I think these ideas are timeless enough that they'll remind you with eerie precision of whatever successful military leader you've read about most recently. The great commanders of modern history, no matter their nation or personality, are united by a common debt to their predecessors.
This chapter along with the final chapter (Use of Spies) are particularly relevant in the modern day, in particular the use of indirect tactics. Good breakdown of the chapter.
This chapter is essentiallly about C4I. It is my firm contention that superior C4I resulted in the German victory over Britain and France in May-June 1940. The US Army's three word summary of so much of "The Art of War" was "move, shoot, communicate." Over and over, you make sure that you and your subordinates are ready to do all three at a moment's notice. I drilled it so hard into my own head that before I leave home on a trip, I run through a brief checklist one last time - "All tickets and reservations ready? (Move) Money and other ordnance ready to hit the targets on this trip? (Shoot) Mobile phone, laptop computer, tablet computer, and chargers for all of them with me?" (Communicate) If I get three "Yes" responses, anything else for the trip that might have been forgotten can usually be overcome as long as those three categories are covered. E.g. Left my dress shoes behind on a business trip. Use mobile phone to find a store (communicate), drive the rental car there (move) and buy some more shoes (shoot). Accomplish the mission and don't f- it up.
i'm not usually interested in reviews or summaries of things i've already read but this is actually great insight into AoW in a modern context. well done as usual
the quote about not using brute force of your unit but instead using the commanders skill is something the average civi like me never really contemplated.
The historical example of many of these principles that kept popping into my head was the Battle of Austerlitz. Napoleon's use of "extraordinary forces" there would be his storming of the Pratzen Heights; the maneuver through which he expected to win the battle. The fighting in other areas, which was mostly just intended to pin down the Austro-Russian forces, would be the "normal force". This battle was also a perfect example of "creating a situation, according to which the enemy will act", as Napoleon employed several ruses to convince Czar Alexander I that his army was in a weak state, thus convincing the Austro-Russian army to attack him. He also deliberately weakened his right flank on the battlefield to entice an attack against it, leaving the enemy center vulnerable to his intended "extraordinary force". Thus, Napoleon created the situation which would permit his victory, rather than demanding that his subordinates achieve victory for him (in contrast to a battle like Waterloo). Napoleon also demonstrated his mastery of organization throughout his early campaigns, as his new corps formations (essentially miniature armies) provided him and his subordinates with a level of flexibility that his opponents could not match. His ability to concentrate his various corps formations quickly for battles like Austerlitz demonstrated his signalling and communications ability, though this was one area that would prove to be a weakness for Napoleon in later campaigns.
凡战以正合以奇胜 ''Generally in battle, use the normal force to engage and use the extraordinary to win.'' It's one of the most valuable principles mentioned in this book. It can also be used by navy and air force, or even any new form of military force in the future.
I would like to see your take on how Australia fights in the Asia Pacific region post WW2. When I have looked into it I found a quite effective (warning I am Biased being an Australian - so it may be less effective) - counter insurgency methodology where platoons would patrol an area in a random pattern (to mitigate mines). These platoons where to find and draw out enemy combatants and lock them in battle with a sort of pocket defence - from there, reinforcements or fire support could be called in, to eliminate enemy combatants outside of defensive positions. P.S. Love your Videos
Because of the way the AoW was written, I used to think that extraordinary force means forces that are controlled by the gods, i.e. the weather, terrain, or the conditions of the battlefield. Thereby, you engage with your forces, then win by exploiting the terrain, weather, and other conditions on the field. Good interpretation, though.
I think the sentence: "The resources of those skilled in the use of extraordinary forces are as infinite as the heavens and earth." translates to experienced Veteran troops. Because new veterans come from normal soldiers. so as long you have normal soldiers you can have veterans
Not at all what it means. The interpretation in the video is closer but also a bit off. Essentially, Sun Tzu is talking about the conventional vs. the unconventional or the expected vs. the unexpected. The translation I've read is the "direct and the indirect" These are the relevant lines. "5. In all fighting, the direct method may be used for joining battle, but indirect methods will be needed in order to secure victory. 6. Indirect tactics, efficiently applied, are inexhaustible as Heaven and Earth, unending as the flow of rivers and streams; like the sun and moon, they end but to begin anew; like the four seasons, they pass away to return once more. 10. In battle, there are not more than two methods of attack--the direct and the indirect; yet these two in combination give rise to an endless series of maneuvers. 11. The direct and the indirect lead on to each other in turn. It is like moving in a circle--you never come to an end. Who can exhaust the possibilities of their combination?" It's not veteran vs. new troops.
