That’s the thing with ancient wisdom. Over thousands of years, it either stands true and turns into common sense, or is replaced with better modern wisdom.
It’s also because it was meant to be read by lords and nobles to teach them the basics of war. A lot of them were EXTREMELY disconnected with reality and didn’t even fathom basic shit like “Oh yeah your troops need food. They can’t just forage mid war like animals would”
Well, they can, it just makes the peasants hate you.
It’s not just that though.
Anyone can get tunnel vision. A basic set of aphorisms is useful to keep yourself on task.
For example, let’s say you’re the greatest general who ever lived and Russia’s being a petty bitch and keeps running away from fights.
You can either read a basic set of fundamental rules to remind yourself not to lose it all with greed, or
It’s like the IT version of “did you check that the computer is properly plugged in ?”
Everyone roll their eyes having to check the plug but a lot of the time the issue can be something basic like that.
Reminds me of that time I drove an hour across town to one of our remote offices… Only for the printer to be unplugged AND the cable to be sitting in the hallway (you could trip over it!)
Or invade Russia, split your armies on the way to Moscow, and end up in Russia during winter with a splintered supply line?
Also many lords of that time were superstitious, and thought that things like ‘honour’ and ‘glory’ were more important than the lives of soldiers.
That’s a very good point, Sheeple.
Don’t forget the timeless pearl of wisdom, “Don’t fight if you’re gonna lose that fight.”
For a time period where esteem and ego ruled decision making, yeah that’s some solid advice.
Not only that. People used stars and other predictive technics to navigate their lives, warfare included. Methodical collection of the basics made it the ABC of war. Man invented it as the science.
I understand finding these things funny when you are a cool, level-headed person or not in a moment of fight or flee situation, but many of us fall prey to dumb reasoning in emotional situations.
Going slightly off-topic, but I’d wager many people have spent a lot of unnecessary money or gone to jail in the heat of the moment. And many of Sun Tzu’s or Lao Tzi’s (Tao) advice is like: “stop, breathe, and think it through mofo, stop being an impulsive idiot and paying a high price for it”
Nobody who is at risk of getting in a bar fight is having their life turned around by The Art of War. If you’re reasonable enough to take a breath and step back from that Chad about to pound your face in, it wasn’t Sun Tzu that did that.
“Say you’re sorry, buy him a beer, and then knife his tires”
- Sun Tsu
There are a few nuggets that are still only obvious when you actually think about it. Like don’t fight with a hill behind you because you might need to retreat, do fight with a forest behind you for the same reason.
You can retreat through the forest only if you scouted and secured it.
Quintilius Varus, give me back my legions!
Or ‘fight with the sun behind you’ or ‘leave enemy soldiers an obvious escape route’ or ‘be careful with marshy terrain where logistics will become a nightmare’.
leave enemy soldiers an obvious escape route
Was thinking about this leading up to the Ukraine war…
deleted by creator
It’s funny that this is common sense, but attacking in anger/revenge without a considered plan is still a common staple in history.
Common sense: ironically, not that common.
Emotions exist.
It still blows my mind that for a large part of human history wars were literally just two giant armies marching towards each other.
Or that castle sieges were much more boring than made to seem and would last months
"Go away you filthy beggars! I spit in your general direction!”
Your mother is a hamster and your father smells of elderberries
Fart. He farts in their general direction.
Is it? I’m really convinced he shouts “spit”, followed by the mocking sound of it (“ptui, ptui”).
I remember them saying “fart”, but it has been a few years since I saw it last. I could be mistaken. It’s possible that he says both.
Edit: I just checked, it’s “fart”, right at 1:45, so start just before then.
I need to watch the movie again.
I watch this and Blazing Saddles every few years. It’s about time for me to watch both of them again.
It was even more boring than that. The amount of food you need vs is available plus roads mean your pretty limited in what you can even try to do until engines.
https://acoup.blog/2022/07/15/collections-logistics-how-did-they-do-it-part-i-the-problem/
Or that castle sieges were much more boring than made to seem and would last months
Huh, what media are you talking about? Might just be the generes I enjoy but I’ve never seen anything suggest that castle sieges didn’t last ages. Wouldn’t that kinda go against the point of a siege?
Maybe it’s got to do with a confusion of language. Not every attack on a fortified structure is a siege. Like the battles at Helm’s Deep or Minas Tirith in Lord of the Rings could be confused with a siege because they are battles around forts and cities. But the intention was to destroy these places, not make the inhabitants surrender.
The fact that it’s common sense now is proof it worked.
Also: “feed your troops”
with stolen supplies from the enemy.
God I loved my account siphon/vamp netrunner deck.
Hey stealing enemy supplies works great especially when said enemy is too stupid to poison or burn it. Just ask General Sherman, the march to the sea wouldve been a lot harder if Southern leadership was smarter.
Resources are finite, especially during war. They don’t want to poison or burn food that they need to eat. The idea is that you stop the forward march of the enemy before he gets to your food stores. If you can’t stop his advance then you have bigger problems than the enemy looting your food supplies.
“He who has dial-up internet is easily taken by surprise.” --10 year old me playing Age Of Empires
