On War vs. The Art of War - Clausewitz vs. Sun Tzu | East vs. West | Polandball/Countryball History
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 сер 2024
- 📢On War versus The Art of War, Carl von Clausewitz versus Sun Tzu, Prussia versus China, East versus West! Whose seminal work of military theory will come out on top? You can help us make more videos like this one on: 👀
🥰Patreon: / callmeezekiel
▶️UA-cam Memberships: / @callmeezekiel
⭐SubscribeStar: www.subscribes...
🙏PayPal: www.paypal.com...
📚Main sources:
🎖️On War: amzn.to/3Ntgs9a
⚔️The Art of War: amzn.to/3zB84Ph
Note: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
Crypto: 💸
🟠BTC: bc1qj2szqj0h0rj2zz5x0zdhr8fzrh85zmatwxht26
🔵ETH: 0x0344A4aF3eCe5F8E5C0f65FC4c7eB667bf31cD60
You can also watch us on... 👀
❤️Odysee: odysee.com/@Ca...
💚Rumble: rumble.com/Cal...
💬Learn about military theory and history with CallMeEzekiel in this fun and informative video presented in the Polandball/Countryball style.
🎵 Music from:
- RimWorld - Royalty Soundtrack
- Opening - Cellophane Sam
- I Want To Die In A War - Jreg
- "Shenyang" by Kevin MacLeod
Link: incompetech.fi...
License: creativecommons...
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #1 НАЧАЛО ПУТЕШЕСТВИЯ [Новый сезон] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/380Q7gLWGvk/mqdefault.jpg)
🥰Patreon: www.patreon.com/CallMeEzekiel
▶UA-cam Memberships: ua-cam.com/channels/nZ1r94_Ptz_1gN5VBnE0Mg.htmljoin
⭐SubscribeStar: www.subscribestar.com/CallMeEzekiel
🙏PayPal: www.paypal.com/donate?hosted_button_id=EAQPBZ8VHGFL6
📚Main sources:
🎖On War: amzn.to/3Ntgs9a
⚔The Art of War: amzn.to/3zB84Ph
Note: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
Crypto: 💸
🟠BTC: bc1qj2szqj0h0rj2zz5x0zdhr8fzrh85zmatwxht26
🔵ETH: 0x0344A4aF3eCe5F8E5C0f65FC4c7eB667bf31cD60
You can also watch us on... 👀
❤Odysee: odysee.com/@CallMeEzekiel
💚Rumble: rumble.com/CallMeEzekiel
Nice ending song I enjoy a man of culture
Ezekiel, are you aware of a style of speaking called "the royal 'we' "? Its what claushewits uses in the book, and is more indicative of a nobles pursuit. Love the video!
Your Poland is upside down. This makes that country Indonesia, not Poland.
How many CallMe clones we gonna get?
On information in Warfare: Even if both sides have absolute perfect information of the other, it doesnt actually render irrelevant the training of generals. in fact it makes officers decisions even more difficult and complex because they have to make tactical decisions based on their current inflexible strategic and logistical organization. Even if typically the rule is: Sergeants, LTs and Captains handle tactics, Brigadiers handle Strategy, and generals handle information and logistics in the US army, realistically everyone currently handles tactics atm because of the lack of full scale escalation.
But we can see that even with perfect information, RTS games are not chess when the players have perfect information.
Clausewitz: all i want for christmas is a unified german front to take on Paris.
Bismark: HO HO HO. MERRY CHRISTMAS.
Frohe Weihnachten. Ho Ho Ho.
He kinda does look like a mall santa
He s saunta clause witz
The fat bearded man always delivers.
Bismarck DOES have great facial hair, like Santa.
“All warfare is based -“
Topkek
Based?
Based on what?
@@theanonymousmrgrape5911 Based quite literally on it self. To be based means to understand the power of having your own base and the independence it gives you.
@@theanonymousmrgrape5911 "based on deception" - Sun Tzu
@@kevincastillomorales4858 nice response POG
Sun Tzu: the art of war
Carl von Clausewitz: on war
Adolf Hitler: on war because of Art
Lmaoo
Hitler, Adolf is the name of several generals and people
@@jackyhe3192 don't worry if there is Adolf and art in the sentence we know which adolf is 😂
@@jackyhe3192 let's be honest, we know who adolf we talking about
why the fuck did you write Marie von Clausewitz? That's not his name. That's not even a man's name.
I would disagree that Sun Tzu and Clausewitz disagree on the “not fighting” bit. Clausewitz seems to criticize unnecessary mercy because it wont win a war, while Sun Tzu points out that while winning a war is hard, winning a war without having to kill anyone is actually harder. That through positioning and manipulation of the battlefield you’re able to make the enemy commander surrender without even fighting at all. Sun Tzu isn’t saying “be merciful”, he’s saying “the highest tier of general is one so good he doesn’t even have to fight, like winning a game of chess without taking a single piece.”
Yeah, reading the Art of War makes it clear that "mercy" doesn't factor into things. It's far more likely that he was talking about things such as outmaneuvering the enemy so thoroughly that they have no chance of victory by the time both sides are in their battle lines, or possibly even by using other means to subdue the enemy before they take the field at all.
