
of sense when you find out people at the time decided to adopt a fashion from
some roman nobles that started to use robes with head covering during
religious events, with the intention of appearing more spiritual.

~~~
thechao
> For example, saw a bunch of people saying it was proof of misoginy the fact
> the bible consider menstrual fluids "unclean", thing is, that law was
> enacted when they lived in a mobile tent camp, if a person with a blood-
> transmissible disease washed on the middle of the camp water source for
> example, it could quickly infect everyone.

This is just purely ex post facto pseudo-scientific rationalism of rampant
misogyny. If you want to be true to the statements made in historical sources
(e.g., the bible), try to put yourself in their shoes -- in this case, imagine
that you are a patriarch in a deeply misogynistic society that views women and
children as property and not people. The reason for the law is thus completely
justified to such a person: to them, menstrual fluid is _gross_ and just
_another example_ of why women clearly do not have the full rights of a "real
person".

~~~
speeder
Now can you explain to me how the same idea apply to semen? Because it was
also considered "unclean", in the same manner menstrual blood was.

~~~
Trombone12
An _obvious_ difference is that it's the semen that makes things unclean,
while for menstruation it's the _woman_ herself that is the unclean agent.

For semen, there is a clear distinction that it is anything it touches becomes
dirty and needs washing. But for menstruation its whatever the _woman_ touches
that becomes unclean (and for seven days it seems!), not merely what the blood
touches.

The original comment thus provides an explanation for why these two cases are
treated separately, which is basically what you asked for.

------
earthboundkid
Who was Chairman Mao's Julius Caesar? Who was Sun Yat-sen's Alexander the
Great? Who was Laozi's Descartes?

~~~
Accujack
Who is President Trump's Mickey Mouse?

~~~
whateveracct
His term limit of course!

