Did Napoleon read Sun Tzu...? [Archive]

Ben Franklin

May 26th 2004, 05:06 PM

I don't think so. There would have been some mention of it. And if he had followed the principles therein, he might not have lost.

Maybe so. But case in point: the Japanese considered the text as a military secret when it was first introduced. It's not so far-fetched that Napoleon would have kept such a book hidden. I'm asking only if it's plausible, not actual. Besides, even Sun Tzu himself wrote that just because you know how to win, doesn't mean you can. :thumb: In Machiavelli's case, he also titled one of his books, "The Art of War" ! ... He could've borrowed from Sun Tzu and adapted it for the armies of his times. Remember, during Machaivelli's times, all Italy was divided into warring principalities (much like Japan's Sengoku period), so Sun Tzu's book would be quite relevant for the princes. The Silk Road had been open to Venice for centuries (since Marco Polo's era): although not substantiated, it's possible the Italians had copies of Sun Tzu's book, based on their long trade association. Historically, few Westerners were interested in ancient Chinese texts until French missionaries came to China in the late 18th century, which coincides with Napoleon's later rise to power. And lastly, why would Napoleon ever tip off his enemies to the secret of his success ? He wouldn't. :ahem:

anthrogirl

May 26th 2004, 05:19 PM

Actually, Interest in Chinese texts was strong when the jesuits visited China (Matteo Ricci, et al) in the 16th century. Althought there is evidence of Christian presence in the Mongolian Yuan. But don't forget Nestorian Christianity in Tang China as well (they arrived in Changan in 635ce). So who knows? The Silk Road afforded many opportunities for cultural exchange with Europe.

anthrogirl

Ben Franklin

May 26th 2004, 05:59 PM

Snarf

May 26th 2004, 10:10 PM

The Italian had trade with China for hundreds of years before Napoleon took over in Naples as French military governor. I'm wondering had he discovered translations of "The Art of War"...? Using its principles to thrash the armies of Europe...? (Maybe Machiavelli had a copy, too) Does anyone here think it's plausible...? :huh:

Napoleon himself wrote much of his admiration for Hannibal and Alexander, and was much more likely to be inspired by them. Not only because they were much more well-known to Europeans, but also because battlefield distances, types of communication, and supply-line logistics were very similar for Napoleon as for Alexander or Hannibal. He might have heard of Sun Tzu, of course but we don't know how accessible The Art of War would have been to Napoleon or any other French speaking person of the late 1700's, whereas the campaigns of alexander, hannibal, and Caeser were all well-known and well-described and would have been taught in military schools in France.

anthrogirl

May 27th 2004, 10:26 AM

:offtopic:

Anthrogirl, I just had a sudden thought... I been thinking this over and over for some months now: I've been trying to reconcile how it is that blacks in European countries are more civilized than in America, and I had a flash that I wanna bounce off of you & see what you think.

Do the blacks in America (as a group) suffer from low self-esteem...? It could be because of slavery of what-have-you, but could self-esteem issues be the cause of violence, ghettos, etc. in American black society...? :huh:
I appreciate your question, however, I am a bit concerned by your first paragraph. First of all, the term 'civilized' is archaic--because it assumes a degree of biological determinism. In other words, no group is more civilized than another; they may be 'modernized' or 'integrated' or 'developed', but to call them 'civilized' assigns a heirarchical value to humanity based on social theories produced in the age of colonialism (ie "savages" vs. "gentlemen"). It assumes that these people are incapable of acheiving full "humaneness", that they are animalistic and unable to control themselves. This is why Thomas Jefferson handed out smallpox blankets to the Native Americans.

Secondly, European minorities also live in ghettos. In France, for example, the North Africans are at the bottom of the totem pole (Maghrébin(e)). There is violence throughout Europe among black minorities, just as there is among most lower-class groups. We have this idea in the States that just because someone speaks with a British accent, or French, or whatever, that they are automatically more cultured than we are. However, Europe is faced with racial tensions just like we are. Of course, in the U.S., we have a huge media that makes loads of money from exploiting inner-city poverty. Did you know that the Black Panthers never fired the first shot? They organized free lunch programs, and educated blacks all over the country on the law etc.

Do I think blacks in America suffer from a low self-esteem? Well, from my experience teaching science in a community college in a low-income black neighborhood--White America has failed, for the most part, in properly educating people. When it comes to math and science, nobody has been taught that they are less capable, less likely to succeed, than black females. So in that sense, yes--low self-esteem. However, when addressing the issue of a large group of people, it is inappropriate to ascribe pop-psych terminology like "self-esteem", because it has no meaning when describing the masses. A better place to start would be to look at the underlying socio-economic causes in order to extrapolate the possible metaphors that could lead to individual unrest.

Does this help?
anthrogirl

Ryokan

May 27th 2004, 12:56 PM

I appreciate your question, however, I am a bit concerned by your first paragraph. First of all, the term 'civilized' is archaic--because it assumes a degree of biological determinism. In other words, no group is more civilized than another; they may be 'modernized' or 'integrated' or 'developed', but to call them 'civilized' assigns a heirarchical value to humanity based on social theories produced in the age of colonialism (ie "savages" vs. "gentlemen"). It assumes that these people are incapable of acheiving full "humaneness", that they are animalistic and unable to control themselves. This is why Thomas Jefferson handed out smallpox blankets to the Native Americans.

Secondly, European minorities also live in ghettos. In France, for example, the North Africans are at the bottom of the totem pole (Maghrébin(e)). There is violence throughout Europe among black minorities, just as there is among most lower-class groups. We have this idea in the States that just because someone speaks with a British accent, or French, or whatever, that they are automatically more cultured than we are. However, Europe is faced with racial tensions just like we are. Of course, in the U.S., we have a huge media that makes loads of money from exploiting inner-city poverty. Did you know that the Black Panthers never fired the first shot? They organized free lunch programs, and educated blacks all over the country on the law etc.