In my copy, at one point a war is mentioned where a Chinese general used reverse psychology to convince the enemy to employ vastly inferior officers and won that way. If you mananged to apply this strategy to the extreme, you could find yourself on the cusp of victory before the first battle has been fought, courtesy of a disloyal, cowardly, or imbecilic enemy leader who you have secretly helped to empower.
To be able to do that would require a very powerful reputation. Thomas Cochran is an excellent example, but he only managed it a few times.
Sort of like the game Go.
@@jerrycan1756 Genghis khan won many battles without fighting them. multiple towns were so terrified of the mongolians they immediately surrendered.
@@Dejawolfs this can mainly be attributed to his extreme measures against the ones that refused surrender.
Sun Tzu's idealism is more based not in fighting a bloodless war or battle out of kindness and pity, and more out of conserving your resources, present and future. It's more like saying getting the enemy to surrender is the best way because you lose the least amount of your own troops. I feel a lot of Sun Tzu's ideas are basically "stack every advantage possible in your favor so that you've won before the war even starts."
Also, Sun Tzu supposedly wrote this during the Spring and Autumn/Warring States period, which was a period of Chinese civil warfare characterized by small Chinese kingdoms/principalities launching campaigns with the aim of the total destruction of the opposing state and the integration of their land and people into its own. In this sense, winning a war with minimal bloodshed and destruction is also going to conserve the enemy's forces, and once the war is won, those basically become yours. Hence you want to preserve your own forces to conduct more war, but you also want to preserve the enemy's because they're your future subjects. If you win.
Also consider the theory that before his appointment Sun Tzu was a mercenary. In such a case his priorities were 1:survive 2:win 3:get paid.
@@cypher4783 For a mercenary I'd say the priorities would be 1:survive 2:get paid 3:win If you end up with a draw or a defeat and still get paid, all's well.
Correct. This speaker dont understand the subject
We Prussians had an Different mindset. Beating an Enemy without fighting means less Soldiers to see Combat. But War is an Survival of the fittest so these men would have 1.less experiens 2.possible become to arrogant 3.not learn from the enemy Fighting Pattern. But this is just my view on it.
Until 1945 this is basically how all wars went, the more conquered resources you preserve the stronger your empire gets. Napoleon didn't completely destroy the places he conquered, he used those places to attack the next.
Clausewitz: finishes "On War"
Low countries: Start sweating profusely
funny meme
Sun Tzu is more popular because his theory actually works.
@@Alex-pj8nz no, its more popular becouse his work is extremly short and simplistic
@@Alex-pj8nz Actually Clausewitz Theory Worked (Go Search Franco-Prussian War)
kingdom of Italy At War. How about WW1 and WW2.
"Imagine not being misquoted by everyone for haha funny"
- Sun Tzu, The Art of War
"lol imagine getting quoted"
-Clausewitz, On War
@@pimiento3428 Apply water on burned area
It's kinda funny how he thinks a translation from old Chinese into English is a better translation than that of a work from more modern German into English. I mean, even his opening remarks on the titles of the works are flawed. Even the title the 'ART' of War is an interpretation. The character used for the 'art' in the title of the Art of War doesn't refer to the fucking arts in arts and sciences lol. It means art as in a set of skills or methods.
@@mkyt2601 would you say it's better translated as "craft of war"? ;-)
Oh ma godm Nugcon legendary animator
Did somebody say: “Unite the German states under Prussia and capture Paris”?
Adolf:hehe
@@user-ti4vd4yu2y Poland: please no
@@viraldudes1309 Bismark: YES
@@user-ti4vd4yu2y wrong german
imagine uniting germany and can't even kick a polish guy out his wagon lmao
"Only when Mosquito lands on your balls, you will solve problems without violence" -Sun Tzu
I'd rather whoop my balls than get a mosquito sting on them.
@aadhi gei Okay, what does your internet search history look like?
Just flick it off
@@NoNo-qj3ef but it’ll be the only time I’ll be sucked off
No that's a confucian saying...
Who is this sun tzu anyway? Did he get a game engine named after him? Didn’t think so
He put two of every animal on a boat, and then fought them. That's why they're called zoos
@@allseeingaids9734 unless its a farm
@@allseeingaids9734 Lmfao
@@allseeingaids9734 soldier gaming
Blood god
“Hell they both almost completely forget navies exist.”
As a paradox game player I have never felt more heard.
Naval combat, the most forgotten side of warfare.
funny considering both nations got royaly fucked over by naval powers
@@dbzfanexwarbrady "Just spam cas and paradrop"- sun tzu
@@gildedphoenix I'd say logistics is the most forgotten side of warfare.
@@Mostexcellant69Dude nah, without logistics, you'll absolutely get wrecked, but forgetting naval warfare exists it more common and not being logistically made relevant enough causing them to be stay forgotten. It's a negative feedback loop for navy, but not for logistics
"Why conquer and occupy an enemy power when you can just depose their leadership and replace them with friendlies?" - CIA reading Sun Tsu
*Any middle eastern dictator and/or terrorist entered the chat*
"Why conquer and occupy enemies when you can bomb them into a surrender and slaughter countless civilians in the process in the name of good fun, then garrison your men who proceed to rap€ 10 year olds and be let out of jail in two months?"
