
Paradoxical Geniuses: “Let us burn the ships” (2017) - allthings
https://notesonliberty.com/2017/06/16/paradoxical-geniuses-let-us-burn-the-ships/
======
keiferski
Not mentioned in the article is that Caesar himself was inspired by a previous
Roman general, Sulla. Sulla marched on Rome about 30 years before Caesar did,
thus showing that it was possible. Caesar's march also gave rise to some
expressions still used today: _" the die is cast"_ and _" crossing the
Rubicon"_ \- both of which mean "going beyond the point of no return."

 _Sulla is generally seen as having set the precedent for Caesar 's march on
Rome and dictatorship. Cicero comments that Pompey once said "If Sulla could,
why can't I?". Sulla's example proved that it could be done, and therefore
inspired others to attempt it; and in this respect, he has been seen as
another step in the Republic's fall._

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulla#Legacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulla#Legacy)

Kafka also has a nice related aphorism: _" Beyond a certain point there is no
return. This point has to be reached."_

~~~
FeepingCreature
Or as internet memes put it:

 _" There was a point where we needed to stop, and we have clearly passed it._

 _So let 's keep going and see what happens."_

------
pjc50
> “an adversary is more hurt by desertion than slaughter.”

And disease, starvation, and the general problems of the march. This is one of
the things I learned from Clausewitz's discussion of Napoleon's march on
Moscow, the one that produces the famous Tufte diagram.

The Grande Armeé numbered 422,000 per Tufte/Minard, 1 million per Wikipedia,
the same as several large music festivals; and they almost all had to _walk_
the ~3,000 kilometers to Moscow; _and most of the food had to be locally
sourced_. This necessarily resulted in the force being spread out over a huge
area, and every morning when it was formed up there would be slightly fewer
men.

Edit: and speaking of burning boats, when they got there, the Russians had
burned the food stores of Moscow, starving both the Invaders and the citizens.

~~~
lostlogin
The original graph is best, I think. It demonstrates this effect very well.

[http://nowscape.com/images/map_napoleon_moscow.gif](http://nowscape.com/images/map_napoleon_moscow.gif)

[https://external-
content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2F...](https://external-
content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fdatavizblog.files.wordpress.com%2F2013%2F06%2Fminard-
odt.jpg%3Fw%3D1080&f=1&nofb=1)

~~~
mikhailfranco
This is what one of those little steps in the graph was like: the crossing of
the Berezina river - a desperate battle between 100,000 men, with combat
engineering of a 100m bridge, and stragglers falling to marauding cossacks ...

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Berezina](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Berezina)

------
michaelt
_> The pervasiveness of these psychological strategies shows that, whether
each case was because of a genius decision or an accident of history, they
conferred a substantial advantage to their practitioners._

Of course if Cortés burned all his ships then his entire force was wiped out,
would news have reached home? And if it did reach home, would the news of
crushing defeat and incompetent leadership have been hushed up?

So I'm not sure I consider this 'substantial advantage' proven.

~~~
PeterisP
Cortes burned all the ships except one, so some communication was possible,
but retreating or evacuating the majority of troops was not.

------
KevinKallmes
This relates to the Nobel-prize-winning game theory of Thomas Schelling
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Schelling#The_Strategy_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Schelling#The_Strategy_of_Conflict_\(1960\))),
who argued that intentional handicaps could be strategically useful in
negotiations.

~~~
sonofgod
There's an example based on that work -- the game of Chicken, where you drive
a car at another car, person who swerves loses.

Payoff table: Both swerve: both lose face Neither swerve: both die They
swerve, you don't: you gain face, they lose it You swerve, they don't: you
lose face, they gain it

So: you make it abundantly clear that you can't control your car, even if you
wanted to. Tear out the steering wheel, or lash it down and jump onto the roof
of the car. Now it changes your opponents options to:

Swerve: lose face Don't: die.

(It's a trolley-problem-like scenario, don't ask too many questions about the
practicalities of tearing out the steering wheel)

~~~
sjcsjc
I read an amusing analysis of Chicken, but I can't recall where, pointing out
that playing against an omniscient opponent gave you an unassailable
advantage. You just determine not to swerve come what may and your all-knowing
opponent would have no choice but to swerve.

~~~
dodobirdlord
This is an example of the more general game theory advantage of commitment.[0,
1] An agent in a multi-agent game benefits from being able to commit to a
strategy.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precommitment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precommitment)

[1] [https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/game-
theory/commitment/...](https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/game-
theory/commitment/6CA322FDE419BE053064A7E213616394)