Do I think blacks in America suffer from a low self-esteem? Well, from my experience teaching science in a community college in a low-income black neighborhood--White America has failed, for the most part, in properly educating people. When it comes to math and science, nobody has been taught that they are less capable, less likely to succeed, than black females. So in that sense, yes--low self-esteem. However, when addressing the issue of a large group of people, it is inappropriate to ascribe pop-psych terminology like "self-esteem", because it has no meaning when describing the masses. A better place to start would be to look at the underlying socio-economic causes in order to extrapolate the possible metaphors that could lead to individual unrest.

Does this help?
anthrogirl
Good points, Anthrogirl. Except for the Black Panther thing. they have in the past fired in the first shot, and when they were first founded they were little more than a street gang with a velvet glove of leftist political ideas. They have come a long way towards improving themselves. I think the biggest problem is that in the US, more than Europe, there has been little attempt to integrate African Americans into larger US society. Asian Americans, Irish Americans, Hispanics, etc., etc., after a few generations of being here identify with there country and being an American more than being an ethnicity or the member of a small community, like there city. Most African Americans don't feel that way. White America doesn't feel like they are either. That leads to racism.

Ben Franklin

May 27th 2004, 05:18 PM

Good points, Anthrogirl. Except for the Black Panther thing. they have in the past fired in the first shot, and when they were first founded they were little more than a street gang with a velvet glove of leftist political ideas. They have come a long way towards improving themselves. I think the biggest problem is that in the US, more than Europe, there has been little attempt to integrate African Americans into larger US society. Asian Americans, Irish Americans, Hispanics, etc., etc., after a few generations of being here identify with there country and being an American more than being an ethnicity or the member of a small community, like there city. Most African Americans don't feel that way. White America doesn't feel like they are either. That leads to racism.

Being on the outside, I have a little different perspective, so forgive me. Yes, it does seem like blacks and latins (herafter referred to as "immigrants") are not assimilating... It this because of the local communities or the immigrants themselves...? I often wonder if too much emphasis is placed on an separate cultural identity by many immigrants, thus barring their rapid assimilation into American society...? While staying in Southern California, I found that in the inner cities, almost no English was spoken, no English newspapers were sold, giant advertising billboards were in Spanish, etc... I don't know if it's because of the marketers, immigrants or society, but the immigrants are definitely not being assimilated...! It's much easier for immigrants to cluster together and not assimilate, keeping to their own language and culture, so the more they are mollified, the harder it is to have a working society... Even in Singapore, which has at least four separate ethnic groups, everyone is required to know and speak English, thus facilitating communication among ethnic groups... Is America willing to require the same of it's citizens...? If not, then I fear it's society will continue to fragment more, and the term "United States" will be a hollow phrase... I know that racial tensions are high in America, but it's not reason enough to be overly-sensitive about real problems of immigrants: if you want to use phrases like "down-trodden", "discrimination", or "racism", it's still the same meaning as "low self-esteem": some one (or some group) feels as though he/she is of less worth than another... I want to identify the problems, not quibble over the terms... :thumb:

Ryokan

May 27th 2004, 08:37 PM

Being on the outside, I have a little different perspective, so forgive me. Yes, it does seem like blacks and latins (herafter referred to as "immigrants") are not assimilating... It this because of the local communities or the immigrants themselves...? I often wonder if too much emphasis is placed on an separate cultural identity by many immigrants, thus barring their rapid assimilation into American society...? While staying in Southern California, I found that in the inner cities, almost no English was spoken, no English newspapers were sold, giant advertising billboards were in Spanish, etc... I don't know if it's because of the marketers, immigrants or society, but the immigrants are definitely not being assimilated...! It's much easier for immigrants to cluster together and not assimilate, keeping to their own language and culture, so the more they are mollified, the harder it is to have a working society... Even in Singapore, which has at least four separate ethnic groups, everyone is required to know and speak English, thus facilitating communication among ethnic groups... Is America willing to require the same of it's citizens...? If not, then I fear it's society will continue to fragment more, and the term "United States" will be a hollow phrase... I know that racial tensions are high in America, but it's not reason enough to be overly-sensitive about real problems of immigrants: if you want to use phrases like "down-trodden", "discrimination", or "racism", it's still the same meaning as "low self-esteem": some one (or some group) feels as though he/she is of less worth than another... I want to identify the problems, not quibble over the terms... :thumb:
Latins tend to assimilate better, actually. Within one or two generations they are difficult to determine from anyone else culturally. African Amercans are different because they have been here for a long time, and were more greatly discriminated against. There culture was a source of strength. Now that they face ceconomic discrimination, a seperate culture is more of a hold back, in my mind, than a help. We need to bring us together, rather than be us versus them.

Taffsadar

May 30th 2004, 08:11 AM

Ben Franklin

May 31st 2004, 04:54 PM

To be honest, why would Napoleon need Sun Tzu? When it comes to killing eachother efficently have westerners always been the best. Sun Tzus writings are great for the hobby warrior but a properly educated general/king/emperor doesn't need that book more than any other book on the subject. The Japanese hype have gone way to far in my opinion.

Sounds like you've been influenced by the idea of "total war", espoused by Clausewitz's book, "On War", since war is about winning, not stacking up bodies. In fact, in WW2, the Japanese obviously did NOT follow Sun Tzu's principles, since he clearly stated: "Know the enemy and yourself, and in a hundred battles, you will come to no harm." Japan's knowledge of America as a culture and a military power was so far off-base, they couldn't have done anything stupider than attacking Pearl Harbor... Bone-heads...! :doh: By the way, if you think Western generals don't read, study, or appreciate Sun Tzu's book, try reading Capt. B. H. Liddel Hart's book, "Strategy", where he spends almost half of his lengthy introduction praising Sun Tzu. Also try Brigadier General (USMC, Retired) Samuel Griffith's English translation of "The Art of War". During WW2, Liddel saw action in Europe with the BEF, and Griffith fought in the Pacific Islands and later, Korea. Definitely NOT a couple of "arm-chair" generals...! :thumb:

Ben Franklin

May 31st 2004, 05:06 PM

.... We need to bring us together, rather than be us versus them...

