so parson read the Art Of War

[tribble]

"to win without fighting is best"-Sun Tzu, The Art of War

what else do you think he's read?

[Occasional Sage]

von Clausewitz.

[dr pepper]

Machiavelli
Julius Caesar
Von Neumann
Proceedings of the Prussian Military Academy
Bobby Fischer
Flying Buffalo Catalog

[kpenguin]

Parson would hardly be the ultimate warlord if he hadn't read the Art of War, or at least know its concepts.

[DevilDan]

Clausewitz.

I wonder why everyone elides the "von"...

[SteveMB]

I wonder why everyone elides the "von"...

Obviously because they agree with Stanley the Worm and his blasphemous denigration of the respect due to the nobility.

[Occasional Sage]

I wonder why everyone elides the "von"...

Because while we know better, we get used to hearing everybody else refer to "Clausewitz's 'On War'" and get beaten into the bad habit.

Edited to correct, thanks.

[HandofShadows]

Considering how Person acts it might be easier to think of books he has NOT read. I think he probably reads everything from Grant's memoirs to The Seven Habits of Highly Effective Pirates.

[BRC]

Considering how Person acts it might be easier to think of books he has NOT read. I think he probably reads everything from Grant's memoirs to The Seven Habits of Highly Effective Pirates.

I don't know if he does, but Wanda certainly does. She definitely knows "If violence isn't your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.

[K2]

Obviously because they agree with Stanley the Worm and his blasphemous denigration of the respect due to the nobility.

Do not speak of my lord Tool that way.

[Capt'n Ironbrow]

I can't imagine he hasn't read Sun Zi, wargaming is/was his all and all, his only joy he got from life... and for guys like Parson to not read it... well... that would make it even more tragic...

but von Clauszewitz' On War, that's the greater part of his little strategy lesson. Define the goal and objectives and the means to get there. true, Von Clauszewitz made the (offering of) battle the object, but then, it's probably he best book for the situation... there has to be battle in this world, or at least, the possibility of it, to resolve a war. And the offense (your turn) and defense (enemy's turn) dynamics fit in with the theories The Clauz made.

but then, von Clauszewitz didn't have a lot to say about espionage and alliances, which Sun Tzu did.

The smart Parson would use elements of both these books, "On War" for operational strategy, SunZi for the special things like magic, misdirection, psychology and (counter)espionage ...

Machiavelli would be useless here, for he just copied Vegetius "on military matters" (3d century CE) which was more of a manual about army organisation, recruitment and logistics... In Roman times! Machiavelli's work was outdated before he wrote it!

[tribble]

I can't imagine he hasn't read Sun Zi, wargaming is/was his all and all, his only joy he got from life... and for guys like Parson to not read it... well... that would make it even more tragic...

but von Clauszewitz' On War, that's the greater part of his little strategy lesson. Define the goal and objectives and the means to get there. true, Von Clauszewitz made the (offering of) battle the object, but then, it's probably he best book for the situation... there has to be battle in this world, or at least, the possibility of it, to resolve a war. And the offense (your turn) and defense (enemy's turn) dynamics fit in with the theories The Clauz made.

but then, von Clauszewitz didn't have a lot to say about espionage and alliances, which Sun Tzu did.

The smart Parson would use elements of both these books, "On War" for operational strategy, SunZi for the special things like magic, misdirection, psychology and (counter)espionage ...

Machiavelli would be useless here, for he just copied Vegetius "on military matters" (3d century CE) which was more of a manual about army organisation, recruitment and logistics... In Roman times! Machiavelli's work was outdated before he wrote it!

who is this Sunzi?

Machiavelli didnt write about war so much as politics. he also made some very good points: dont hurt someone unless you can make sure he can never hurt you back, dont use mercenaries (the competent ones are a threat, the incompetent ones are a liability). also, he was ahead of his time: being feared is safer than being loved, because being loved is in the control of the people, being feared is in the control of the prince. (one of the 7 habits of highly effective people: be proactive)

[kpenguin]

If I recall correctly, sly ol' Niccolo said that it was best to be loved and feared, but since the two don't usually go together, just being feared was the next best thing. He advised against being hated, though.

