-
-
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The one from Barnes and Noble
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Clausewitz is a modern political scientist, AoW is an imperial gray mirror text compiled over a long time. IMO "Gallic War" by Caesar might give a better and more contemporary perspective.
-
oh interesting may as well throw that in the mix!
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Maybe I'm just grugging here, but it seems like they might be better off learning how to fight than reading books about abstract wars from a different era?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
http://amazon.com//Military-Strategy-General-Control-Classics/dp/1591149843 … The title is kind of misleading, as it's really a book on general strategy, or achieving "control," though the author's focus is military
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Compare it with one of the late Roman guides to war: Vegetius or the Strategikon of Maurice. The Roman books are extremely practical, as opposed to the more philosophical Art of War.
-
?? Philosophical? The Art of War is mostly just “don’t fight a long war or you’ll go broke,” “be tricksy hobbitses,” and “don’t piss into the wind.”
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
TAoW is fine for what it is, but it's by no means the end-all of Eastern premodern military theory. 唐太宗李卫公问对 (Questions and Replies between Tang Taizong and Li Weigong) is a discussion of military tactics between Chinese Superman and his General Zod in the 8th c. CE.
-
oh excellent, thank you!
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.