That's what I'M talkin' about...! :thumb:

Taffsadar

June 1st 2004, 01:06 PM

By the way, if you think Western generals don't read, study, or appreciate Sun Tzu's book, try reading Capt. B. H. Liddel Hart's book, "Strategy", where he spends almost half of his lengthy introduction praising Sun Tzu. Also try Brigadier General (USMC, Retired) Samuel Griffith's English translation of "The Art of War". During WW2, Liddel saw action in Europe with the BEF, and Griffith fought in the Pacific Islands and later, Korea. Definitely NOT a couple of "arm-chair" generals...! :thumb:

I don't say that they didn't read it, I just said that it's nothing more than other books. Sure it's written in a slightly poetic way which appeals to some people but it's nothing special.

Ben Franklin

June 1st 2004, 05:34 PM

I don't say that they didn't read it, I just said that it's nothing more than other books. Sure it's written in a slightly poetic way which appeals to some people but it's nothing special.

Here's what you did say:

... Sun Tzus writings are great for the hobby warrior...

My point being, it's not "hobby warriors" using this book. And what do you mean by it's "poetic style"...? :huh: It's not poetry, it's a war treatise. It's modern relevance and selling point is that it speaks concisely. Let me ask you: have you ever struggled through the books of Machiavelli, Clausewitz, or Musashi...? These authors get bogged down in minutae and trivia, where Sun Tzu is crystal clear about strategy in war.

You also wrote:

but a properly educated general/king/emperor doesn't need that book more than any other book on the subject.

I submit that there is no other single book which introduces strategy better than Sun Tzu's "Art of War", and that "any other book" is not the same. By the way, have you read it...? And if so, which translation...? In my opinion, the Griffith translation is the best, so I'll assume you've read an inferior work which is biasing your judgement. Check Griffith's when you have a chance.

Taffsadar

June 2nd 2004, 01:21 PM

My point being, it's not "hobby warriors" using this book. And what do you mean by it's "poetic style"...? :huh: It's not poetry, it's a war treatise. It's modern relevance and selling point is that it speaks concisely. Let me ask you: have you ever struggled through the books of Machiavelli, Clausewitz, or Musashi...? These authors get bogged down in minutae and trivia, where Sun Tzu is crystal clear about strategy in war.

I didn't say that only hobby warriors would like the book. I just said it's the one which fits them the best. It's the small things that makes the big commander, that's why you need more things than great quotes. Great quotes are however very memorable which makes it easier to remember your prefered doctrine. Personally I like Machiavelli just becuase he not only talk about the war, he talks about the peace which comes after and the intrigues that comes before the war.

I submit that there is no other single book which introduces strategy better than Sun Tzu's "Art of War", and that "any other book" is not the same. By the way, have you read it...? And if so, which translation...? In my opinion, the Griffith translation is the best, so I'll assume you've read an inferior work which is biasing your judgement. Check Griffith's when you have a chance.

I've only read parts of it becuase the flashes of the obvious blinds me too often :wink: . Sure it's one of the best written books on military tactics but tactically is it just your average great book of tactics.

Now back to the original topic. It is a good book but why would Napoleon need it? He was great and I doubt we would need any asian wisdom to become that great.

Ben Franklin

June 2nd 2004, 05:17 PM

Now back to the original topic. It is a good book but why would Napoleon need it? He was great and I doubt we would need any asian wisdom to become that great.

If he didn't, he didn't. Nobody's got a monopoly on strategy, that's for sure... BTW: "Asian" wisdom...? Where did that come from, huh...? :huh:

I've only read parts of it becuase the flashes of the obvious blinds me too often.

Things so obvious to you may be only so because you've read other books prior to this one, or because you were a born military genius...! :lol:

It's obvious that this stuff was pretty unknown way back in the pre-Han Dynasty era (200 AD), and predates Machiavelli (he of the astonishingly perfect hindsight and agonizing "what-I-woulda-done-was...")... :ahem:

If anyone was a hobby warrior who never won a battle, it was Machiavelli. I like the guy, really, but the Florentine armies he organized were so easily defeated by the mercenary forces of others, it was embarassing. :ahem:

Advise to Niccolo: stick to politics...! :doh:

Sure it's one of the best written books on military tactics but tactically is it just your average great book of tactics.

"The Art of War" is a book about military strategy, afaics: maybe you're looking for something that just isn't gonna be there (tactics). :doh: BTW, you said it was one of the best, but then said it was average... all in the same sentence...! :lol: Do you mean all books are average...?

Snarf

June 2nd 2004, 07:40 PM

Here's what you did say:

My point being, it's not "hobby warriors" using this book. And what do you mean by it's "poetic style"...? :huh: It's not poetry, it's a war treatise. It's modern relevance and selling point is that it speaks concisely. Let me ask you: have you ever struggled through the books of Machiavelli, Clausewitz, or Musashi...? These authors get bogged down in minutae and trivia, where Sun Tzu is crystal clear about strategy in war.

I submit that there is no other single book which introduces strategy better than Sun Tzu's "Art of War", and that "any other book" is not the same. By the way, have you read it...? And if so, which translation...? In my opinion, the Griffith translation is the best, so I'll assume you've read an inferior work which is biasing your judgement. Check Griffith's when you have a chance.

Eh, Napoleon himself seems to disagree with you, since he considered a study of Alexander's campaigns the best education for any military general. And what you call minutiae and trivia can be essential to warfare. For example, implementation of strategy depends on knowing how fast your army can move, how far it can safely travel from its source of supplies, etc. Knowledge of logisitics is all-important. A striking example was the difference between Grant's success and the failure of the union generals who came before him. Whereas McClellan wanted to make war like on the battlefields in europe, Grant had a greater appreciation for logistics and supply, and had advisors who were involved with the railroads. Great platitudes sound nice, but wars are won by knowledge of minute details, knowing what one's army is capable of and getting on the level of the soldier and inspiring them. Napoleon was a master at these aspects of war.