Well made video, id say a modern 'extraordinary force' example is when the Islamic State captured Ramadi in cover of a sandstorm. Weathet is a great example.
Weather isn't an extraordinary force as it's not under the commander's control. Having people ready to exploit the sandstorm and trained to do so would be an example.
Normal force it's just the force that engage the enemy. Extraordinary are the ones who win the battle. This doesn't mean that the extraordinary forces are the strongest in your army. A unit of peasent attacking the enemy flank are the extraordinary force while the elite Knights attacking the enemy front are the normal force because they are the distraction. But this can change. After the enemy flank is defeated, the knights become the extraordinary force because they are the ones who are going to defeat the enemy. That's why their combination are limitless.
Generally I dont like Art of War although I am a Chinese. Many chapters are useless in modern warfare, such as chapter 6,8,9,10,11, and 12. The situations are mostly historical melee combat and relies on the lack of effective communication system and effective transport system. For example, chapter 12, fire attack? Set enemy base on fire? Is this possible in modern warfare? Maybe the only useful interpretation is to attack enemies logistic systems(二曰火积，三曰火辎，四曰火库，) Also the whole book is full of vague metaphors like (故兵无常势，水无常形，能因敌变化而取胜者，谓之神。) and I dont see any connections between water and troops. Not mention that in chapter 5 there are whole bunch of strange metaphors like(故善出奇者，无穷如天地，不竭如江海。终而复始，日月是也。死而更生，四时是也。)or (激水之疾，至于漂石者，势也；鸷鸟之疾，至于毁折者，节也。) Dont understand why he need to use so much metaphors when he can use a direct narrative. And actually this is the common problem shared by many ancient Chinese military books, they focus on some big strategic method and lack some tactics and detailed numbers. Anyway, dont OVER interpret Art of War, it is just a good basic military guideline written 2500 years ago, and it is outdated for modern warfare.
A personal note from me to you, and no offense intended thereby. I like your material and consider you a valuable ally in the search for knowledge and interpretation of the historical record.. I sincerely hope you are getting at least 1/4 of your funding from The Great Courses Plus, because the advertisement for them took up 1/4 of your presentation. As a child of the Advert Terror Bombing age that killed broadcast television and is now killing cable and youtube, I disagree with those who purport the schema that our paying hard earned cash in order to receive even MORE advertising is the answer. In fact, advertising is the whole problem. If it comes down to my having to watch a continuous stream of ads for products I can neither use or afford I will close down my internet and go back to reading. There, at least, I can be uninterrupted in my quest for knowledge. I will be sorry to lose touch with fine minds like yours, and those at TGW, C&Rsenal, Bismarck, and Forgotten Weapons, as a result, but, as yet, I see no other solution.. The internet held and still holds huge promise for the free and open dissemination of thought, or principle, and of communication . . . but the advertisers have stepped in, like they always do, to twist goodness into mindless stupidity with even more promotion of goods that no one can any longer afford. In my opinion, it doesn't matter which or what product they are hawking. It only matters that they are intrusive, disruptive, and the antithesis of everything that the internet promised. It shames me as an intellectual to see The Great Courses going the same route as those who try to force Harry Potter Vibrating Broomsticks on the unsuspecting . . . or secretly hopeful. I pay for internet, but I refuse to pay for advertising. That corrupts like you wouldn't believe and now the advertisers live in a false world of expecting payment for interrupting everything we do. It has to stop. There are plenty of millionaires in the world, but an absolute lack of raises (and of living wages) for poor, hardworking, folks. If advertisers helped in that paradigm, promoting employment at reasonable return for work done, I would welcome them into our community . . . but they won't. They are, one and all, driven by pure, unwholesome, unhealthy, greed. Gott mit uns.
William Cox I see your point, but MHV isn't Pewdeepie and doesn't earn a fortune off RU-vid. This series is, I'm afraid to say, a niche interest. So, if we want to keep MHV in books and good food, we need to accept adverts or better still become a patron via Patreon.@MHV keep up the good work!