~~~
satori99
There is great demonstration of this in action on a British game show with the
players being in a prisoners dilemma situation;

[https://youtu.be/S0qjK3TWZE8?t=72](https://youtu.be/S0qjK3TWZE8?t=72)

------
vmh1928
Unit cohesion is the key element here and the idea that is transferable to
other endeavors. Cortez probably realized his army was a collection of
soldiers of fortune and other rogue elements and lacked the cohesion to engage
serious adversaries. Burning the ships was a way of communicating to them (as
was the practice of the Teutons and Persions of bringing families along,)
that, to use an American Revolution saying, "we either hang together or we'll
hang alone." Another example of good vs. bad unit cohesion occurs in the
Korean War when the Chinese entered the war. The U.S. Army (leaving out other
national units for this example,) on the west side of the peninsula fell apart
when they encountered the Chinese units leading to a retreat below the 38th
Parallel. U.S. Marine units, on the eastern side of the peninsula, hung
together and executed a fighting withdrawal from their encircled position. In
these examples I believe the difference is in leadership. The Army situation
devolved into an "every man for himself" rout while the Marines knew they
could rely on the unit the next hill over to stay where they were no matter
what and that that unit was relying on them to stay put as well.

In industry you sometimes see a similar "against all odds" spirit that infuses
an organization, usually from the top down but sometimes just the worker's
commitment to a cause although usually not caused by the CEO burning a
building.

~~~
mikhailfranco
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chosin_Reservoir](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chosin_Reservoir)

Yes, dramatic and desperate _' damn close run thing'_ breakout with heavy
losses, also including 41 Commando Royal Marines, and assisted by a lot of
close air support.

------
narag
Another way of commitment was the devotio:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devotio](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devotio)

------
csomar
There is a legend that a Muslim commander (who, ironically, led the invasion
of Spain) did the same thing:

> There is a legend that Ṭāriq ordered that the ships he arrived in be burnt,
> to prevent any cowardice. This is first mentioned over 400 years later by
> the geographer al-Idrisi, fasc. 5 p. 540 of Arabic text

\-
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariq_ibn_Ziyad#cite_ref-7](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariq_ibn_Ziyad#cite_ref-7)

> This strategic choice highlights the difference between logic and
> economists’ concept of “rationality,”

Maybe if economics were that simple. But if your increased soldiers' willpower
to fight is superior to what you lost in terms of tools, then the plan should
be economically viable, right?

~~~
mathattack
And game theory supports this type of commitment. People won’t pick fights
with you if you’re a “burn the ships” person

~~~
jbullock35
Yes, that line in the article is naive, perhaps gratuitous. "Credible
commitment" is a major concept in game theory. It's also important in certain
branches of the study of international relations.

------
codeulike
Or, survivor bias

(literally)

~~~
poiuyt098
literally all life is based on survivor bias

~~~
ben_w
While this is true, it’s probably a bad idea to rely on human reproductive
evolution when strategising a battle.

------
dredmorbius
Do not press a desperate foe too hard.

Ch`en Hao quotes the saying: "Birds and beasts when brought to bay will use
their claws and teeth." Chang Yu says: "If your adversary has burned his boats
and destroyed his cooking-pots, and is ready to stake all on the issue of a
battle, he must not be pushed to extremities."

\-- Sun Tzu, _Art of War_ , Maneuvering

[https://suntzusaid.com/book/7](https://suntzusaid.com/book/7)

In hemmed-in situations, you must resort to stratagem. In desperate position,
you must fight.

[https://suntzusaid.com/book/8](https://suntzusaid.com/book/8)

At the critical moment, the leader of an army acts like one who has climbed up
a height and then kicks away the ladder behind him. He carries his men deep
into hostile territory before he shows his hand.

He burns his boats and breaks his cooking-pots; like a shepherd driving a
flock of sheep, he drives his men this way and that, and nothing knows whither
he is going.

To muster his host and bring it into danger:—this may be termed the business
of the general.

[https://suntzusaid.com/book/11](https://suntzusaid.com/book/11)

------
GarrisonPrime
Sometimes, the problem is that you’re framing the problem wrong. Something
everyone could find useful to keep in mind.

------
mikhailfranco
Cortes landed and scuttled his ships at Veracruz, which is _not_ in the
Yucatan.

[https://onepeterfive.com/burn-ships-hernan-cortes-new-
world/](https://onepeterfive.com/burn-ships-hernan-cortes-new-world/)

[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c4/Ruta_de_...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c4/Ruta_de_Cort%C3%A9s.svg)

------
cryptozeus
Burning the boat Doesn’t always work well ...”in a move much like that of
Cortés, he set fire to his ships and forced his men to press on. In his case,
this did not end with stunning victory; Julian overextended his front, was
killed, and lost the campaign. Julian’s death shows the very real risks
involved in this bold strategy.”

------
Yessing
I heard the same story when I was a kid but the general that did it was "Tariq
ibn ziyad" in Gibraltar (the mountain is named after him). But I can't for the
life of me find a enlgish source that confirms it.

It's the origin of the famous phrase "the sea is behind and the enemy is in
front of you".

------
hodgesrm
Cutting loose from your supply lines is a time-honored way to win big in war.
The best example in the US is Grant's Vicksburg campaign. [1]

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicksburg_campaign](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicksburg_campaign)