Ben Franklin

June 2nd 2004, 09:00 PM

Eh, Napoleon himself seems to disagree with you, since he considered a study of Alexander's campaigns the best education for any military general. And what you call minutiae and trivia can be essential to warfare. For example, implementation of strategy depends on knowing how fast your army can move, how far it can safely travel from its source of supplies, etc. Knowledge of logisitics is all-important. A striking example was the difference between Grant's success and the failure of the union generals who came before him. Whereas McClellan wanted to make war like on the battlefields in europe, Grant had a greater appreciation for logistics and supply, and had advisors who were involved with the railroads. Great platitudes sound nice, but wars are won by knowledge of minute details, knowing what one's army is capable of and getting on the level of the soldier and inspiring them. Napoleon was a master at these aspects of war.

You know what...? Everything you spoke upon is covered in Sun Tzu's "Art of War": logistics, army movement, choice of ground, intelligence, hidden troop movement, etc... Myself, I think Napoleon was good, and did a lot with what little he had. And as you say, even he looked up to Alexander (the past) and Frederick II of Prussia (his predecessor)... As I wrote, if he didn't, he didn't. But since he did look for inspiration from his betters, it's plausible he'd accept advice from Sun Tzu were it available. Napoleon was no dope...! :thumb:

Snarf

June 4th 2004, 04:47 PM

You know what...? Everything you spoke upon is covered in Sun Tzu's "Art of War": logistics, army movement, choice of ground, intelligence, hidden troop movement, etc... Myself, I think Napoleon was good, and did a lot with what little he had. And as you say, even he looked up to Alexander (the past) and Frederick II of Prussia (his predecessor)... As I wrote, if he didn't, he didn't. But since he did look for inspiration from his betters, it's plausible he'd accept advice from Sun Tzu were it available. Napoleon was no dope...! :thumb:

I'm not exactly sure that one can say that Sun Tzu was a better commander than Napoleon. Exactly how much ground and how many battles did Sun Tzu win?

Also, Napoleon had much more than you give him credit for. He was the first in modern Europe to use the population of his country as an army. His armies generally had as many or more soldiers than his opponents, and his soldiers were volunteers giving their lives for the Republic, which made his armies qualitatively different than the mercenaries and servants of kings that he faced on the battelfield, and this gave them a large advantage in moral. Indeed, Napoleon helped bring about (unfortunately) one of the first large-scale examples of "total war," which most of his enemies as individual states couldn't match because their politics and class systems were different. As an example, the Duke of Wellington considered himself a servant of the British Empire. Napoleon considered himself the Emperor, and in france at that time the Revolution resulted in the policy of "every man a soldier."

Evidence against Napoleon not being influenced by Sun Tzu:
(quotes from http://www.kimsoft.com/polwar3.htm)
Sun Tzu's own teachings:
Sun Tzu said: In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to recapture an army entire than to destroy it, to capture a regimen t, a detachment or a company entire than to destroy them.

Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.

Thus the highest form of generalship is to balk the enemy's plans;
[Perhaps the word "balk" falls short of expressing the full force of the Chinese word, which implies not an attitude of defense, whereby one might be content to foil the enemy's stratagems one after another, but an active policy of counter-attack. Ho Sh ih puts this very clearly in his note: "When the enemy has made a plan of attack against us, we must anticipate him by delivering our own attack first."]

These three, while certainly wise, were contrary to Napoleon's style of attack.
Napoleon himself once said that the secret to his victories was that he did not concern himself with what the enemy did, he was concerned primarily with what he could do. He was not a counterattacking commander, as sun Tzu is advising. He was a great believer in taking the initiative.

Two, he didn't capture armies whole; he destroyed them.

Sun Tzu does go on to say:
the next best is to prevent the junction of the enemy's forces;

[Isolating him from his allies. We must not forget that Sun Tzu, in speaking of hostilities, always has in mind the numerous states or principalities into which the China of his day was split up.]

the next in order is to attack the enemy's army in the field; [When he is already at full strength.] and the worst policy of all is to besiege walled cities.

However, preventing the junction of one's enemy forces is common sense, even a nongeneral like myself can see the obvious problem of letting your opponents unite before you attack.

Other instances of Napoleon not following Sun Tzu:
There are five dangerous faults which may affect a general:
a) Recklessness, which leads to destruction;

c) A hasty temper, which can be provoked by insults;

Napoleon was both reckless and was famous for having a nasty temper. Granted one could say his recklessness led to his downfall, like at Waterloo.

More evidence:
Napoleon never mentioned Sun Tzu. We know it is not because he didn't mention those who were better than he, for he greatly admired Alexander and Hannibal. We also know that he considered the Duke of Wellington equal to himself.

At this point I should mention that in terms of style of generalship, the Duke of Wellington was much closer to the counterattack praised by Sun Tzu.

Also: Consider the advice of Sun Tzu:
"The rule is, not to besiege walled cities if it can possibly be avoided. "
Alexander was a master of siege and assault, and his sieges contributed to the most successful military career of anyone, perhaps in history. Yet his sieges of Tyre and other cities in Asia Minor were in contradiction to Sun Tzu's dictum, but Alexander was admired by Napoleon. This brings into question not only influence of Sun Tzu on Napoleon, but also the effectiveness of Sun Tzu's dictums.

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

Napoleon engaged in many lengthy campaigns (Austerlitz, invasion of Russia, etc.)
Finally, these dictums:
When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men's weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be damped. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength.

Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain.

Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor damped, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue.

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

To career soldiers like Napoleon, von Moltke, Scipio Africanus, etc. these dictums would be common sense. it takes no genius to figure out that dull weapons lead to defeats.

Finally, you have yet to show that there was any evidence that Napoleon actually had access to the Art of War, since proper translation fromn Chinese into French in the late 1700's wasn't the same as in the 21st century.

Taffsadar

June 6th 2004, 03:02 PM

If he didn't, he didn't. Nobody's got a monopoly on strategy, that's for sure... BTW: "Asian" wisdom...? Where did that come from, huh...? :huh:

It means that Sun Tzus art of war is a part of the annoying asian hype going on in the western hemisphere.

"The Art of War" is a book about military strategy, afaics: maybe you're looking for something that just isn't gonna be there (tactics). :doh: BTW, you said it was one of the best, but then said it was average... all in the same sentence...! :lol: Do you mean all books are average...?

