| Submit your comments on this article |
| China-Japan-Koreas |
| "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu becomes required reading for Chinese cadets |
| 2006-05-08 |
| With the recent publication of a textbook of "The Art of War by Sunzi", the world's oldest military treatise has become required reading for officers in China's military schools. They're just now getting around to it? Jeez, I thought they'd have read this for centuries. Suppose it might have been deemed reactionary ideas or something. According to the Chinese Academy of Military Sciences (CAMS), the formal introduction of the ancient works by ace Chinese military expert Sunzi is aimed at "improving strategy and command proficiency of military officers" of the People's Liberation Army. Ah, I suppose that only Mao Zedong could supply any worthy military thought. "The Art of War by Sunzi," written more than 2,500 years ago, has been widely acclaimed by military commanders both in China and overseas for its superb military artistry and philosophical intelligence. The new textbook, compiled by the CAMS, provides an original version of the works and a modern Chinese translation. It also contains comments and research essays on each of the 13 chapters, which detail various strategies, warfare planning, war operation and other related tactics. Link to the original text of "The Art of War". A great read, if you haven't already. |
| Posted by:gromky |
| #13 The Art of War was and still is required reading for Marine company grade officers. I've read through it twice now. Same w/"the prince" (though that's not required military reading - I just did it for shitz & gigglez). I think both books should be required reading for anyone who plans on going into the military or politics. |
| Posted by: Broadhead6 2006-05-08 20:15 |
| #12 Neither book is really suited for clobbering liberals there Darth. I think a good hard copy of Clausewitz on war just might crack the hard shell. |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2006-05-08 14:51 |
| #11 Not quite what I meant, ZF. I'll explain later when I get home. |
| Posted by: Phil 2006-05-08 12:46 |
| #10 should make em watch Wesley Snipes in Art of War ...painful |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-05-08 11:34 |
| #9 Machiavelli was about governmentship with war as a method of diplomacy. Sun Tzu was about fighting the war and being ready for it. Both are great works and need read. Or need to be used to clobber liberals with. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2006-05-08 11:24 |
| #8 Phil: (To make a long story short, Machiavelli talks about war as an extension of politics and methods of war as extensions of the political structures of the time, and the differing "military" styles of dictatorships and republics, in much greater depth than he did in The Prince. Sun Tzu doesn't discuss politics, but if you look closely he contains the never stated, always implicit assumption that the state he's giving advice to is an isolationist dictatorship run by a sage-king of some sort.) Well, Machiavelli was more or less free to publish what he wanted, as long as he insulted no one personally who was still alive. Sun Tzu wrote, a couple of thousand years ago, in an environment in which works of this type were considered state secrets and private possession of such were considered to be a sign of seditious intent. To what extent the limitations of Sun Tzu's work involved self-censorship, a deliberate decision to limit the scope of the exposition or Sun Tzu's personal limitations, I don't really know. (Subsequent unattributed writers and editors have added and subtracted passages, so no one really knows what the original looked like). But as a primer on leadership (the ability to attract and retain followers) - as opposed to purely military methods, Machiavelli's work is far superior. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2006-05-08 11:14 |
| #7 Probably because when it was first translated people were comparing it to the book by Machiavelli of the same name. Since noone wants to talk about the book by Machiavelli for some very "good" reasons (or more accurately, some extraordinarily strong bad reasons), people have forgotten about it and assume that Sun Tzu's "Military Matters" is the original of the _Art of War_ title. (To make a long story short, Machiavelli talks about war as an extension of politics and methods of war as extensions of the political structures of the time, and the differing "military" styles of dictatorships and republics, in much greater depth than he did in The Prince. Sun Tzu doesn't discuss politics, but if you look closely he contains the never stated, always implicit assumption that the state he's giving advice to is an isolationist dictatorship run by a sage-king of some sort.) |
| Posted by: Phil 2006-05-08 11:03 |
| #6 It's pretty weird how the title became prettified into "The Art of War" - the original Chinese, "bing fa", translates literally into "military methods". |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2006-05-08 10:50 |
| #5 It was big in B-schools here for awhile, too, wasn't it? |
| Posted by: eLarson 2006-05-08 10:16 |
| #4 Every modern army uses Sun Tzu's operations guide, a five or six paragraph method of planning that is unsurpassed in covering the details needed for a military operation. (The US, rather foolishly, omits the 6th paragraph, for no good reason.) Mandatory reading for military people, along with Clausewitz, Dupuy and Dupuy, and Mahan for naval warfare. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-05-08 09:41 |
| #3 The Sun Tzu for Dummies edition. As the first reviewer notes: This is the most accessible translation of Sun Tzu's Art of War availible. The text is contemporary english at roughly a seventh grade level, and the illustrations are brilliant. The illustrations both illuminate the concepts in the text and are lightly humorous. Use the Amazon preview ability to see the illustrations. The ISBN is 0-385-47258-7. Disregard the listing price, the paperback copy can be found cheaper with an ISBN search. |
| Posted by: Thruth Gluger5702 2006-05-08 09:40 |
| #2 An excellent resource on "The Art of War" |
| Posted by: tipper 2006-05-08 09:04 |
| #1 I haven't read it and I really should. Thanks gromky. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2006-05-08 07:51 |