Maybe it was more a manual a general could hand to the rich dumbass in charge who was about to bet everyone killed and say “please review the wisdom of the great sage before making your battle plan.”
echodot@feddit.uk 2 days ago
I almost feel like this when hearing about “war”
“Have some sort of strategy”
“If at all possible have a larger army than the enemy”
“If step two is not possible, see step one”
This is basically the whole book.
tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip 2 days ago
Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
That’s because it was written at a time when nobles were considered the only natural choice of leadership class, so you’ve got military forces being lead by people with zero practical military knowledge. It’s literally meant to be babies first strategy and logistics guide.
DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 1 day ago
I think this is the most important factor, but at the same time anyone responsible for complex tasks should be well familiar with the value of a simple list of the task’s fundamentals.
weps@lemmy.world 2 days ago
if combat is required it is best to be victorious
Seleni@lemmy.world 1 day ago
TBF it’s technically a Daoist philosophical treatise, rather than a how-to on war. To really understand it you have to look at it from that perspective.
credo@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Hmm. There was also:
- If you don’t know if you can trust them, kill them
saimen@feddit.org 1 day ago
There is one point in it I found actually useful even today in everyday life. It was something like: When you have surrounded or entrapped your enemy always leave them a way out for retreat so they won’t fight as hard as if their only other option is defeat/death.
yetAnotherUser@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
Woah, that hits hard. I guess I’ll have to read the book now…
jj4211@lemmy.world 1 day ago
A good lesson for people that seek to assert absolute authoritarianism over folks. Corner folks too hard and given no viable alternative, desperation drives unexpected outcomes.