No it means that you might want to sharpen up your ability to read. I said it was an average book of great tactics which means that it is about great tactics (compared to "average" tactics) but there are other books about great tactics.

anthrogirl

June 6th 2004, 04:14 PM

It means that Sun Tzus art of war is a part of the annoying asian hype going on in the western hemisphere.

care to elaborate?

anthrogirl

Ben Franklin

June 6th 2004, 05:45 PM

I'm not exactly sure that one can say that Sun Tzu was a better commander than Napoleon. Exactly how much ground and how many battles did Sun Tzu win?

Who said Sun Tzu was better than Napoleon...? I definitely wrote that Sun Tzu was better than Machiavelli any day... :thumb:

Also, Napoleon had much more than you give him credit for.

I give Napoleon so much credit my jaws are sore. There's nothing wrong with learning from the past, as Napoleon obviously did, and it's certainly no ctime to surpass your teachers: it's more of a compliment to have such an arduous student... :thumb:

[QUOTE=Snarf]

He was the first in modern Europe to use the population of his country as an army.

??? Did you miss the times of peasant-levies in the Middle and Dark Ages...? Even the Chinese were using non-professional forces during the non-farming saesons to settle disputes. That's what makes the re-introduction of these professional armies such an important factor in war strategy. If you don't have these sort of troops, effective strategy just can't be implemented.

His armies generally had as many or more soldiers than his opponents, and his soldiers were volunteers giving their lives for the Republic, which made his armies qualitatively different than the mercenaries and servants of kings that he faced on the battelfield, and this gave them a large advantage in moral.

More soldiers...? Better re-check your figures: Napoleon had less overall, and that's what made his reputation, not his force strength, but his audacity. And even in this department, Napoleon bows to Frederick II of Prussia ("The Soldier-King"), who really knew how to act boldly during the Seven Years' War. You want to see someone who held off an even tougher alliance, and without losing the war, study his campaigns.

Indeed, Napoleon helped bring about (unfortunately) one of the first large-scale examples of "total war," which most of his enemies as individual states couldn't match because their politics and class systems were different. As an example, the Duke of Wellington considered himself a servant of the British Empire. Napoleon considered himself the Emperor, and in france at that time the Revolution resulted in the policy of "every man a soldier."

Ummm... "total war" means using all of your citizens and their resources to your ends. You know, like Hitler did: forcing (?) his people to manufacture munitions, food rationing, etc. Napoleon never went that far: in fact, he was a pretty humane guy, building hospitals, economic blockade of Britain (which flopped because he couldn't keep Russia in the fold). Quite an amazing guy...! :thumb:

Evidence against Napoleon not being influenced by Sun Tzu:
(quotes from http://www.kimsoft.com/polwar3.htm)

If hew didn't read it, he didn't. I know this line is getting old, but it's obvious that no one is reading it.

These three, while certainly wise, were contrary to Napoleon's style of attack.

Napoleon himself once said that the secret to his victories was that he did not concern himself with what the enemy did, he was concerned primarily with what he could do. He was not a counterattacking commander, as sun Tzu is advising. He was a great believer in taking the initiative.

You missed a wide body of Sun Tzu's writing, based on your assessment. Sun Tzu wrote that a good general never misses and opportunity to master the enemy. Waiting for someone else to attack you is not what Sun Tzu wrote, and Sun Tzu's advice is very pro-active. Please read it more thoroughly...

Two, he didn't capture armies whole; he destroyed them.

Armies aren't destroyed: armies are disheartened, outmanuevered, trapped, ineffectual, broken in morale, etc. If armies were killed to a man, wars would be finished in a matter of days, not years. Napoleon didn't destroy armies any more than Sun Tzu did: he licked 'em (more often than not)...! And the goal of war is victory, not piling up bodies, so don't waste time and energy on beating an already defeated force. (I gotta do all the thinking...? :hrm:)

Other instances of Napoleon not following Sun Tzu:
Napoleon was both reckless and was famous for having a nasty temper. Granted one could say his recklessness led to his downfall, like at Waterloo.

You just proved your point and Sun Tzu's...! :lol:

Also: Consider the advice of Sun Tzu:
"The rule is, not to besiege walled cities if it can possibly be avoided."

Alexander was a master of siege and assault, and his sieges contributed to the most successful military career of anyone, perhaps in history. Yet his sieges of Tyre and other cities in Asia Minor were in contradiction to Sun Tzu's dictum, but Alexander was admired by Napoleon. This brings into question not only influence of Sun Tzu on Napoleon, but also the effectiveness of Sun Tzu's dictums.

Who said that siege can't be used...? Sun Tzu said that it's obviously the last resort. Who would want to force his enemy into a hard, fixed position, unless he had nothing but time on his hands...? And let's face it: Alexander was certainly getting his thrills while he waited, if you know what I mean...
There's so more many examples where storming cities was so costly, any one can see it's only viable when you can afford attrition (like the Mongols)...

To career soldiers like Napoleon, von Moltke, Scipio Africanus, etc. these dictums would be common sense. it takes no genius to figure out that dull weapons lead to defeats.

America has been paying for so many war economically it's stunting them. Sun Tzu is talking about long-term effects on countries, too. Think, man...!

Finally, you have yet to show that there was any evidence that Napoleon actually had access to the Art of War, since proper translation fromn Chinese into French in the late 1700's wasn't the same as in the 21st century.

??? But it was translated, and it was in Italy, and it was in France, and that makes it possible, doesn't it...? Also, when did I ever assert that Napoleon actually read Sun Tzu...? I asked if it were plausible, which is eminently was.

Jimmy Higgins

June 7th 2004, 09:06 AM

care to elaborate?

anthrogirl
*Jimmy Higgins ducks and covers* :egad:

Jimmy Higgins

June 7th 2004, 09:19 AM

Being on the outside, I have a little different perspective, so forgive me.All is always forgiven.

Yes, it does seem like blacks and latins (herafter referred to as "immigrants") are not assimilating... It this because of the local communities or the immigrants themselves...?Or perhaps you are confusing assimilation with some sort of process that takes a few years. Move from a foreign nation and two years later, lose all ties to your previous culture. That isn't what happens in the real world. Nor is it how it ever happened.