-united states
@John Smith
And then they're like "Why the rest of the world doesn't think we're the good guys?" I'm still pissed at USA bc they put illegal CIA torture camps called prisons in my country. And they didn't even fulfil their promise of the antibalistic shield from the potential Russian invasion
@aadhi gei Pinochet acted under his own initiative and was not put into power by the CIA.
Maybe because there are too many leadership that you didn't depose.
So Clausewitz sees war as a tool of the state while Sun Tzu sees war as a kind of necessity of the state?
No, Sun Tzu says it’s of vital importance. Not a necessity and if you ever read the art of war it’s all about avoiding war. Then it goes into how to wage types of war
Only wage war if you can win
No, the explanation given here is a common misinterpretation of Clausewitz. Clausewitz in his first book takes a dialectical approach, providing 3 definitions of war, a tool to enforce our will over the enemy, a duel on a larger scale, and as a mere continuation of policy with the addition of other means, finally arriving on what he calls his "remarkable trinity", defining war as the interaction and subordination to passion, rational forces and the forces of chance, with the final objective being to impose your will over the enemy. Examples of ways these forces can manifest are the people, policy subordinate to the State, and military campaigns, but this very explanation I gave you is still very simplistic.
When Sunzi lived, the state politics were handled mainly by the ruler with a small set of advisors. The book is written as pitch to let himself into that circle and be installed as the general. The language is simple. The principles are easily explained. Sunzi want the state to realize the importance of it and give a him a job.
When Clausiwitz lived, he lost his chance at being a general and European politic is run by technocrats and aristocrats while the ruler mainly acted as the decision of last resort. He ended up with a beaurocratic teaching position and decide to write it as reflection on the industry he is in all his life since he was 12. The book were written and rewritten so much it never got published because War is a complicated subject. It is a philosopical treatise, and it becomes a favorite of the political and military officer class as they can tied what they are doing in War or Politics into their ambitions just as Napoleon, Bennadote and Wellington did and what Clausiwitz trying to do.
My explanations are both very simplistic, these works are masterpieces. But these are the key differences between them. Keep in mind that Clausiwitz were heavily influenced by the French Revolution and Napoleon and the moment Sunzi is successful, he left his job because his king is inviting a new war with his behaviours.
@@Account.for.Comment thx
I dont get how Sun Tzu is implying kindness by saying that "supreme excellence consists of breaking the enemys resistance without fighting".
He's saying you can win a war without killing, and that such bloodless victories should be strived towards.
yea i agree, i see it more as conserving your resources.
Basically means you don't need to kill the entire Army to win the Battle like it is portrait in movies and Video games
actualy it could also mean at the start of the war, Massacre an entire City and send those 10.000 heads to the enemy king and a letter 'surrender or end up like this' and in future conflicts your other enemies know their fate. obey or die.
whenever i hear that i think abt the gulf crisis when the US basically stopped france and the UK from taking the suez canal by treatening to sell their currency and make their economy fall to the ground , to simply put the US used the treat of complete destruction to get france and the UK to do what the US wanted ...
without havng to send a single soldier there , it was the equivalent of completely destroying a kingdom economy afther a single battle , only they used the central bank and post WW2 economics ...
Poor Clausewitz, never got to see his predictions/dreams come true
I'm sure he would have been stoked to bear witness to the Franco-Prussian war, but maybe it's for the best he didn't see the sheer horror of WW1 (and especially it's sequel).
@@orangedalmatian yeah obviously lol, he was a pragmatist after all, doubt he'd think a world was was a good idea
Clausewitz would have bashed the heads of the Germans simply because everyone at the time knew that that was the Germans plan.
But wasn't n@zi Germany reunified? It did conquer France!
@@AmirHamza-km7ug no it reunified at least a 2nd time under the Prussians creating the German Empire/ the 2nd Reich.
And the plan was the Schieffen plan, which became out dated and inflexable in WW1 which was why in WW2 the Germans instead attacked in the Ardeans forest by pretending to repeat the plan.
P. S the 1st Reich is the Holy Roman Empire.
I mean, let's be honest, who cares about naval warfare? Can't blame them for staying on land
sad Nelson noises
Well... the birits. And they defeted both germans and chinese XD
But yeah, its not that funny.
I think a strong navy is much more important than a strong army
@Renan_PS yeah you are right
@@NH2iqball also depends on what kind of empire it is (colonial/trade vs military/continental)
King: I want woman warriors
Sun Tzu: no problem
(Executes his concubines)
King: *surprised pilachu face*
King : that was not what I signed up for
Clausewitz: "Sadly, I don't see a unified german force ever taking Paris"
Some failed artist from Austria: "Hold my beer"
Though this is also true, the larger irony here is that the small German states of the mid 1800s unified to fight Paris not long after his death. Hitler and his regime did it again, but much later.
I'm disappointed that you chose the Austrian over the Prussian (Bismarck) as the latter was the OG.
@@mikvan9849 The Franco Prussian war
A war born entirely out of a diss track that might have been sent using a telegram... Meaning they were getting dissed as they were translating the damn diss
You forget about me?!
@@ottovonbismuth Get out of here, Von Moltke did all the job
*"Outsmart them ass boi"*
-Tsun Zu 2020
Concubiene: *laughs
Sun Tzu: so you have chosen death
Based
Clausewitz: "Though the lowlands and take Paris swiftly"
Alfred von Schlieffen: "AHHH, the *Schlieffen* plan!" "How original!"
