The Art of War: The Liveblog

Thing about sieges is that back then they were often very bloody, costly affairs, where stalemates could drag on for long periods of time (their equivalent of trench warfare, more or less). In most cases it devolved into a battle of attrition.

Plus, they give an ungodly advantage to the defender. As they say, all other things being equal, it takes roughly 3 times as many men to take a well-defended position as it takes to hold it. Also, if your general happens to be a genius at tactical maneuvers (like Alexander the Great) that talent of his goes to waste.

edited 21st Aug '10 3:43:54 PM by jaimeastorga2000

As [[[WWI You]] [[WWII have]] stated, this holds true to modern times,sieges just plain suck. (Unless your the Green Goblin)

Chapter 3 continued

8. It is the rule in war, if our forces are ten to the enemy's one, to surround him; if five to one, to attack him; if twice as numerous, to divide our army into two.

One of the commentators doesn't like the "divide the army in two part." The others say it's ok because you can use it to flank the enemy. I was suprised about the five to one and ten to one parts. I would have said use the five to surround and ten to attack because if you surround then they're likely to give up. Then I realized that if they don't give up then you're setting yourself up for some really bad casualties. Nothing fights harder than a cornered animal. If you use ten to one to surround they're much more likely to give up though, and the five to one attack scenario will likely convince the enemy to leave the field without fighting at all.

9. If equally matched we can offer battle; if slightly inferior in numbers, we can avoid the enemy; if quite unequal in every way we can flee from him.

I notice he doesn't make any mention about how things change if you are in a defensible location. I guess he's really only concerned with being on the offensive. At least that's how it's looked so far.

Three ways a general can royally fuck up his army.

1. Tell them to do something they can't.

2. Pretending you can run an army like you run a kingdom.

3. Making stupid people officers.

From the commentary: The skillful employer of men will employ the wise man, the brave man, the covetous man, and the stupid man. For the wise man delights in establishing his merit, the brave man likes to show his courage in action, the covetous man is quick at seizing advantages, and the stupid man has no fear of death.

Best. Quote. Ever.

edited 30th Mar '10 5:18:08 PM by CDRW

That is an awesome quote, but I can't find anything like that in my copy. What's the chapter and verse?

Also, our verse numbers seem to be different; my 9 is talking about assaults on cities, whereas yours seems to line up with 12 (ten to one) through 17 (completely overmatched, flee).

After that, it's

• 3-19: There are three ways in which a ruler can bring misfortune upon his army
  • 20: When ignorant that the army should not advance to order an advance or ignorant that the army should not retire to order a retirement. This is described as hobbling an army.
  • 21: When ignorant of military affairs, to participate in their administration. This causes the officers to be perplexed.
  • 22: When ignorant of command problems, to share in the exercise of responsibilities. This engenders doubt in the minds of the officers.

edited 30th Mar '10 5:36:42 PM by DrRockopolis

That is kind of weird about the numbering.

The quote isn't in Sun Tzu's text, but is in the commentaries right after the third way to screw up your army. Tu Mu said it.

Sorry I made a mistake saying it's talking about the general ruining the army. It's the ruler like you have. It looks like there's some significant wording differences between our versions though. After the few quotes you provide I think I like Lionel's better. It's got some weird turns of phrase but seems easier to understand for the most part.

edited 30th Mar '10 5:53:34 PM by CDRW

Nope, don't have it in my commentaries. Who was it from? Don't mind me, I'm blind.

• I do like Chang Yu's comment after the second one,
  • Benevolence and righteousness may be used to govern a state but cannot be used to administer an army. Expediency and flexibility are used in administering an army, but cannot be used in administering a state.

And yeah, Giles does seem to flow better, to be more poetic and a bit less stilted, I guess.

edited 30th Mar '10 6:02:44 PM by DrRockopolis

Yeah, ol' Sun Tzu mentions later on that there's something called "Dying Ground" (or similar) where someone will fight to the death (he says this is a bad thing because it means they just. will. not. die. (quickly, anyway)).

That sounds cool. I can't wait to get to that part.

In my version of The Good Book (The Art of War, silly), it's rather late on, so you may have a lot of reading to do.

But now that I think about it, it does sound awesome.

Chapter 3 continued.

5 essentials for victory

• know when to fold 'em, know when to run.
• Know how to beat up the little guys and the big guys.
• Morale.
• Preparation and ambush.
• A king who has mastered the fine technique of delegation.

18. 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 defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.

Hey I already knew this quote! It was in School Rumble. Tenma thought it was a book about love and relationships. See, anime is useful.

Sorry it's short tonight guys. I reached the end of the chapter and don't have time to start the next one. Tomorrow, Chapter 4 Tactical Dispositions!

edited 31st Mar '10 7:59:52 PM by CDRW

I think that might be Sun Tzu's most famous quote. I also think I read it in Animorphs. (Not sure which book, but it was an early one, and it was one of a bunch of sayings Rachel had tacked up on a board which was only ever mentioned in that scene.)

...Are you going to continue this liveblog?