I often wonder if too much emphasis is placed on an separate cultural identity by many immigrants, thus barring their rapid assimilation into American society...?Perhaps I'm mistaken, but weren't there portions or cities, say New York City, where there were only the Germans, or the Irish, the Slavics back in the mid to late 1800's? Its not like they all came on one boat, said screw our culture and sang merrily with their European Brethern. They split off into their own cultural groups as well, right?

While staying in Southern California, I found that in the inner cities, almost no English was spoken, no English newspapers were sold, giant advertising billboards were in Spanish, etc... I don't know if it's because of the marketers, immigrants or society, but the immigrants are definitely not being assimilated...!Assimilation is a process of a generation. Its not the father or mother that become "American" its the sons and daughters. Can you establish that second and third generations of immigrants aren't speaking english?

Is America willing to require the same of it's citizens...?Force them to ignore their roots?

If not, then I fear it's society will continue to fragment more, and the term "United States" will be a hollow phrase...Fragment more? Since when has the US become fragmented? When did this occur. Are their microcosms within the US? Are their isolated miny-nations among different races? I'm not aware of this if there are.

I know that racial tensions are high in America, but it's not reason enough to be overly-sensitive about real problems of immigrants:Or vice versa, IE the abuse of cheap labor with immigrants?

if you want to use phrases like "down-trodden", "discrimination", or "racism", it's still the same meaning as "low self-esteem": some one (or some group) feels as though he/she is of less worth than another... I want to identify the problems, not quibble over the terms... :thumb:
I don't think there is a playing with semantics here. There is a huge difference between "self-esteem" issues and "racism". When blacks in the 1900's were being lynched, it wasn't because they had low self-esteem. And I believe the point that Anthrogirl was trying to establish was your misnomer that the immigration situation in the US and how blacks are in the US is any different than blacks in Europe. Wanan talk immigration? How about the huge child sex trade by Romanian immigrants in Western Europe! You did start off by claiming that the blacks are better off in Europe than in the US, actually I think you said more civilized. However, you really never established that this is the issue. More to the point, if race issues for immigrants in Europe aren't so diametrically opposed relative to the US, then your argument regarding why there is a difference dies off, because in order to ask why there is a difference, there needs to be a difference to begin with.

You asked "I've been trying to reconcile how it is that blacks in European countries are more civilized than in America". I think you need to establish this as fact first before asking why.

Taffsadar

June 7th 2004, 04:51 PM

care to elaborate?

anthrogirl

Asian things rule!!!

That's the attitude I'm fed up with. Katanas weren't the best swords, the reason they are so popular in movies is that they look cool and the japanese didn't learn to fight properly until the 20th century which ment that they still had those hard ass swordfighters. The same goes for "Rungi" versu "The ring", Sun Tzu versus Alexander the Great, christianity versus buddhism and most other asian things. Asian things are seen as superior in many ways just becuase they are seen as refined.

Ben Franklin

June 7th 2004, 05:46 PM

You asked "I've been trying to reconcile how it is that blacks in European countries are more civilized than in America". I think you need to establish this as fact first before asking why.

I bow to Jimmy's superior intellect (who'd da thunk...?) :lol:

Snarf

June 14th 2004, 06:44 PM

You still haven't answered my question about Sun Tzu's military career.

??? Did you miss the times of peasant-levies in the Middle and Dark Ages...? Even the Chinese were using non-professional forces during the non-farming saesons to settle disputes. That's what makes the re-introduction of these professional armies such an important factor in war strategy. If you don't have these sort of troops, effective strategy just can't be implemented..

I said "the population of his country." This meant the entire population of a nation. Nations in the modern sense didn't exist in the middle ages in Europe, and the peasants weren't professional soldiers, they were professional serfs. While peasant-levies were used in battles before, most of fighting in the middle ages was done by professional soldiers like knights who could afford armor and weapons, and who were loyal to an overlord.

More soldiers...? Better re-check your figures: Napoleon had less overall, and that's what made his reputation, not his force strength, but his audacity. And even in this department, Napoleon bows to Frederick II of Prussia ("The Soldier-King"), who really knew how to act boldly during the Seven Years' War. You want to see someone who held off an even tougher alliance, and without losing the war, study his campaigns...

From http://www.napoleonguide.com/battle_jena.htm

At the battle of Jena, Napoleon had 90,000 men against 35,000 Prussian soldiers

At the start of the waterloo campaign, Napoleon had a force of 125,000 soldiers, at least equal to the size of the British and Prussian armies put together.

Ummm... "total war" means using all of your citizens and their resources to your ends. You know, like Hitler did: forcing (?) his people to manufacture munitions, food rationing, etc. Napoleon never went that far: in fact, he was a pretty humane guy, building hospitals, economic blockade of Britain (which flopped because he couldn't keep Russia in the fold). Quite an amazing guy...! :thumb:...

The US Civil War was a form of total war, as was World War I. Total war means that populations of entire countries are involved in the war effort, it doesn't matter if they are democratic or totalitarian.

You missed a wide body of Sun Tzu's writing, based on your assessment. Sun Tzu wrote that a good general never misses and opportunity to master the enemy. Waiting for someone else to attack you is not what Sun Tzu wrote, and Sun Tzu's advice is very pro-active. Please read it more thoroughly...
The quote I used, with a translator's note, was this:

Thus the highest form of generalship is to balk the enemy's plans;
[Perhaps the word "balk" falls short of expressing the full force of the Chinese word, which implies not an attitude of defense, whereby one might be content to foil the enemy's stratagems one after another, but an active policy of counter-attack. Ho Sh ih puts this very clearly in his note: "When the enemy has made a plan of attack against us, we must anticipate him by delivering our own attack first."]

The translator said "an active policy of counterattack." I didn't say that Sun Tzu waited to be attacked; counterattack is not passive.