Manstein: "AHHH, the *Manstein* plan!" "How original!"
"Imma whoop yo' ass" - Sun Tzu
Sun Tzu is an idealist in so far that it is ideal that once the military is unleashed towards an objective (complete capitulation of the enemy state i.e. WW2) that the political class shouldn't interfere with it until the objective is reached or failure occurs. Clausewitz is more pragmatic because human nature will usually mean politics will get involved anyway and cause the military a thousand headaches (modern wars such as Vietnam and in the Middle East).
In that case, both are right? The scenarios like Vietnam and the Middle East is exactly what Clausewitz and Sun Tzu tried to avoid: political interference that leads to the inability to fully destroy the enemy.
@@alexanderchristopher6237 in Nams case both Generals would see that it was a loss the Moment the Soviets and China recognized North Vietnam as the US can no longer destroy the Enemy nor exert its authority over it.
While the 2 would disagree on the Middle East, For Sun it would be a failure as the US was unalble to stamp out Islamic extremists, however Clausewits would see it as semi successful as the US interests in the region are safe guarded, however for Afghanistan he would view that as a Fail as or at least a pyrich victory as the US was stuck there and have yet to fulfilled their goal of establish a western friendly state there.
indeed, and even sun tzu's contemporary generals were so heavily affected by politics that a lot of what the book contained couldn't even come into play.
the book is named aptly "art" of war, and not "how to war"
@@musAKulture The whole "Art" part is really a misnomer or bad translation. The original text in Chinese does not state war is an Art. More appropriate title should be Sun Tsu's Military Doctrine or Sun Tzu Laws of War but that's another whole issue.
@Ryan Markey
"No major proposal required for war can be worked
out in ignorance of political factors; and when people talk, as they often do, about harmful political influence on the management of war, they are not really saying what they mean. Their quarrel should be with the policy itself, not with its influence. If the policy is right-that is, successful-any intentional effect it has on the conduct of the war can only be to the good. If it has the opposite effect the policy itself is wrong." (Clausewitz, On War, Book 8 Chapter 6)
In other words political influence on the conduct of war is not a "headache" but absolutely essential.
"anime was a mistake"
- Sun Tzu, The Art of War
The fandom is pure tumour. Like, yes, alot of them are really nice and pretty cool but, yaknow, when body pillows are one of the most memorable merchandise, you know there is something wrong.
fact
Well if the nuking didn't happened...
Well
Actually anime was America's mistakes XD
@@tunguska2370 its the guy who assassinated the archduke fault
@@hewhoyeet4953 No no no
The driver intentionally took a wrong turn is the one responsible here
I love the little rivalry between Clausewitzs philosophy on war and sun tzus. I was reading a translation on Art of war, And the beginning authors notes talked about Clausewitz as if his style of war was Barbaric and lost from the original glory of war
Yeah because beheading concubines and burning peoples homes is noble and glorious.
@Kamil S *laughs in winning*
That's rather silly and short-sighted by the author of those notes considering Sun Tzu's wars were exclusively the civil variant - a series of wars between various factions trying to claim the mandate of Heaven. Quite literally, every citizen and soldier of your enemy's would be yours when the war ended. There would be no benefit to destroying your enemy in that kind of war. All it does is damage your future self and insure resentment leading to a new claimant to the mandate in the future. On the other hand, in a war between France and Germany, both would benefit from total destruction of the enemy. None of those French/German soldiers (except those on disputed border provinces e.g. the Rhineland) would ever serve a German/French Crown. Neither side can fully control the other's territory. At best they can turn the other into a nominally loyal client state or turn them into a series of balkanized states. Leaving your enemy intact in such situations simply insures they will be ready to regroup, attack you, and take back their territory even sooner.
@@shilopnamreg6468 ancient tactic is like that, you can't really bring modern morals to judge an ancient man. Also in that short story, it is very clear that the concubines were trying to manipulate the war council and took advantage of the weak or indecisive king. It is probably much more into that. Just think about it, how would a king still put a man who killed two of his favourite concubines in such a high position? I can easily imagine the king power was in the decline and the concubines were all nobles daughters. It is a deal the king chosen to take in order to test Sun Tzu and to find a reason to weaken the power of the nobles. I never read about the actual event but such assumptions can easily be made from the result of the event.
War purists
Sun Tzu's "Art of War" is based on ancient fragility of states because nothing particularly tied the people of a country to a given royal family. "On War" by Clauswitz is based on limited war, due to early modern fragility of economies, and a great deal of intermarriage between most European princely or royal families. In the same manner, "On Thermonuclear War" by Herbert Kahn is also a product of its time. I recommend J. J. Graham's 1873 translation of Clauswitz with FN Maude's notes.
It's not really early fragility but more so that it wasn't really worth it most of the time. Total wars were very uncommon across history but by no means a product of the industrial age. Remember the Punic Wars were total wars as well. As were many barbarian invasions. Total wars simply weren't worth it nor necessary especially since most wars were over things like trade or influence disputes where you expend a few hundred or maybe thousand professional soldiers. Even the bigger wars like say the war of Austrian succession had total casualties of the whole war of 750k. 3:1 wounded to casualty ratio and that puts it at 250k total dead. If only 11 million strong in 1700 Austria bore all of that itself.... that's only 2.2% of the population (basic conscription would solve that). Population growth by that point would basically erase that loss within a year or two. Cost of the war would be mostly financial at that point. Not fun. Pretty hard. But in real terms it would recover quickly. So war was just inherently limited until roughly the Napoleonic wars where you take in 10% of the population at a time to fight.
