Sun Tzu vs. Alexander the Great

[HtotheNootch]

I was reading the extremely interesting article "Sun Tzu Sklansky", and I wondered about a few things. I'm a fair student of history, and I remember from my readings about Alexander the Great that he took an entirely different tack.

According to the article (I'm more into Greco-Roman history than Eastern) Sun Tzu - at least as paraphrased - said, "The highest form of generalship is to balk the enemy's forces; the next in order is to attack the enemy's army in the field; and the worst policy of all is to besiege walled cities."

Well if Alexander is any indication, he ignored this policy on at least one occasion. When a city that had high walls and was protected by water refused to surrender to him he decided to build a causeway that's still in existence today so he could attack. He besieged one of the toughest walled cities in the ancient world because they refused to surrender. He wanted to make an example of one city so he could get others to surrender easily.

I'm wondering if anyone here has any insite as to how this jibes with the Sun Tzu Sklansky quote?

[12AX7]

Well,
As I recall the academic types state that the three core early documents on strategic thinking are:

1) Art of War - Sun Tzu
2) Book of Five Ring - Myomoto Musashi
3) The Prince - Niccolo Machiavelli

In my reading a contrast stuck out at me. That of East v. West philosophy.

First off, the eastern cultures of those times had a caste system. You were stuck where you were born. Western cultures allowed you to move up and down (somewhat) via skill. Consider too that Toaist and Zen thinking was prevalent in the east. Somewhat different from Western ways of thinking, wherein individual achievement is revered. I do believe putting the group first was the eastern way.

(Not surprising, may East-West difference are diametric. Consider the age/behavior thing. In the East very young and very old folks are permitted to be undisciplined. The folks in the middle, who are strong and healthy have to be discplined. Exactly the opposite of the West where kids and oldster are told to behave, while the adults run amuck. LOL!)

This difference is clear if you read between the lines a little in the above three texts.

However I can say, if you read "Warfighting" the USMC text, which was once published as "business strategy" by one of those publishers like Prentice-Hall that does business books. Essentially it was billed as a way of thinking about centrally managed but locally empowered teams.

Therein, I do believe it was mentioned that "when the aims of policy cannot be met through diplomacy, then the military exists to handle the matter".

Implicit in that statement is "diplomacy first, war second". I.e. Sun Tzu all over again.

So anyway, perhaps Caeser did ignore Sun Tzu's admonishments... but then wouldn't that be consistent with Roman ideals of the period anyway?

Now stepping forward to modern times, many folks seem to think "The Prince" is *the* blueprint.

However I'd argue that it's not the solution, but the problem itself.

That people are still willing to commit Machiavian schemes on each other, even after he wrote them out so clearly, seems to me to be the whole problem with the world in general.

Geez, even Niccolo himself stated that it was just the interim plan until Italy was rid of its problems among the city-states. Thereafter a more thought Republic was his concept, right? At least if I remember what "The Discourses" were to be about.

In any event, poker is a near perfect encapsulation of the problems the Machiavelian way of thought embodies, at least as presented in "The Prince".

An sadly, it would seem that Wall Street et. al. operates in the same manner.

Can it not be said that the trading pits are a poker game that unfortunately affects all the rest of us, whether we like it or not?


****

Now getting back to Ceaser's attack of the toughest city. Ummm, well that's an old strategy. "Take the head of and the body is useless".

Perhaps more germain. Wanna shut the local gang down. Kick the 'ss of the toughest guy in the gang and the rest might just back down.

Now interestingly, Machiavelli also stated something about having to totally extinguish cultures where freedom was the rallying call. Because if you didn't, well, than someday, maybe even a 100 years later, it will resurface.

(Not sure how that relates, just seem to fall from this discussion.)

[MadTiger]

The general "policy" is to avoid such laborious, resource-draining sieges. But an allowance was made to set an example for any in the future who thought this would be the way out.

In a similar way, you might sacrifice a few chips early in a session, or tournament, to let the table know (or think they know) something about you. It is not your general policy to bleed your stack, but it is serving a higher strategic purpose.

