WI no "Art of War"?

What if Sun Tzu had never written The Art of War?

Leaving aside the issue of whether he wrote it or one of his students, how would Chinese and world history have been changed if the "Art of War" was never written?
 

jahenders

Banned
That's pretty hard to say since that period of history is somewhat murky.

In China, it might only have a small impact in that it was fairly well known (presumably on all sides) within a few centuries. It might have impacted China's adversaries if they didn't have it and China still otherwise had better strategists.

As far as the Western world, I don't see its lack having too significant an impact. While it's a good summary of key strategic concepts, by the time the Western world became aware of it (in the late 1700s), others had derived similar theorems in many cases.

I'd say it's biggest impact was in creating a short, simple set of maxims that everyone could use as a "common language" for discussion.

What if Sun Tzu had never written The Art of War?

Leaving aside the issue of whether he wrote it or one of his students, how would Chinese and world history have been changed if the "Art of War" was never written?
 
In China, it might only have a small impact in that it was fairly well known (presumably on all sides) within a few centuries. It might have impacted China's adversaries if they didn't have it and China still otherwise had better strategists.

Are you sure that the impact would be that small? I`ve read that it defined much about Chinese military thinking ever since, and that it had long-reaching consequences even on Chinese society.
 
As far as the Western world, I don't see its lack having too significant an impact. While it's a good summary of key strategic concepts, by the time the Western world became aware of it (in the late 1700s), others had derived similar theorems in many cases.

The west never created anything similar to The art of War, western mind is just a mindless kill-each-other until the last standing calls himself winner. In the art of war there is a passage about which states that the greatest achievement of a general is not to defeat an enemy but turn him into an ally. Explain that to the average brutally clumsy John Wayne wannabe/fanboy.

The only thing that resembles Sun Tzu finesse is Machiavelli Principe.
 
The west never created anything similar to The art of War, western mind is just a mindless kill-each-other until the last standing calls himself winner. In the art of war there is a passage about which states that the greatest achievement of a general is not to defeat an enemy but turn him into an ally. Explain that to the average brutally clumsy John Wayne wannabe/fanboy.

The only thing that resembles Sun Tzu finesse is Machiavelli Principe.

And that's the main difference between Sun Tzu and Clausewitz, which is seen as western equivalent. Sun Tzu will go on a tangent and deal with pretty much everything, be it war or not, and say he deals with war. Clausewitz, or west in general, will consider war only when states and armies actually clash, everything else is not war. Can be effective but it's not war and as such shouldn't be in a book called "On war".
 
The west never created anything similar to The art of War, western mind is just a mindless kill-each-other until the last standing calls himself winner. In the art of war there is a passage about which states that the greatest achievement of a general is not to defeat an enemy but turn him into an ally. Explain that to the average brutally clumsy John Wayne wannabe/fanboy.

The only thing that resembles Sun Tzu finesse is Machiavelli Principe.

The difference is in Western thought if you are at war then your goal is to win. Its separate from peacetime. This works especially once war becomes expensive and demanding of a nation's entire resources.

In China at various points soldiers were looked down upon and diplomats and administrators were thought to be purer if useless at war so it makes sense that works on the topic would focus as much as possible on non military matters.
 
The west never created anything similar to The art of War, western mind is just a mindless kill-each-other until the last standing calls himself winner.
Some among many to just point how this is...well, I don't really have words so, feel free to imginate your own.

De Re Militari, the absolute best-steller on the question...
Dell'arte della guerra, by il signor Machiavelli, which had a huge influence.

And I'm not even mentioning the hanfdul of Byzantine Strategikon or the Arabo-Islamic treaties.

The idea that ancient/medieval warfare in Europe was just about "Kill them all, hurr durr" have to die. Painfully and slowly.
 
Some among many to just point how this is...well, I don't really have words so, feel free to imginate your own.

De Re Militari, the absolute best-steller on the question...
Dell'arte della guerra, by il signor Machiavelli, which had a huge influence.

And I'm not even mentioning the hanfdul of Byzantine Strategikon or the Arabo-Islamic treaties.

The idea that ancient/medieval warfare in Europe was just about "Kill them all, hurr durr" have to die. Painfully and slowly.

And given the Chinese wars regularly killed millions of people you have to wonder whether any of them paid attention to Sun Tsu. Bandits and rogue governers regularly crushing imperial armies sent to deal with them puts the Imperial army in poor light often enough anyway.
 
And given the Chinese wars regularly killed millions of people you have to wonder whether any of them paid attention to Sun Tsu. Bandits and rogue governers regularly crushing imperial armies sent to deal with them puts the Imperial army in poor light often enough anyway.

Which imperial army are you talking about, if you want to talk about the later Han dynasty then I would say it was lousy?

I don't know if no Sun Tzu would change anything. Sun Tzu at least compared to Machiavelli and Clausewitz, was much more simple as it didn't deal with historical narratives or formulations respectively in Machiavelli's Art of War, or On War. yet had as sayings and examples that deal with basically everything, with a few special topics dedicated to fire attacks and espionage. You could still have a book in a similar format, maybe with several omissions or inclusions of other things.
 
Which imperial army are you talking about, if you want to talk about the later Han dynasty then I would say it was lousy?

I don't know if no Sun Tzu would change anything. Sun Tzu at least compared to Machiavelli and Clausewitz, was much more simple as it didn't deal with historical narratives or formulations respectively in Machiavelli's Art of War, or On War. yet had as sayings and examples that deal with basically everything, with a few special topics dedicated to fire attacks and espionage. You could still have a book in a similar format, maybe with several omissions or inclusions of other things.

Generally all of them at one point or another declined to the point of mobs despite being lead by scholars who almost certainly read Sun Tsu's work. China had its fair share of great generals but in the later dynasties soldiers were secondary to bureaucrats and scholars and being effective was a mark against a general... None of that was changed or prevented by Sun Tsu so the lack of his texts probably result in good generals with high quality armies still doing well and bad ones with low quality still failing. Sun Tsu's advice was pretty basic and simple. Mostly common sense not an instant win or enough to fake competence if the commander is an idiot.
 
Top