In any case... to say ancient fragility is the reason isn't exactly the case.
States during Zhou Confederacy has its distinctive languages, customs, and ethnicities. They were different civilizations, thus far more than your monarchs. Chu people and Jin people had very different cultures and languages.
@@alexanderchenf1 to sheep, other sheep are different.
@@DonMeaker does not make any sense
“early modern fragility of economies”
might be a slip of the tongue but the economies of early 1800’s Europe where FAR more robust then BC china.
Clausewitz: yeah, great plan but will never happen, not a single time. *cries single tear*
Moltcke, Schlieffen and Rommel: 3, take it or leave it.
"If fighting is sure to result in victory, then you must fight!"
-Sun Tzu
Sun Tzu Said that!
and he knows a little more about fighting than you do pal.
@@sosig6445 because he invented it!
@@warland2469and perfected it.
@@sethleoric2598so that no man could best him in the ring of honor
AAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Politician's should not direct wars and let his generals do their jobs, is basically what Sun Tzu means.
Sun Tzu would be disappointed in the Vietnam War and 'war' on 'terror'
So would Clausewitz. They would look at each other in disbelief on how retarded America is
The generations of Clausewitz and Sun wouldn't have wasted our Modern technology and knowledge
1800s Earth would be more peaceful and progressive. Even more so in Tzu's time
@@christiandauz3742 Vietnam war is made that way because of the result of US massive casualty in the Korean war. It is part politics and part of a reasonable decision. Who knew what would happen if Truman didn't stop the nuke dropping on Vietnam? Maybe there will be 50 countries with nuke right now instead of 10 or so. And many wars wouldn't have happened because US fear of nuclear retaliation and it would have drastically altered the 4 main powers US, EU, Russia and China playfield. Imagine this, every country in SEA formed an alliance and every single one own nuclear weapons? Or Africa union with 20 countries with nukes? Must be crazy am I right? Nuke is a technology that was invented 80 years ago after all.
@@clorkmagnus
Truman was right to stop MacArthur from using nukes and radioactive dust in Korea. MacArthur almost caused WW3 and ended humanity
maybe its more like bureaucrats shouldnt be directing wars and bossing generals around
@@christiandauz3742
And they’d ripped their hair out over Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine.
"Dont share your secrets in a youtube video" Sun tzu
An Outro with a Jreg song, the greates political Philosopher of all time in the universe? Now i expect a video about him!
Ezekiel: it’s way harder to find an English translation for
Me a German: UNNECESSARY
“Clausewitz is gay”
Sun tzu, the art of war.
Been sinking a lot of time into Rimworld lately and hearing the OST gave me a bit of a jump :D
"They prepare a Siege."
Bout to set a market on human leather corsets
9:17 Imagine being so correct and influential that despite your pragmatism thinking it'll never happen only for it to be tried twice. And it actually succeeded the second time.
In the Romance of the Three Kingdoms, Sun Tzu's decsendent Sun Quan embodies this aspect of politics divided from military campaigning very well. Whereas the states of Cao Wei and Shu Han both had campaigns fail because politics destroyed the careers or resulted in the execution of top commanders, Sun Quan entrusted his commanders with complete management of their campaigns in spite of popular protest by courtly factions. He probably had commanders poisoned on the sly after campaigns were done, but at least he followed the letter of the book.
What Sun Quan did better than them is more Clauwitzian. He is the best emperor of the era but the failures of his enemies is more complicated. Jiang Wei is destroying Shu after nine failed attempts and Zhuge Liang' s five. In Wei, the general amassed too much power and overthrow the ruler. The state beauracrats simply trying to stay alived.
The most influential advisor is Zhang Zhao who is a civil politician that made sure the court is clean. Three out of four of the grand commanders he employed are civilian officers with almost no experience in military. Therefore unlike in Shu where its repeated militarily failures desstroyed the civil government and Wei where the civil court is corrupted, Wu remained progressing until Sun Quan became senile and installed Zhuge Ke.
Zhang Liao at He Fei : hold my tea
@@NapoleonAquila Sun Quan at Jiangdong: My servants burned Cao Cao at Chibi, destroyed Cao Ren and behead Guan Yu at Jingzhou, burned Liu Bei at Yiling, make friend with Kongming after chasing his boss to death, discovered Ryuku islands, repelled the Caos and Simas from the South for decades and I am able to order my grumpy godfather around, backstabbed two warlords with way more power than mine and I got a popular song named after me for hundred of years. Who' s Zhang Liao?
War in politics might be easier to divide in a barbaric period of warlords when you didn't had profesional armies fielded primarily by the state. Nowadays the state invest heavily in war, as a results politics take priority above all matters been the primary reasoning behind war. Politicians obiviously don't make great commanders, but too a general they provide resources, public support for the campaign, diplomatic leverage and the power to ratify treaties. They are the best tool for achieving Sun Tzu's ideal of victory without fighting. Bismark is a great example of a politian who never lead an army, but conquered Germany without bloodshed. Hitler is a terrible example of this, while Abraham Lincoln is a great example of a great polititian who was cursed with terrible generals.