[The_JJ]

Clauszewitz was discredited after World War One proved just how stupid constantly seeking battle was. Then, with the balance shifting back to the offensive with tanks & planes etc. he became important again. Note, was ignored during Vietnam, so the Powell Doctrine was rolled out. (Clear objectives, when you comit, use overwhelming force. None of this gradual build up stuff.) It's Clausy-mousey redux. So, situationally, a good read.

But Sun Tzu is forever.

[Capt'n Ironbrow]

who is this Sunzi?

Machiavelli didnt write about war so much as politics. he also made some very good points: dont hurt someone unless you can make sure he can never hurt you back, dont use mercenaries (the competent ones are a threat, the incompetent ones are a liability). also, he was ahead of his time: being feared is safer than being loved, because being loved is in the control of the people, being feared is in the control of the prince. (one of the 7 habits of highly effective people: be proactive)

Sun Zi is another way of spelling Sun Tzu. Zi is the pinyin romanization, Tzu is Wade-Gilles.

You're right about Machiavelli's political idea's. I was refering to his "art of war", the Fabrizio dialogues where he fantasized about what he thought was the best army for an Italian principality, An update of the roman legion to include a few hundred arquebusses instead of javelins.

[dr pepper]

He also referred to the non transitivity of troop types. He advised the use of sword infantry against pike infantry, pikes against cavalry, and cavalry against swords.

But the reason i thought parson would read him is for diplomacy and subtrifuge.

[Aquillion]

The Warhammer 40k Rulebook.

[ishnar]

Obviously because they agree with Stanley the Worm and his blasphemous denigration of the respect due to the nobility.

Not just nobility, titles in general at least for Americans. Bush not President Bush. Bill Gates, not Mr. Bill Gates. Any form of title is only used to clear any confusion, or to point out. Ohh, this person has a title at the beginning of an article, then it is dropped for the rest. The beginning of an article might name Queen Elizabeth, but then refer to her simply as Elizabeth for the rest of the article.

[zillion ninjas]

Not just nobility, titles in general at least for Americans. Bush not President Bush.

"I am not leaving the highest office. I am assuming the highest office, that of citizen."
- Harry S. Truman, at the end of his presidency

[Zelig the Liar]

I wonder why everyone elides the "von"...

because it's not necessary? Kind of like how you don't have to include "the Great" if you're referring to the Alexander known as that in a context that makes it obvious he's who you're talking about.

I can provide a map through that last sentence for a modest fee. :D

[Om]

because it's not necessary? Kind of like how you don't have to include "the Great" if you're referring to the Alexander known as that in a context that makes it obvious he's who you're talking about

Not really. The family name is "von Clausewitz", its not a given title. Omitting it would be akin to referring as John McCain (random example) simply as Cain. Sure, you might be able to understand the reference in a thread on the recent US election but that doesn't make it correct

[Zelig the Liar]

Not really. The family name is "von Clausewitz", its not a given title. Omitting it would be akin to referring as John McCain (random example) simply as Cain. Sure, you might be able to understand the reference in a thread on the recent US election but that doesn't make it correct

Yeah, really. The family name is "Clausewitz", the "von" is sort of like a title. It means "from", or "of the"; meaning "Soandso from or of the Whatever (family or location)". It is grammatically incorrect and makes the speaker (or author) sound ignorant (though I'm not calling anyone here ignorant) to just say "von Clausewitz".

Read any historical reference, biography or textbook on the man and you'll see that (nearly) all of them start by establishing who they're talking about by mentioning his full name (usually, sometimes they assume the reader knows that much already), and then just call him "Clausewitz" from then on.