Thanks for your response. I quite agree about the difference between the two. I am a fan of Bernhardt's work and his sharp mind and insight. When I have disposable cash I intend to support his efforts. I am also quite interested in worthy lectures and frequent the US Army War College channel, the US Naval War College channel, Yale Courses channel, and, Gresham University channel, Sixty Symbols, and others . . . and they don't need to advertise for 1.5min out of a six minute presentation to get their names around. As for the Great Courses (and I have nothing against the idea, mind you), a background picture describing their product in the 10 seconds at the end of an MHV video would be sufficient to grab attention without adding unwanted content to MHV (or other) work. I feel that's a fair and reasonable type of un-aggressive advert.
Adblock only works on ads, it doesn't help when half of the actual video is a goddam commercial. I'm so sick of hearing about the great fucking courses on almost every video I watch, it actually makes me want to not buy they're shitty product.
This is all crap, every war has new challenges, no one person can sit and write shit for all time, it is easy to criticize the defeated people and their war strategy AFTER the war, but it is difficult to make instant decisions while your boots are on the ground.
Every war brings new challenges to an old and familiar paradigm that persists through them all. To understand the underlying factors is to have a head start on your enemy.
@william you know what you said is absolutely wrong, ryt? in olden days a king can just occupy any land and conquer countries, there are no NATO or UN to put sanctions, there were no war time laws, the king and his armies used to rape plunder anything in war, people wouldnt know because all documents were carefully drafted by the crafty people around the king, today's challenges are different, there are no horses elephants or chariots and you cant compare them to tanks and aircraft, todays wars are based on nationality, the wars of old ages were fought to expand kingdoms even into unfamiliar territories, kings were ready to assimilate theconqured lands but in today's world even people in single country are not united.
Researcher Knowledge War, like human nature, can and will change. However, the other issue is that humans, like everything else, follows a pattern. And since humanity is directly intertwined with war , I would have to argue that War hasn't change that much. Sure, Geneva and the UN set up some guidelines for war, we must remember that war is still as inhumane and horrifying as before albeit with different tools
Wars are basicly the same as in the past. An encircled army is doomed unless it breaks out, and this is as true today as thousand of years ago, because an army still needs food and supplies to survive regardless of how many super-tanks it got. And the principle of concentration of force and "getrennt marschieren vereint schlagen" is as true today as in the past. And attacks on the flanks is as big of a threat today as in the past. And deception may have taken new forms today with stealth aircrafts and dummy tanks, but it still plays just the same important role as in the past, since it can confuse an enemy to misalocate its forces and abondon their strong defences and getting lured into ambushes and getting entire armies destroyed. On a general level one can say that all the good commanders in history have applied the same recipies behind their successes. They have first of all commited themselves to achieving a clearcut goal - instead of acting confused in trying to achieve a multiple number of changing goals. Most of them have been skilled in the art of the element of surprise, and constantly taken the advantage over their confused enemies, and acting with such speed and aggressivness that the enemy does not have any time to make any well organized counter-measures. They have been good at playing the game of taking calculated risks. And they have been good at concentrating their own forces so they can fight the enemy with a superior force. They have been masters of co-ordinating armies so they close enough to support each other if the enemy starts an attack, but still they move independently enough to not clog up the roads with long supply trains so troop movements gets slowed down. And when a good oppurtunity of fighting the enemy appears, then multiple armies can attack him simultanuously and inflict huge losses on the enemy - something that was as true in Cannae 216 BC as in Königgrätz in 1866 two-thousand years later. I don't consider military history a waste of time, because I think there are lot to learn from the past. And even if some things do change over time, I still think there are lots of things that can be learned from recent wars. Tomorrows wars will not be much different from the wars of today, and the wars of today will have much in common with wars recently fought yesterday. Studying Vietnam, the Balkan wars, Chechenya, Iraq, Afghanistan can tell us a lot about the effectiveness of different modern weaponsystems - from tanks, to planes, and helicopters. Just as the armies in World war 1 that learned from the history lessons of the past wars (Manchuria, the Boer war, the American civil war etc) did better than those armies who didn't. The Brits and Germans understood the importance of digging trenches and using uniforms with colours that blended in with the enviroment - while the French didn't, and they therefore suffered enormous losses thanks to their colourful red-blue uniforms and their lack of training to use a spade, and their proportionaly low amount of engineer troops compared to the German army.
+Researcher Knowledge War changes in form but the principles are always timeless ya dingus. There are basics and if you can't learn that or even master it then you might as well surrender and save yourself the trouble