@@rafaelglopezroman1110 In a reading of Clausiwitz, all army commanders are politicians, full stop. Often ignored facts are that the great commanders often read about are coincidentally the highest ranking politicians in their states who got to decide the policies. Ceasar a dictator of Rome, Hannibal a noble, Pompei, Alexander the Great a king, Napoleon "emperor".. On and on. In the three kingdoms, each of the army of the 3 remaining state is led by their state prime ministers or king. Sunzi said the political ability is the first factor, he knew the state support is paramount, but he also knew that meddling from distance are often unhelpful. Hannibal and Archduke Charles failed in their campaigns because their state leaders had different political ideas and their enemies did not have the same problems.
Clausewitz: Unified Germany capturing Paris? That will never happen.
Germany: What if I do that anyway? And what if I do that twice?
Sun Tzu today: "So... nukes, huh?"
during the ming dynasty, one of the greatest generals, and later, the emperor managed to force a defeat on the mongols without fighting by making them think that they were outnumbered by many many times
"Stay strapped or get clapped." - Sun Tzu
Well, to me it seems like Sun Tzu was right in that the greatest excellence is to get your enemy to surrender without fighting, but I would also say that it is in no way a kindness to achieve that. Or rather one way of achieving it is certainly not kind. That is, being extremely brutal in your conquests to those who resist, but offering leniency to those who do not.
But by that logic,both are aligned . " Wars are the extention of politics" in a simplified way means that because you can't get what you want with negotiation so you go to war. "To achieve victory without fighting is supreme excellence" means that you have successfully negotiate (or intimidate) your way to victory. After all, the German empire got what it wanted: a unified German nation that can protect itself from foreign influence. Could the German states negotiate the French to leave them alone? Absolutely not. Did they achieved victory without fighting? Kind of, after the rise of the German empire, every neighboring countries known that they are not to be trifled with.
I would argue that Clauswitz's principles work better in low intensity conflicts where you can't just kill all people and there are a lot of room for negotiation while Sun Tzu are meant for total war where there isn't much talking. You either wipe the enemies out or get wiped out.
And while it's said that all officers in the North Vietnamese army had to read the art of war. Clearly the political maneuvering behind it involve some Clauswitz idea. With the help of foreign journalists, we successfully depicted Vietnam War in a way that's very distasteful for the international community and America itself. We Vietnamese called it " a war on all front" and that mean diplomacy and politic must be involved.
Sun Tzu spoke against total destruction saying that it must be avoided at all cost, so you are contradicting him. A lot of the things Sun Tzu writes about strategy simply make no sense according to our modern view. Which can't be helped sense he never lead a profesional army, just levy's who fought in spring and came back in autum. So he would probably achieve this victory without fighting through consistent skirmishes, and avoiding a direct battle at all cost.
@@rafaelglopezroman1110 He did understand that causing collateral damage to infrastructure and workforce is the last resort as you will have to rebuild them after the conquest. He was more like a military advisor so his writing is mostly theoretical
@@rafaelglopezroman1110 He fought a different kind of war, that's all.. During the Spring & Attumn Period, if you lose, you lose everything - there's no "live and fight another day" like in Napoleonic era.. As such, war is a very high-risk activity, and as such, it needs to be very profitable to balance that risk.
A war of attrition (a constant skirmishes), win or lose, would be a disaster for Sun Tzu. First, even if you win, you win nothing - the land that now your has been ravaged by war, its workforce has died off on the battlefield. All these high costs and you get a skeleton of a country as a reward. Secondly, the war will weaken you - while all your other “neutral” neighbors watch on, ready to jump on you at the right moment. As such, he focused on stacking all the odd he has, throw them in a few decisive battles, to win as fast as possible - or better, to win without much bloodshed on both side. Because he will then get the best reward, while exposing himself as little as possible. I won’t call that idealistic, just a quite low-risk strategy to build up your country - like saying "if you want to steal someone car, you better do it quick, you better choose the right time to avoid getting into trouble, and you better not destroy it in the process - because that's just fking stupid"
Welcome the future wars, where the enemy surrenders to the fear of being attacked, and no to being attacked.
Eezikiel: spends hours drawing these countryballs.
Me: listens to the video in the background.
*F For Eezikiel*
As someone else put it, Sun Tzu is to Clausewitz what a toothpick is to a Sequoia.
I don't hate Sun Tzu, but there's a reason he's so generally popular. His book is very short, and his teachings simple.
For Clausewitz it takes years if not decades of hard studying to fully learn and understand what he wrote.
I only knew about clausewitz thanks to the clauswitz engine
Also true for me lol
Really underrated channel tbh
I have a newfound respect for Clausewitz after this video. War is ugly and is glorified only by those that have never seen the horrors of it . Though can be a necessary evil in extenuating circumstances. His pragmatism I respect a lot. Good video!
I think both are right and most wars are somewhere in the spectrum between the two. Sun Tzu believes that when the goal is clear, you should strive for the perfect victory while Clauswitz argue that if you are not showing progress, maybe you should move the goal post a little bit. America had a clear goal to defeat Nazi Germany in ww2. But that doesn't mean it didn't have to take into consideration the opinions of it's allies. And sometime that means making military decisions that is not in the way they wanted.