~~~
dredmorbius
Napoleon offers an alternative take.

------
FeepingCreature
Of course, it's not like either logic or economics are new to the notion of
precommitment[1] ...

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precommitment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precommitment)

------
Iv
This is not a paradox, this is people managing morale. Real life is not a RTS
with stats on firepower, range and healthpoints and units fighting until they
die.

People come to battle for a reason, fight for a reason, obey for a reason, all
which may be different. 90% of a victory is bringing the soldiers you need
with the weapons you need commanded by the officers you need in the place you
need them. We focus on the 10% of battles that were won by tactical geniuses,
but even they, without the 90% of logistics that preceded it, would be
nowhere.

Caesar was a bridge builder. Hannibal crossed the Alps in winter. Mehmed II
carrying ships over land to siege Constantinople. Hitler's specialty, the
Blitzkrieg, was ALL about logistics.

------
pge
How credible are each of these stories? Curious if they are well substantiated
by the historical record or legends told about forebears (or enemies).

------
brandonlc
Great stuff :) Thanks!

------
lifeisstillgood
Now, rerun Cortes' landing a hundred times, and in what, maybe 98 times they
all end up dead, or returning home in one ship. Yes the natives would still
have suffered terrible losses from disease but some other leader than Cortes
would have gotten the empire.

The secret to being a trader is to not risk it all, to be there tomorrow to
claim tomorrow's profit. Or perhaps the secret to poker is to stay in till you
have a winning hand then risk it all.

But We have made lottery winners our heroes - I fear this is entirely the
wrong model.

NB Ceaser invaded Britain and definitely did not burn his ships - his mission
was not conquest of Britain but political gains in Rome. Caesar may have
risked it all - but when the odds on him where around 50:50, not at Cortes'
level of risk. To me the difference is profound.

~~~
golemotron
It's sad to see the submission being used as another reason to remind people
of the role of luck in human affairs. That take on things involving noted
individual success is a little too trendy now.

Aside from being overdone, the reason it bothers me is because it distracts
from so many other points. In this case, it distracts from the main point of
the article which is that not having a fallback position leads to higher
commitment. It's a lesson larger than just the warfare and politics examples
given. It has very broad applicability in life.

~~~
AkshatM
> not having a fallback position leads to higher commitment

That's what the article claims, but that doesn't necessarily make that
statement accurate.

There's no proof Cortez et. al.'s troops actually felt higher commitment as a
consequence of having their ships burned - we are expected to conclude that's
what happened, but we have only Cortez's word to tell us this and an article
demonstrating selection bias.

~~~
golemotron
You can't think of an example from your own life? Imagine feeling less
committed at a job and not really feeling like looking for another yet. Then,
you're fired while being on the hook for all of your living expenses. You
become committed to the new search then because there's no backstop.

This is a natural human response. Relatable even without testimony from
Cortez's troops.

~~~
Joe-Z
It's very easy to imagine the opposite being true and Cortez' troops falling
into despair as their leader supposedly turned insane and ordered them to
destroy their most valuable assets. Goes for your example too: Maybe not all
people are extremely motivated by severe setbacks in life.

~~~
golemotron
Not all, sure. But enough to make it real. Evolution has reinforced the trait
over millennia. We wouldn't be here otherwise.

------
StuffedParrot
Ahh, a libertarian finding joy!

