Sun Tzu Quotes

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by Headshotmaster, Jul 4, 2009.

  1. Headshotmaster

    Headshotmaster Member

    Messages:
    1,509
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    A couple which I find useful(note these are part of a whole and them being individual makes them less useful when not in the context of Sun Tzu work as a whole)

    "Thus, though we have heard of stupid haste in war, cleverness has never been seen associated with long delays."

    "Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected"

    "If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them. "

    "Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him. "

    "In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns. "

    Just a few which I think stand out.

    And if you're wondering, yes, I am in the process of finishing up this written material...can't believe I didn't read it sooner.
     
  2. Mageknight

    Mageknight Member

    Messages:
    391
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Awesome finds. I've only seen out-of-context quotes like these before and never read any of his works, but the quotes alone are really interesting.

    I especially like the one in your sig; it fits you well.
     
  3. cpugeek

    cpugeek Member

    Messages:
    380
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You left out the most important quote of his:

    "All warfare is based on deception."

    Modern post-Deng Xiaoping Chinese political and military strategy is based on this one line.
     
  4. Chris0132'

    Chris0132' Developer

    Messages:
    9,482
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Unless it includes a step by step howto for each of those statements it isn't very helpful, it's like me saying to someone whose car has broken 'fix it then'.

    'Attack him when he is unprepared and appear when you are not expected' is completely unhelpful if it doesn't explain how to figure out when he is unprepared and how to tell when you are expected.

    The idea of basing anything on the self obsessed prattle of a 2-3 thousand year old chinaman is really stupid, and if it actually worked then governments wouldn't spend billions on getting numerical and technological superiority. That has almost always been the defining factor in a conflict ever since it became possible to have a technological and/or numerical advantage.

    What is of the greatest importance in war is being better than your opponent in as many ways as possible, having better equipment, larger forces, better information, superior training, any one of these can fuck up a plan, you can't fight without guns, you can't use guns without people, people can't use guns without training, and you don't know where to fight without information.

    War, like anything else, requires that you know how to do it and what you need to do and that you have the ability to do it, and all of those are complex things which this pillock isn't going to help you get better at by making cryptic comments.
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2009
  5. Castrol GTX

    Castrol GTX Member

    Messages:
    974
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Numerical and technological superiority really haven't been the defining factor throughout history. It seems like every Sun Tzu quote (I've never read it) is railing against the brashness of General's, who believe that their numbers and technology guarantee them victory and so ignore tactics.

    Think of Hannibal at Cannae. The Romans outnumbered him, were better trained, and were better equipped. Hannibal literally killed every Roman who didn't run, and only because his tactics were better. You can also look at Frederick the Great and Alexander the Great in the same way.

    That said, modern warfare is totally different. We stress tactics and intelligence more, Generals are chosen by merit and not hereditary.
     
  6. Chris0132'

    Chris0132' Developer

    Messages:
    9,482
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That's because in history, tactics have been nonexistant most of the time and technological superiority has also been impossible, there is a limit to how pointy you can make a stick.

    However once real improvements came along like gunpowder, we started to see them being the deciding factor. Cannon became the only way to besiege a city, if you don't have cannon, you lose.

    In the unlikely event we decide to abandon guns and tanks and satellites I'll be sure to read sun tzu, but until then I'll stick with my belief in numerical, technological, and methodical superiority.
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2009
  7. SupaChupa

    SupaChupa Member

    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    that and now you can just bomb the shit out of somthing till it doesnt exist anymore
     
  8. Chris0132'

    Chris0132' Developer

    Messages:
    9,482
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hell yeah.

    Needs a motivator.

    <picture of B2 bomber>

    CARPET BOMBING

    Where is your art of war now?
     
  9. Headshotmaster

    Headshotmaster Member

    Messages:
    1,509
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Numerical, technological, and methodical superiority still applies. It just makes your fighting strength superior, and your enemy less able to win. And the best idea to counter it is to evade and hide, which is what geurilla warfare is considered today.

    That's left up to the generals. Sun Tzu also said, using an old saying at the time " Hence the saying: If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a
    hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer
    a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle."

    Basically, Sun Tzu laid out methods for defeating your enemy, but how you will go about those methods specifically are left up to the commanders because only they can know their enemy. Sun Tzu does not know the enemy of generals, he just tells them what best course of action is. This is the essence of warfare, not a Warfare for dummies.