@NSTER
You should check out the Record of Lodoss War ova's, they have a big battle which is treated as a sorrowful and pointless event afterwards.
Something interesting about Clauswitz's idea of war vs Sun Tzu's idea of war, Prussia is a nation famously known as "an army with a state" as opposed to the other way around, which applied to literally every other nation on earth. Clauswitz didn't think that the state should stay out of the military because, in Prussia, the state *is* the military. Of course, as both world wars will show, interference from the sovereign ultimately caused the cataclysmic fall of Germany. Such is the fate of an army when incompetent people are put at their head.
6:56 im no war scholar but what i understood from the art of war was there was no "kindness". it was about destroying the enemy, killing from the shadows, sabotaging equipment, crippling morale, setting fires in enemy encampments, assasinations of enemy higherups and so on. All this without standing against enemy in all out battle threatened to lose hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands of soliders. It was not about sparing enemies but demoralising them to the point when the deciding moment came they prefered to flee, suicide, betray or surrender.
"All war is throwing a million soldiers to capture one objective." - Joseph Stalin
The russian way of doing things.
Imagine if Stalin's generation grew up with the luxuries of Modern technology
He wouldn't be the monster he is. Neither would the inbred Hitler.
The world would be in a much better place
That explains why russians lost 3 times more men than Germany
@@aldovk6681
Had Stalin deployed and prepped the army a few days before Barbarossa the offensive would have stalled much earlier, much less territory and with higher casualties. WW2 ends three years earlier
@Matricx700 massacred civilians was a thing on both sides
At 6:16, in my opinion you might have misinterpreted Sun Tzu. I think he is referring more to how the success of a war dwells in the conquering of a state with as little resistance as possible and not the total amount of enemies you have killed as often fantasized and romanticized in ancient China.
Sun Tzu’s point here isn’t really focused on the possibility of a bloodless victory, his point here is that the lesser the bloodshed, the greater the victory.
Also his point is proven later in history, I mean German Anschluss happened without bloodshed at all. The annexation of Austria and studentland are without any body count, however terrible it may be. Germany at first, manage to force its will on two countries without ever actually fighting.
That is just my two cents. Thank you for reading.
That is what it means.
if you look at it from another angle, sun tzu's statement could be understood as: what's matter in a war is not to kill, but to get your point into your opponent's heads, to impose your power on them
which might be a rephrase of clausewitz's statement about war being an extension of politics
This was actually a lot better than I expected. All too often comparisons between these two works forget that while they are both broadly on the same subject, they're coming at it from radically different perspectives and the purpose of the book is very different. On War is not just a German Art of War, and vice versa. The Art of War is more like an instruction manual on how to win battles whilst On War is an exploration of the relationship between war and politics.
Also, bonus points for Jreg outro music XD
OH, that's why it's called the "Clausewitz Engine"
Thanks to the youtube algorithm for showing me this amazing video.
I'd like to point out that given what you told us, both books can be entirely accurate, if a country needs to be annihilated, Sun Zu's ideas are probably more accurate, but that situation gets rarer and rarer as international trade gets more and more important in either (attacker and defender) country's economy.
Another of Clausewitz's sayings is that War is Deplomacy by other means. When diplomats are negotiating, the relative strength of their country's armies, and willingness to use them, is a big factor in determining who comes out better in a negotiated settlement. But on the other hand, there is no such thing as a purely military victory unless it is part of a viable political framework.
I also like his thoughts on the relationship between strategy and tactics, and their hierarchical relationship. At any one layer of organization, the strategy must be developed based on an honest assessment of the tactics that are available and will be used. Plus the concepts that are "tactics" at one level become the elements of "strategy" at lower levels that are supported by lower level tactics.
On War : These things will never happen
Us learning about history : Hm you sure about that?
I don't think they forgot navies exist. I think Navies just didn't exist. Prussia was boxed in by naval powers in Sweden, Denmark, and Britain, relegated to the Baltic if Sweden or Denmark decided they could. Prussia's might was their land forces. And boats don't occupy cities or route armies or defend Berlin from the French. But armies do, so it's not like their lack of a navy hurt them. Ancient China meanwhile, boats we would now call small galleys was the extent of naval technology in Sun Tzu's era, it just didn't matter for a china that sought to unify.
I guess the Wehrmacht never heard that bit about not letting politicians interfere in military affairs.
9:05 yea hehe... yea...
AND THEN OTTO VON BISMACK CAME ALONG!
Later, a short man with silly mustache came next.
he actually made an art of war video
love you ezekiel, keep doing you
A unified Germany invading France through the low country... man what a crazy idea.
"Wow,I'm actually being compared with someone else"
-Sun Tzu
"bro my teammates suck"
Sun Tzu - Art of war
War is the dance upon which states are born, live and finally die to.
You can not have a state without war. You can also not have a state which dislikes wars. Wars are integral, and much necessary for the survival of the state and it's power. The war need not be bloody, it need not be fair, it can be acts cloudy or unknown. Whatever strikes fear into it's populace is the true state of war.
"It's hard to find a good translation for it (On War)"
Me: *laughs in German*
I love the difference is how the two books are written.