BACK ON TOPIC, I'd have to agree that The Art of War is the most significant contributor to Parson's strategic and tactical arsenal. Exploiting terrain and knowledge of the enemy commander's personality, sapping the morale of the enemy force, and controlling their supply lines appear to be foremost in his mind.

The fact that he likes to meet his opponents (or potential allies) face-to-face (well, via Thinkamancy) to negotiate or taunt them strikes close to home with me. I've always liked manipulating my opponents (all friends!) with friendly taunts or banter while playing PC RTSes, CCGs or tabletop miniature games. :D

[Om]

Yeah, really. The family name is "Clausewitz", the "von" is sort of like a title

It is not title and it is not a formal honorific. It is a particle that is an integral aspect of name that simply happens to denote nobility. Its akin to de Villepin, de Gaulle, O'Connor, etc

Now it may be common practice to omit the "von", lord knows I've done it myself enough times, but that does not make it any more correct. Certainly I imagine that old Carl would have clocked you if you'd called him "Clausewitz" to his face

BACK ON TOPIC, I'd have to agree that The Art of War is the most significant contributor to Parson's strategic and tactical arsenal. Exploiting terrain and knowledge of the enemy commander's personality, sapping the morale of the enemy force, and controlling their supply lines appear to be foremost in his mind.

The problem with the Art of War is that its become so widely disseminated (one could argue it was always little but common sense) that its base teachings are present to some degree in every manual of war written since

[liuzg150181]

Clauszewitz was discredited after World War One proved just how stupid constantly seeking battle was. Then, with the balance shifting back to the offensive with tanks & planes etc. he became important again. Note, was ignored during Vietnam, so the Powell Doctrine was rolled out. (Clear objectives, when you comit, use overwhelming force. None of this gradual build up stuff.) It's Clausy-mousey redux. So, situationally, a good read.

But Sun Tzu is forever.

In defense of Clausewitz,his book "On War" is perhaps one of the most quoted and least read books of all times, so many of its concepts are actually misunderstood. And this is certainly compounded by the fact that:

1.) Clausewitz himself was a very verbose writer(think of Varsuvius of OotS's loquaciousness ,add in multiplier effect, and you get the gist.) whose original work is so arduous to read that even German readers prefer to get hold of the English translation.

2.) Two editions are in circulations: the original one released by his widow, and a watered-down version released by his sibling after the Franco-Prussian War so as to increase readership. The latter one was more popular and was referenced more.

3.) Clausewitz actually wanted to improve upon, or even consider an overhaul, to his original work to include more stuff like political factors and non-conventional warfare. Unfortunately before he was able to complete it he died of cholera outbreak.

Back to topic, the point of "seeking battle" you are referring to is Clausewitz's concept of attacking the "centre of gravity"(or focal point,Schwerpunkt), a point whose destruction would cause great detrimental effect, be it militarily, socially,politically, or morally. It doesnt need to be force versus force. The misconception that we associate today is originated from those military general who misunderstood it and used it horribly and the military pundit Liddell Hart, who was a rather bitter person to begin with. In all, the whole point of attacking with overwhelming force being espoused to Clausewitz is incorrect in the first place.*

Also, while Clausewitz acknowledge numerical superiority to be an advantage, he also knew it is only of the factors that determines victory. Again, this accusation originated from Liddell Hart(again!) who claimed that Clausewitz is the "Mahdi of Mass(attack)".

IMO Clausewitz's better contribution to the military is the fog of war which emphasizes the unknowns and uncertainty in warfare, coupled with information overload and ambiguity. Interestingly, it seems to me that some of this ideas are rather similar to those expounded in Nicholas Taleb Nassim's
books - "Fooled by Randomness" and "The Black Swan".

*Appendix
To appreciate Clausewitz's ideas on "centre of gravity" one has to read the work itself(Paret's translation):
“Out of them a certain centre of gravity, a centre of power and movement, will form itself, on which everything depends; and against this centre of gravity of the enemy, the concentrated blow of all the forces must be directed.”