Just asking because you appear to have dropped off the radar.

Yes I'm going to continue. I'm really sorry about dropping off like that. The end of last week and weekend got really crazy with a bunch of personal garbage. I'm getting back on track though and will have a new post up this evening.

Sorry for the unannounced haitus guys. The Art of War: The Liveblog is back on track, and here's the first post for Chapter 4.

Tactical Dispositions

The commentators say it means "marching and countermarching on the part of two armies with a view to discovering each other's condition." Sounds like scouting and spying to me.

1. Sun Tzu said: The good fighters of old first put themselves beyond the possibility of defeat, and then waited for an opportunity of defeating the enemy.

I'm not sure how to feel about that. It seems to go against his policy of speed, and is likely to put you into a siege. It's good advice in general, but very difficult to put into practice.

He then proceeds to talk about how defense is something you have control over, but the enemy provides opportunity for defeat by making mistakes you can exploit.

3. Thus the good fighter is able to secure himself against defeat, but cannot make certain of defeating the enemy.

I can't quite say what, but there is something...off about these statements. On at least one level I completely agree. It makes sense that you can only control your own actions and that you have no control over your enemy, but I feel like I'm missing something or not looking at it in quite the right way.

I like this though "One may KNOW how to conquer without being able to DO it."

The text, as interpreted by the commentaries then says that staying defensive indicates insufficient strength and attacking a superabundance. A general skilled in defense uses secrecy and concelment to hide his position, and one skilled in attack uses a blitzkrieg. Ok, maybe not blitzkrieg in it's full definition, but still a "lightning war."

8. To see the victory only when it is within the ken of the common herd is not the acme of excellence.

This seems to be saying "plan two steps ahead of your enemy."

''9. Neither is it in the acme of excellence if you fight and conquer and the whole Empire says, 'Well done!'"

I really don't know what to say about that. It looks like he doesn't like getting praise for doing your job. The commentators bring it back to winning without shedding blood though.

Glad to see it's back on track!

The text, as interpreted by the commentaries then says that staying defensive indicates insufficient strength and attacking a superabundance. A general skilled in defense uses secrecy and concelment to hide his position, and one skilled in attack uses a blitzkrieg. Ok, maybe not blitzkrieg in it's full definition, but still a "lightning war."

That's a pretty interesting observation. Of course, if I'm not rambling here, you could say that it might be better if those skilled in offense took their time when going on the offensive, because armies/tactics geared toward "lightning war" tend to falter and breakdown if faced with significant delays/defeats (like how the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe (and presumably the Kriegsmarine) made absolutely incredible advances in the early years WWII, but at some point after Operation Barbarossa/the Battle of Britain/the North African campaign they were backpedalling ever since. That was a particular problem on the Eastern Front as they ended up being caught in the Russian winter and they ended up having their asses handed to them).

Enough of my armchair general tendencies, though.

No problem with armchair generals in this thread. I might learn something.

The Art of War: Chapter 4 continued.

11. What the ancients called a clever fighter is one who not only wins, but excels in winning with ease.

12. Hence his victories bring him neither the reputation for wisdom nor credit for courage.

Damn, I guess that answers my question about verse 9. Makes me think the commentators are just making stuff up now.

Sun Tzu is in favor of the brilliant tactic of not making any mistakes. HONESTLY, when you're good enough at war that you can use plans like "just be perfect" it probably means you don't need to be reading this book. I guess this sort of thing is bound to happen when getting advice from someone who could out-chuck Norris.

15. Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory.

Now that's just not fair! I'm never going to win any fights like that. How are you supposed to go from being a bad strategist to a good one if you can't accumulate experience? Wanted for hire: Commanding general, 20 years experience required. Sound familiar to anyone?

He says power to control sucess is given by the moral law, method, and discipline. And it's time for another one of his lists now.

17. In respect of military method, we have, firstly, Measurement; secondly, Estimation of quantity; thirdly, Calculation; fourthly, Balancing of chances; fifthly, Victory.

I like how he lists victory as one of the steps. Obvious, but it's nice to have the goal built into the process.

18. Measurement owes its existance to Earth; Estimation of quantity to Measurement; Calculation to Estimation of quantity; Balancing of chances to Calculation; and Victory to Balancing of chances.

I don't understand this. Someone please help.

20. The onrush of a conquering force is like the bursting of pent-up waters into a chasm a thousand fathoms deep.

Good imagery there, and a great way to end the chapter I think. This was an interesting chapter, definitely the one I've had the most trouble understanding and accepting as pure truth so far. It's definitely filled to the brim with useful tidbits though.

Sun-Tzu invented Catch Twenty Two

About line 15: What he means is that you should know how you want to win the battle before you start the battle, because otherwise you are going to waste a lot of time trying to cobble together a plan during the battle.

Or else possibly that you should only fight battles that are so strongly stacked in your favor you have no doubt you will win them. But that's not really consistant with the rest of the chapter, so probably first interpretation is right.