    If you read what I put at the top of the thread, I was clearly stating the quotes were cherry picked, and it was not the work as a whole. : /
     
  10. Private Sandbag

    Private Sandbag Member

    Messages:
    7,491
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I like it, people rarely think about "meta strategy" and that's what this does.
     
  11. Jessiah

    Jessiah Member

    Messages:
    2,947
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm reading this on my ipod touch in my spare time, great book. Very interesting.
     
  12. Chris0132'

    Chris0132' Developer

    Messages:
    9,482
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It still seems very stupid.

    It's a common practise, but stupid, it's like game designers, if you ask people who made the sims they say 'will wright'. Will wright didn't make the sims, the development team of the sims made the sims, will wrights contribution was pathetic compared to the contribution of all the other people on the dev team combined.

    Similarly, sun tzu doesn't win wars, all the technology and economy behind the development of technology and the production of weapons, the millions of people under arms, the intelligence networks, the logistical support, the training which teaches people how to do these jobs, the political factors which govern the amount of troops which can be deployed and where they can be deployed from, and what weapons can be used, those things win and lose wars.

    It is remarkably difficult to lose a fight when you have the advantage in all those areas, any general with half a brain can do that, throughout recent history most battles have been decided by the composition and state of the forces, not the strategy involved.

    Therefore I say that sun tzu is useless, and placing any degree of importance on it ignores all the other factors which actually make armies work, it's like saying the pilot is more important than all the vital machinery which makes the aircraft operate, a pilot can be mediocre and still fly a good aircraft, but less than perfect equipment in that same aircraft will make it crash regardless of what the pilot is doing.
     
  13. Headshotmaster

    Headshotmaster Member

    Messages:
    1,509
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Actually, I would say Maxis. And I don't see how this applies? So is your analogy that the sims=war, therefore Sun Tzu is considered Will wright?

    I don't see how this is an accurate analogy, because Sun Tzu developed his work by himself over time, and Will Wright had a team, unless of of course you consider every person and every battle that Sun Tzu witnessed to be part of his 'team' : /

    Even then it's still a stupid analogy because Sun Tzu wasn't on a team that co-developed war, nor did he himself develop "War, the game". He just layed down, as Jessiah put it, a Meta-Strategy.

    How can he, he's dead? But more seriously, he doesn't say he'll win the battle for you, you have to fight it yourself : /

    Sun Tzu says that is a great part of it, yes. so what are you getting at?

    War is not just about the composition of the army, how can it be? Sure you could possibly win by sending waves of technologically advanced infantry on the battlefield, but that does not make it a great way to fight.



    I don't see how you can make such a bold statement without ever being a leader in the armed forces. There are ways to fight better trained, better equipped soldiers. It's called Geurilla warfare.

    That being said, just because you are victorious for having superior weaponry doesn't make you a better combatant, it just makes you better equiped.

    Once again, another shitty analogy.

    The pilot is the brains of the aircraft. A great pilot uses his resources better than a bad pilot, and is able to be a stronger combatant. Not only that but a seasoned pilot could train new pilots and teach them how to successfully get more out of their aircraft. And whats this about a mediocre pilot being able to fly a good aircraft? With enough training, most people could fly, however if their skills are less than that of their enemy, they will get shot down. Piloting is more than a point and click adventure game : / .

    Therefore, I would say that the pilot is more important than the actual aircraft itself.

    Also, how is less than perfect equipment going to cause an airplane to crash? Considering the evolution of plane design, the argument could be made that every previous generation of aircraft were less than perfect because their technology is inferior. However they didn't crash because they were older equipment. Sure there may have been faulty equipment installed, but the designs were technically sound because they achieved their design specifications. Also, many American jets were retrofitted with newer and better technology, but that doesn't mean the previous equipment would cause the plane to crash, it just means that the new equipment gives a greater advantage.

    Have you even read the art of war? Sure many references throughout the work are outdated, but I believe that is because it was the way they fought back then, IE terminology such as 'spears', 'chariots', 'silver'. I'm sure if you had half a brain you could find a modern term in it's place. 'Gun', 'Vehicle', 'Money', comes to mind. However war itself never changes. People still fight over resources, land, money, and religion, and send those who enlisted/drafted to die.

    I think the reason people discredit Sun Tzu in modern warfare because we take every technological advantage we have as granted, and that because the technology is superior that we are great combatants. Such as we can ignore anything said about supplying troops because our supply lines are incredible from our use of aircraft and naval vessels.

    Sun Tzu does not tell you how specifically win, just how to win well.
     