Art of War gets right to the point, "All war is based on deception"
On war looks like what I would do to my essay to reach a word count.
"We suggest that surprise lies at the root of all operations without exception, though in widely varying degrees depending on the nature and circumstances of the operation."
bro that is just german
Throwing shade at a renowned man such as Sun Tzu while writing your own book about war is such a goddamn Chad move.
Sun Tzu was also a low key feminist in that scenario. He treated the women as he would any other officer.
0:39 navies? What's that? Some sort of heavy armored mobile infantry?
Sun Tzu is absolutely correct about "supreme excellence," as use of assassins, sabotage, and intrigue is much better than losing a bunch of soldiers in field battles
My view is that the art of war is a beginners guide and on war is like a tutorial for the more complex stuff
Excellent video 👍
Sun Tzu says: “Your enemy cannot win, if you hold their family hostage.”
They both have a point.
It’s just a different viewpoint. Opinion. Emphasis
In other words:
Philosophy
hi you have a good channel, thank you for posting.
"Technoblade Never Dies." - Sun Tzu, The Art of War
My man, I instantly recognize the Rimworld soundtrack on the first 5 notes
I really like your channel, new sub
"bruh" - The Art of War, Sun Tzu
I agree with Clausewitz that politics is the exact reason for war. You wouldnt have a war without politics
I might actually check out the two works and since I am German, translation is not an issue
Was immer Du tust, nimm nicht die Ausgabe im Nikolverlag. Clausewitz neigt zu einer langen, komplexen Syntax und ein strategisch platzierter Kommafehler ruiniert den ganzen Sinn. Und Halleluja hat diese Ausgabe Komma und Tippfehler. Du glaubst gar nicht, wie viele davon man in ein drei Seiten langes Kapitel quetschen kann. Hab von meinem Prof erfahren, dass der Verlag wohl keine Lektoren beschäftigt.
@@n.n.5293 Danke für die Warnung
@@P99s-s lamgt wenn einer von uns den Fehler macht.
Wow i Don know what you mean and i am Indonesian in my up coment
“I’m sorta just better then you”.-Sun Tzu, The Art of War
One Guy won the War with his philosophies, the other lost.... There's zero comparison.
“If fighting is sure to result in victory then you must fight!” - Sun Tzu
It takes a giant set of balls to execute a kings' two favourite side chicks after he explicitly told you not to.
An simple man, I see Prussia, I click
Oh cool! How did I not know about your channel yet? Amazing work! :)
well history has proven more than once that victory without a fight is possible.
its is simply not an easy task especially with proud or arrogant nations but sun tzu never said that its a simple thing ,only that it is supreme excellence and he is right.
Underrated UA-camr
Jreg's track in the end - chef's kiss
The greatest difference is however the fact that the art of war was also a philosophical book, not just a war manual
The point of Sun Tzu's idealism for winning battles with the least amount of bloodshed is due to a couple of points.
1. Resources. If you force battles, chances are that you'll take losses as well even in a victory. If you can achieve these victories without losses, it's all for the better.
2. It is also good to remember that Sun Tzu wrote about wars within modern-day China, where all the different nations were still ruled by the same emperor, or at the very least claimed to be.
Sun Tzu wanted to conquer and then rule peacefully. To achieve this, it is better to have people join you willingly and if that's not possible, it's better to force your rule on the enemy if you can avoid getting them to become resentful towards you.
All in all, Sun Tzu is about becoming sovereign of others as efficiently as possible.
I always thought of Sun Tzu as the ultimate "reactor", he has a counter for every plan and seems to be playing for the enemy to wear themselves out trying to make things happen. He's very strategic, and as you said very idealistic. Clausewitz is coming off the shock of Napoleon (and probably mis-reading how the world is likely to develop). He's watched Napoleon's fast "Corps-based" army maneuver forces into unwinnable battles and take bits of territory off them while they try to rebuild. Sun Tzu assumes he can always react in time, at all levels. This is where the book of five rings chimes in for Clausewitz, though it's really about winning fights, not battles, it IS about "getting inside the decision cycle" so that your second attack hits while they are reacting to the first.
Clausewitz "works" best in limited wars with strong diplomatic facets (It helps to have a Bismark). The flip side is that modern scholarship has pointed out how "empty" some of the German Gerneral staffs "victories" were (the Kaiser Battles of 1918, grabbing all sorts of mostly useless territory while turning up the attrition rate in a war they weren't winning, the Caucasus campaign of 1942, Kursk..) Sun Tzu is more "modern" because he is about being strong in everything, not looking for a "thunderbolt".
tbh i think sun tzu is right when it goes to this whole supreme excellence thing, even if you fail to break the enemy, the steps you took to attempt to achieve supreme excellence would put you at an advantage for the actual battle
@CallMeEzekiel I love the fact that at 4:10 the map shown is the battle of Battle of Austerlitz
aka the battle of the 3 Emperor's. Nice detail Ezekiel. Im glad I found your channel.
Oh so this is what that quote was needed for.
Jreg's song at the end is the icing on the cake
"If fighting is sure to result in victory then you must fight"
-son zoo
Clausewitz : "we need to invade the lowlands to defeat france"
Kaiser Wilhem And A.H : "that aint a bad idea"
Interesting video, I might actually read both books now.