I'd go with the second interpretation personally. Especially since 20 implies that if you've set things up right, the actual fighting should be very straightforward. EDIT: Or both actually. Number 1 with a plan to achieve number 2.

For 11 the way I always understood it was, "if you're fighting for your life, then you've already messed up". Try to cut things off before they become life or death battles. So your victories won't bring you fame, because no one will see them.

edited 7th Apr '10 9:01:01 AM by rastilin

About line 18:

Basically it's saying that you can't have one thing without the others (in other words, you cannot have victory without balancing your chances. You can't balance your chances without calculation. You can't calculate without estimation of quantity. You can't estimate quantity without measurements. Finally, measuring comes from the Earth, whatever that means). All of these need the thing that comes before it, or you will not achieve your ultimate goal (Victory).

Hmm, this looks interesting. I've got a 1998 translation by Yang Shibing, which is pretty easy to read but at times gets dull and plodding. It only has one commentary, by Tao Hanzheng, but the commentary all comes after the text itself so there's no interruptions.

One of the commentators doesn't like the "divide the army in two part." The others say it's ok because you can use it to flank the enemy. I was suprised about the five to one and ten to one parts. I would have said use the five to surround and ten to attack because if you surround then they're likely to give up. Then I realized that if they don't give up then you're setting yourself up for some really bad casualties. Nothing fights harder than a cornered animal. If you use ten to one to surround they're much more likely to give up though, and the five to one attack scenario will likely convince the enemy to leave the field without fighting at all.

Some time later on, he goes into exactly this idea. He specifically says that if you're attacking your enemy, you should always leave them an escape route; after all, if a soldier can escape, it's likely he will, and then you have one less person to kill. If he can't escape, he's just keep on fighting, and fight all the harder because there's no other escape.

Now that's just not fair! I'm never going to win any fights like that. How are you supposed to go from being a bad strategist to a good one if you can't accumulate experience? Wanted for hire: Commanding general, 20 years experience required. Sound familiar to anyone?

I think the idea is that generals work their way up from below, and are trained in tactics by their superiors before being given command.

Or, um, what Black Humor said. Come to think of it, that's probably a more accurate interpretation.

As for measurement coming from Earth, Earth here refers to terrain; that seems to be how my edition translated it. All he means by that is that you should study the battleground carefully to figure out how to win.

Oh, so that's what 18 meant. Thanks Flanker and Vampire.

I should be taking up a real time strategy game to try and put the stuff from this game into practice. That'd probably make for a good liveblog. Too bad I don't have the time or a game though. :(

Anyway, The Art of War: Chapter 5: Energy

Ooh, maybe Sun Tzu will finally be able to solve the coal vs nuclear vs green power debate. It's about time too.

1. Sun Tzu said: The control of a large force is the same principle as the control of a few men: it is merely a question of dividing up their numbers.

There's quite a few ways you could take this, and the commentary doesn't make a distinction. You could say it advocates the skill of delegating, that there's no functional difference between a unit and a man other than scale, the benefits of good organization, or that there's a sort of reverse law of diminishing returns at work in governing a proper army. Good prose that, a simple statement that conveys a complex idea without losing its subtleties.

Verse two elaborates that commanding a large force is no different except for the need for signs and signals.

Holy mother of Lain, that's a long piece of commentary after verse 3. The verse itself merely says withstanding an enemy's attack is "effected by maneuvers direct and indirect." Give me a minute or three to see if the commentary adds anything.

All right, I'm back. It's a big discussion of CHENG and CH'I. Lots of good stuff and quotes, but not interesting enough to put in here. It deals with the philosophy of the two and how they apply in confusing the enemy. Quick quote that sums it up pretty well; by Li Ch'uan: "Facing the enemy is CHENG, making lateral diversion is CH'I"

Stun Tzu would like you to make the impact of your army the equivalent to "a grindstone dashed against an egg." I too would like my army to be like that. There is much pleasure to be gained from milling eggs. Oh, and he says you've got to understand weak points and strong points in order to do that.

Stunning Tzu claims that direct methods get you into battle, but indirect methods win battles. Indirect tactics are unending, eternal, and cyclic.

7. There are not more than five musical notes, yet the combination of these five give rise to more melodies than can ever be heard.

T_T Poor backwards Chinese, having to make do with so little. I feel privileged to live in this modern era where we have discovered three more. I am particularly fond of G myself. Apparently they have more primary colors than us though. Have we given up so much in our quest of greed?

Lest I confuse you on the point of this chapter, here's this quote:

11. The direct and indirect lead on to each other in turn. It is like moving in a circle - you never come to an end. Who can exhaust the possibilities of their combination?

Overall, very...philosophical so far. I tend to have an allergic reaction to philosophy though so I must turn to stilted humor. I'm sorry to let you guys down. :(

^^Or, since he's talking about measuring and calculating stuff, Earth is the stuff that you are measuring, so that you can do calculations with the measurements, so that you can make a plan, so that you can win.

EDIT: Damn, ninja'd by the liveblog.

edited 7th Apr '10 7:45:22 PM by BlackHumor