[Peter666]

Western Military thinking has always been more pragmatic and hence effective. As an above poster alluded, it is not stuck in a traditional type of mindset. If it works, do it.

I've seen competitions against practioners of the Samurai Arts versus pracitioners of Western Swordsmanship. Although the Katanas and technique of the Japanese is a great art, the western practioners could pretty much clobber them with one strike death blows from their (wooden) weapons. The Japanese are simply too preoccupied with their way of dress and performance (such as only using right handed motions with the Katana) while the Westerners come in with an "I'm going to crush your head" type of attitude. Westerners can quickly adapt to a new situation and learn from their mistakes, while other military cultures are stuck in the past.

[shutupndeal]

I also am not quite certain that any military theory can laud individuals achievement unless it related the "the whole winning which supercedes the individual". In other words what good is it if I kill 50 enemy and its the biggest single persons contribution if my side loses? The "whole" is always first.

[12AX7]

No Doubt. No doubt. I often say to martial arts guys I know. "What ever the Special Forces are using today is the real deal". LOL!

But there is some intrinsic appeal to the asian martial arts thing. Perhaps because we are all in the generation that grew up watching the "Kung Fu" series. LOL!

I will say this about swordsmanship though. I do believe the Katana is a superior weapon to the Sabre. Having held each, the sabre is a hacking weapon. The katana is way more manueverable. I tend to think an individual that practised with the katana, without any traditionalism might be the superior combatant.

Of course in a cavalry situation the opposite may be true, because of the aggravations of working from horseback.

Realize too, that Kendo (emphasis on do) is not the same thing as Kenjustu (emphasis on jutsu).

In any event, if there's anything the Europeans (and thus by extension Americans) are masters of, it's mechanized combat.

Nuke 'em 'till they glow. LOL! "They idea is not to die for your country, but to make the other guy die for his." LOL!

Crude and often unrefined, but true and effective none-the-less. (It's not all encumbered with religious philosophies, etc.)

So does anyone else think "Nathan Jessup" was the hero too? LOL!

[12AX7]

True, Military Operations are almost by definition, group affairs.

However, western culture tends to focus on individuals.

"General X" was a great man. Etc.

I think Toqueville accurately pointed out there was an intrinsic conflict in the American Ideals of "Majority Rules" and "Individual Freedom".

Seems to be clear to me "Majority Rules" is just law of the jungle codified. Big Half gets to tell Little Half what to do.

Where's the protection for individual freedom in that?

Which to some extent was one of Toqueville's critiques.

But he was a self identified critic of Democracy and prefered that aristocratic system. Perhaps because he was among the aristocracy, I'd tend to think.

[PeteN]

Great post

[creedofhubris]

Alexander the Great was a young gun. He died in his mid-20s. In many battles he was in the van, and he almost was killed battling the Persians when his unit ran into a heavily armed enemy group. He had a powerful edge over his opponents because of a technical innovation (the phalanx) which made his armies supreme.

Sun Tzu was much older when he formulated his advice, having survived an awful lot of battles. His armies were equal in technology to the armies surrounding him; his victories came through guile and trickery.

I know who I'd trust to give me strategic advice.

[superchoatie]

I'd say Alexander is the loose-aggressive guy who takes on AA with 75s and doubles up a couple of times. Sun Tzu waits until he's got the best of it. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[creedofhubris]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd say Alexander is the loose-aggressive guy who takes on AA with 75s and doubles up a couple of times. Sun Tzu waits until he's got the best of it. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Nah, Alexander just gets dealt an ace in the hole every time.

Sun Tzu makes raises his opponents can't call. His bets are "too good".

[SA125]

n/m

[boogiemang]

i would have to go with sun tzu...

i feel that another way you could look at alexander was as a visionary. In poker terms i would say that he wanted to make his bankroll so huge and had dreams of stardom that he went all in every hand and got lucky and won. His bankroll grew but finally someone with aces cracked him and thatd be it...