Armies aren't destroyed: armies are disheartened, outmanuevered, trapped, ineffectual, broken in morale, etc. If armies were killed to a man, wars would be finished in a matter of days, not years. Napoleon didn't destroy armies any more than Sun Tzu did: he licked 'em (more often than not)...! And the goal of war is victory, not piling up bodies, so don't waste time and energy on beating an already defeated force. (I gotta do all the thinking...? :hrm:)

At the battle of Jena, the Prussians lost 25,000 out of 35,000 soldiers. That's a lot of destruction for an army. Destruction does not mean "killed to a man" it means lots of dead soldiers.

Who said that siege can't be used...? Sun Tzu said that it's obviously the last resort. Who would want to force his enemy into a hard, fixed position, unless he had nothing but time on his hands...? And let's face it: Alexander was certainly getting his thrills while he waited, if you know what I mean...
There's so more many examples where storming cities was so costly, any one can see it's only viable when you can afford attrition (like the Mongols)...

Alexander used it as the first resort in his war against the Persian empire, and the second Punic war began with Hannibal laying siege to the Roman ally of Saguntum in Spain. No one ever said that storming cities wasn't costly, but Sun Tzu said it should be considered in the last resort; many important generals of ancient history (like the roman commanders) made their mark primarily by besieging cities. Clearly they wanted to force their enemies into hard, fixed positions because that way they could destroy them completely, even if it meant great loss of life. And I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "getting his thrills," Alexander was usually at the front of his army during sieges, because he believed that he had to be at the point of greatest danger (which almost cost him his life during a siege in the region of Afghanistan).

America has been paying for so many war economically it's stunting them. Sun Tzu is talking about long-term effects on countries, too. Think, man...!)

America became quite rich during World wars 1 and 2, and the Mongol Empire became the empire by conquest. War is clearly profitable for some, like Halliburton, unfortunately.

??? But it was translated, and it was in Italy, and it was in France, and that makes it possible, doesn't it...? Also, when did I ever assert that Napoleon actually read Sun Tzu...? I asked if it were plausible, which is eminently was.

The evidence so far is that your assertion is not very plausible, unless you can find specific evidence stating that Napoleon read Sun Tzu.

Didaktylos

June 19th 2004, 01:03 PM

I think it's fairly obvious that whether or not Bonaparte read Sun-Tzu, he certainly didn't follow his precepts. Napoleon tended to rely on the bravery of his troops and his own ability to pull off marvellous tactical coups on the battlefield. I think the only campaign in the Revolutionary/Napoleonic Wars that Sun-Tzu would have looked on with approval was Wellington's Torres Vedras action, where he forced Massena (I think) to retreat in confusion without ever fighting a major pitched battle.

Ben Franklin

June 20th 2004, 08:20 PM

The evidence so far is that your assertion is not very plausible, unless you can find specific evidence stating that Napoleon read Sun Tzu.

What assertion...? I haven't asserted anything: I asked everyone if they thought it were possible or plausible that Napoleon had read Sun Tzu, and the consensus is that he had not... Although you don't specifically state so here, that seems to be your opinion as well, and I thank you for sharing it.

Ebor

October 5th 2005, 06:04 PM

...Japan's knowledge of America as a culture and a military power was so far off-base, they couldn't have done anything stupider than attacking Pearl Harbor...

"I fear we have awaken a sleeping giant."

Can not think of which of Japan's generals said this but after they attacked Pearl Harbor, they knew that they were in the fight of there life!!

Durthorin

October 5th 2005, 07:26 PM

"I fear we have awaken a sleeping giant."

Can not think of which of Japan's generals said this but after they attacked Pearl Harbor, they knew that they were in the fight of there life!!

Yamamoto. The Adm that planned and executed the attack on Pearl Harbor. He was among other things educated in the US if memory serves.

Ben Franklin

October 6th 2005, 01:39 AM

Yamamoto. The Adm that planned and executed the attack on Pearl Harbor. He was among other things educated in the US if memory serves.

And his early death (shot down over the Pacific) made Japan's defeat all the more easier. Lucky for America, not so lucky for the Japanese war-faction...

JSDileo

December 16th 2005, 12:22 AM

Did Napoleon read Sun Tzu?

Well, according to a book I read entitled Napoleon as Military Commader he studied the campaigns of Alexander the Great, Hannibal, and the Caesars, although I don't remember anything about Sun Tzu. It wouldn't surprise me, though.

Ben Franklin

January 2nd 2006, 01:50 AM

Well, according to a book I read entitled Napoleon as Military Commader he studied the campaigns of Alexander the Great, Hannibal, and the Caesars, although I don't remember anything about Sun Tzu. It wouldn't surprise me, though.

Well, Sun Tzu didn't have a monopoly on strategy, and Napoleon did alright even if he hadn't read it...! As has been pointed out by another, since he was overly brash in general, either Napoleon hadn't read Sun Tzu (or was immune to it's advice)...! :lol:

Dienekes

January 11th 2006, 11:09 PM

Personally I don't beleive Napoleon Bonaparte read Sun Tzu for basic reasons. One Sun Tzu wasn't really spread around because Asia at the time wanted nothing to do with Europe (except India) and Napoleons lack of paying it any attention.

HAving read Sun Tzu I noticed it really focuses on conservative strategy and tactics Napoleon had neither of these. His overall strategies were so wild and foceful he would have had to win every battle to achieve them. And his battle tactics were down right horrible. He only had one, mass bunches of people with guns behind the opponent. This probably wouldn't even have worked if Europeans at the time didn't have their heads stuck to the idea of Generals Etiquette. Also in the Sun Tzu he stresses warriors prowess while Napoleon was famous for giving peasants guns and pointing which direction for them to run at. (also why when looking at waterloo the numbers of deaths on Napoleons side seem so inflated, most of them didn't know what they were doing and Napoleon cared nothing about the lives of his troops, another thing stressed in Sun Tzu)

Dienekes

January 11th 2006, 11:40 PM

One other thing because I'm a know it all whose suggestions and comments are most likely going to be ignored... Napoleon was not that great. I can not sit back and hear enraged screaming. He is one of the most over respected generals who stumbled upon people who wished to be a powerhouse who just couldn't get there themselves. Napoleon was a politician (a brilliant one at that) but politics and warfare don't often mix (Ulysses S. Grant for example).