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2009
  14. mr_quackums

    mr_quackums Member

    Messages:
    2,358
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    during the vietnam war the vietcong were out equiped, and out-trained, but they knew the terrain, they had the will to fight, and they knew the american military. the american military did not know the vietcong very well and could not attack its supply lines. who won that one?

    everything they did were directly in-line with sun tzu.

    just because we have fighter jets and machine guns does not mean he can not teach us how to use them.

    there is a reason the three most important books for any ruler were The Art of War, The Prince, and The Bible according to all major western powers until extremely recently.
     
  15. Jessiah

    Jessiah Member

    Messages:
    2,947
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Quackums is correct. The art of war is standard military reading for anyone thats going to be giving orders.
     
  16. Ikalx

    Ikalx Member

    Messages:
    6,210
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sun Tzu is more about philosophy of war, and how to conduct yourself within one, rather than a how-to book on winning.

    I haven't yet seen a quote that was news to me, nor have I seen one that I disagreed with. Most of it seems thoughtful and useful, but it's not groundbreaking if you've been using your noggin. Though of course, people may read it and apply it to certain things, and it may be helpful like that.

    I don't really like the practice of scholarly reading because I feel many people use it just to feel superior about quoting someone who is regarded as intelligent. Personally, i'd rather figure it out myself and say what i'm thinking, but I recognise the value in it, I just don't like the misuse. What I find funny but also a mark of our changing culture is the number of people playing games on the internet, feeling the need to read things like Sun Tzu as some kind of academia on how to play strategy games...I always wonder why people don't read the books when they first hear about them, instead of when they think it'd be "cool".

    It draws parallels in my mind of the kind of people who read lotr only after they've watched the movie and telling me it's great. I don't want your opinion if you needed to watch the movie first. Similarly, I don't want to hear it if you read texts to be cool, or if you think it's a shortcut to being 'better' than everyone else.

    If it is none of these things, and your motives are pure, then I applaud you for furthering your knowledge.
     
  17. Jessiah

    Jessiah Member

    Messages:
    2,947
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I suppose that makes sense. I've always viewed The Art of War, for the most part, as a basic manual to war as an art of deception.
     
  18. Headshotmaster

    Headshotmaster Member

    Messages:
    1,509
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I read it because it was interesting, however I only quoted it because I wanted to antagonize someone with the quotes about speed in war, as if you push someones buttons about my APC rush tactics.


    Jeez, you people are no fun :<

    Oh well, at least I'm honest.
     
  19. Castrol GTX

    Castrol GTX Member

    Messages:
    974
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    HSM likes boys.
     
  20. Chris0132'

    Chris0132' Developer

    Messages:
    9,482
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    In vietnam america had mediocre equipment, their helicopters got shot down easily and their rifles tended to break, the kalashnikovs the VC were using worked perfectly in the close environments they were fighting in.

    America had political problems, because they can't level cities to get rid of the VC hiding in them, and politics was what forced them to leave in the end.

    America had piss poor information about the enemy which is why they couldn't find them.

    So vietnam was lost because of poor information, equipment, and political factors, not lack of strategy, you can't formulate a strategy without information and the armaments required to perform it, and you can't have an army at all without political support.

    Assuming america had better equipment, better information, and weren't constrained by political issues, just how effective do you think 'guerrila warfare' would have been? You can't ambush someone who knows you're there, you can't hide in a city if it's been razed to cinders, and you can't tire a force with vast political and logistical support from their homeland.

    Strategy is not neccesary, equipment, information, training, and political and economic support are neccesary. If you have all of those, you will be a powerful, tireless, impossible to surprise force without weakness, even a CSS player could lead an army like that to victory because all they would have to do is tell the people with the guns to kill all the enemies, their information network would tell them where the enemies are, the equipment would allow them to kill the enemy easily, and their training would make sure they know how to move to the enemy and how to use their equipment, so they don't shoot tanks with pistols.

    Notions about 'good ways to win' and 'better combatant' are irrelevant, if you won the war you won the war, and yours is not the country that is now a mass of radioactive craters.

    The point of war is to win, how you conduct yourself should be conducive only to winning, philosophy is not helpful.

    War isn't a game where you get booed off if you come in with a huge advantage, or where there are rules in place to ensure everyone is evenly matched, you should do everything in your power to ensure you have a huge advantage because that will help you win. If you can use satellites to get the strategic equivalent of wallhacks then do it, if you can outfit your soldiers with armor that makes them invincible and guns which can kill anything in one shot then you should do it, and then go stomp on some developing countries.
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2009

Share This Page