So in actual fact it doesnt mean force vs force, but rather in layman's term: attack the enemies' weakest link with all the might you have! Or it is like concentrating on attacking the opponent's head in boxing match.

[Surprise!]

Parson would hardly be the ultimate warlord if he hadn't read the Art of War, or at least know its concepts.

See this is something I have been wondering, if every military leader read the Art of War. Would not a shrewd leader who didn't gain an advantage because he hadn't? What with having no biases

(Bare in mind I myself have not read it so this may be a completely uneducated question.)

[Aquillion]

See this is something I have been wondering, if every military leader read the Art of War. Would not a shrewd leader who didn't gain an advantage because he hadn't? What with having no biases

(Bare in mind I myself have not read it so this may be a completely uneducated question.)

Not really. The Art of War is not perfect, no, but in a world where everyone has read it, a sufficiently shrewd leader could still benefit more from reading it than from not, because they would be able to predict what less competent or creative warlords would do by knowing the books on which they're depending.

Obviously that doesn't apply to Parson, since it's unlikely anyone else in that world has read the Art of War; but there, he can just depend on the more traditional advantage of knowing the useful things in it that other people there might not have realized.

[Tubercular Ox]

See this is something I have been wondering, if every military leader read the Art of War. Would not a shrewd leader who didn't gain an advantage because he hadn't? What with having no biases

(Bare in mind I myself have not read it so this may be a completely uneducated question.)

Well, just as an example, there was Nathan Bedford Forrest, who learned his craft almost entirely on the job. No preconceptions, you might say. He is hailed as a natural military man, I'd say a small step under military genius. I have a book on strategy that prominently quotes him as the header to one of its chapters. Asked how he wins battles, he said "Get there first with the most men." This sounds like it's he's being silly, but, my book explains, it succinctly states a rather sophisticated maxim: Be stronger at the decisive point. Very similar to Clausewitz' theory of the "center of gravity." In the theory presented by the book, the science of strategy is almost entirely devoted to figuring out where "there" is when you're trying to get "there" first with the most men. The ART of strategy is being able to move the decisive point to where your men already are.

Wait, I'm digressing... the point is Nathan, a self taught man, reached basically the same conclusion as Clausewitz. While I cannot remember a parallel maxim from Sun Tzu off the top of my head... the demonstration that there are certain basic things which must be learned, whatever the source, should be sufficient to show that, no, not reading Sun Tzu would not give you any special advantage. IMO. >.> Let the argument commence.

[DevilDan]

The beauty of The Art of War is that one can detect the general principles behind the lessons. In one way or another, their genius can be applied to a variety of situations, perhaps across the entire spectrum of human endeavor..

[FacelessSchmuck]

Considering how Person acts it might be easier to think of books he has NOT read.

Ooh, ooh, I know! The 4e PHB.

[Decius]

Asked how he wins battles, he said "Get there first with the most men." This sounds like it's he's being silly, but, my book explains, it succinctly states a rather sophisticated maxim: Be stronger at the decisive point. Very similar to Clausewitz' theory of the "center of gravity." In the theory presented by the book, the science of strategy is almost entirely devoted to figuring out where "there" is when you're trying to get "there" first with the most men. The ART of strategy is being able to move the decisive point to where your men already are.

Wait, I'm digressing... the point is Nathan, a self taught man, reached basically the same conclusion as Clausewitz. While I cannot remember a parallel maxim from Sun Tzu off the top of my head...

I don't have my reference handy, but Sun Tzu did talk about attacking only where the enemy was weak, and defending strongly only where the enemy was attacking. That comes pretty close to "Have the most men there first".

As well, Parson did a superb job at the entire "Where you are weak, appear strong, where you are strong, appear weak." He also understands desperate ground, and has intentionally put his army with their backs to the (Metaphorical) river- Rather than fight to the end in the courtyard, or even the outer wall zone, he has chosen to make his stand in the dungeon, where falling back is impossible.

Of course, I'm not sure how much the morale effects apply when most of your army is undead.