For one great example of Napoleons tactics we can look at Waterloo.

Even before the battle Napoleon was pissed that his strategy was way behind schedule (his strategy was horrible because he believed himself unstoppable and that everything good would happen to him). Upon seeing WAterloo and its defenses the normally rash General (or Marshal or something) Michel Ney went to his Emperor and thought up a better double prong strategy that would envelope the Duke of Wellington and thus overtake the smaller force (this was astounding because Ney normally charged into battle without a second thought), the reason this would have worked was Wellington added protective defenses to his rear the plain Napoleon attacked in every single one of his battles thus switching it around so Napoleon was attacking the "Front." A decent general would have thought not to mass rush an armed defencive (with double sweep cavalry no less), but no not Napoleon he was too convinsed of his indestructability lead a barrage of artillery and pointed his troops down the hill into the fight. His troops went without question and were shot down until wellington nearly ran out of bullets then in Napoleon fashion he sends his guard to achieve victory (his guard actually went through the same training as normal troops they however happened to be from a certain district so they were no better than the normal fighter) this was a dumb move because the guard was now being sent toward a still defended area where they were now outnumbered. They were routed and ran away seeing the Guards running the Troops thought they had no chance and promptly all decided farming was the better occupation anyway and left the army (This also shows that Napoleon didn't read Sun Tzu who tells the importance of troop loyalty as opposed to the Napoleon quote "What are men to me but tools to be used").

Ben Franklin

January 12th 2006, 06:04 AM

Having read Sun Tzu I noticed it really focuses on conservative strategy and tactics Napoleon had neither of these.

??? What specifically did you consider conservative...? In my reading, I found Sun Tzu to be concise, but not conservative: if anything, I feel he was most considerate of the important of intelligence (and denying the enemy same)...

His overall strategies were so wild and foceful he would have had to win every battle to achieve them.

Napoleon mastered the art of concentric battles out of necessity, due to lack of troops (especially during his return from exile) which is another way to say he mastered timing (of troop movement in terrain), echoing Sun Tzu's maxim.

And his battle tactics were down right horrible. He only had one, mass bunches of people with guns behind the opponent. This probably wouldn't even have worked if Europeans at the time didn't have their heads stuck to the idea of Generals Etiquette.

The Red Army did the same thing during the great Patriotic War (fighting the Nazis) and they also got results. Napoleon employed effectively what he had, which was not highly trained troops but green young- and horribly old- men.

Also in the Sun Tzu he stresses warriors prowess while Napoleon was famous for giving peasants guns and pointing which direction for them to run at.

Sun Tzu stressed army discipline not individual prowess. Moving and fighting as a unit and following commands: Chinese warfare was not professional by any stretch of imagination until his times (not to suggest he invented this).

(also why when looking at waterloo the numbers of deaths on Napoleons side seem so inflated, most of them didn't know what they were doing and Napoleon cared nothing about the lives of his troops, another thing stressed in Sun Tzu)

Sun Tzu didn't stress saving troops lives but rather that a general not waste them ineffectively. He envisioned more of a number-theory strategy of war: use the minimum amount of resources to upset your enemies strategy while avoiding his doing the same to you. Sort of an economics of force, in effect.

Dienekes, thanks for sharing your feelings about Napoleon and Sun Tzu... I feel you widely missed the point of Sun Tzu's book, however. I'm not sure how or why, but please give it another read, slow and easy. In case you're interested, it is generally conceded by Chinese textual scholars that Sun Tzu (if he ever existed) did not write "Ping Fa"; rather, it's a collected strategy treatise, with Taoist' influences in the text. A good seminal work on warfare.

Ben Franklin

January 12th 2006, 06:30 AM

Dienekes

January 12th 2006, 05:45 PM

Just wondering attacking full breastworks where an easier path is not only noticable but your lead general pointed the path out to you not wasteful of soldiers?

And just wondering have you ever seen Napoleons entire Grand Strategy? It involved taking over Russia in around a year, I know Napoleon pushed for time but that's just insane.

In my eyes the Sun Tzu very clearly states choosing your own battles and making sure that almost everything is on your side thus conservative strategy. Napoleon almost always charged into battle without even thinking of tactics much less making sure that he held all the cards.

Dienekes

January 12th 2006, 05:48 PM

Also just for the point I normally consider discipline among battle prowess of soldiers a disciplined army can easily beat a strong but undisciplined one. My point that I seemed to have missed making is that Napoleon had almost no control of his army and mostly were discipline should have been used to stop casualties on your own side he sent forth a mob.

Dienekes

January 30th 2006, 11:44 PM

Interresting fact, how did Napoleon gain control of Europe.
(play theme from Jeapardy in head) and no the answer is not through military victory. In his life he only fought 3 wars one had no actual fighting. He gained control of Europe through a mixture of flashy soldiers and heres the big one marriage. Napoleon was the oldest of 13 kids. He won all of Europe by sending 8 of his family to marry other princes, princesses and the like (just for laughs one of his brothers, Joe, became leader of Spain, he was kicked out within eigth months due to incompitence and the loss of all Latin American settlements who revolted from the idea of a Frenchy leading Spain (bad year for Spain). Now to Napoleons three major wars. War one against Britain, not formerly a war but the British would not bow down to a midget so he got angry and sent a blockade to stop all trade from Europe, so the British laughed at him and traded with America and Russia. This made him furious so he attacked Russia (bad move number one) right before winter (number 2) without a supply train (number 3) or fresh/well trained troops (number 4) attempting to frontal assault Moscow (number 5). He quickly lost all his food, ran out of troops, nearly froze his personal body guard, and when he finally saw the full army of Russia when he got to Moscow (before then he saw fractions buring down the villages he occupied) his troops were quickly defeated and sent back to Europe with the King of Russia laughing at him all the way.
When he got home all the European leaders lead by Britain captured him and sent him to a deserted island. Then he came back ruled for a year where he once again tried to attack Russia and everyone else and we then have the famous route of Waterloo. Here we have one of the Worlds Greatest Military Commanders.