What's the Western equivalent to this?

What's the Western equivalent to this?

The Secret

War And Piece by Dostoevsky

The Republic

Not being retarded

on war.

Book of Mormon

That book written by the famous dago a few centuries back.

Da Prin$$e

the art of war by sun tzu

de re militari. though its not as good

On War by Carl von Clausewitz.

patrician choice

The prince and dell'arte della guerra of Macchiavelli.
Foe some reason nobody talks about the latter

fucking clausewitz you retard
you'd better be chinese

Anabasis and Hellenica by Xenophon
Commentarii de Bello Gallico by Gaius Julius Caesar
Epitoma rei militaris by Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus
Strategikon of Maurice by Byzantine Emperor Maurice
Tactica of Emperor Leo VI the Wise
The Art of War by Niccolò Machiavelli
Truppenfuhrung by Helmuth von Moltke the Elder
Storm of Steel by Ernst Jünger
Achtung - Panzer! by Heinz Guderian
Infanterie Greift An by Erwin Rommel
The Utility of Force by General Sir Rupert Smith

Prince Matchabelli!

Are these books on war actually useful for understanding when and why generals order what they order? War and battles always seem so chaotic and out of the hands of its leaders

The equivalents in the west are so countless and innumerable nobody can even name them all.

Many of the western counterparts also suffer from being far more complex and detailed. Clausewitz' On War for example, which is a disorganized mess.

If you want the best military instruction, look at the Mongols. If you want my advice distilled into three words, they would be:

Deception
Subterfuge
Maneuver

Fundamentally conflict comes out of adversarial and uncompromising belief-sets attempting to enforce their will on the other.
Winning removes the adversary's capacity for resistance to your will.

War involves winning by the removal of the physical presence of your adversary; he cannot resist your will if he does not exist.

The Art of War looks at a higher level of conflict than most war manuals do, as it is applicable to enforcing your will against others, rather than strictly denying them their existence, which is only a method to the ends of will-enforcement. For this reason, The Art of War is applicable to more than just combat - any form of conflict works, from politics to business.

So you have to realize this distinction just to begin reading the correct material. Some people write manuals about war. Others write manuals about conflict; war is just a form of conflict, but not the only one.

An important aspect I've come upon with conflict is that numbers matter a lot. Mostly everything can be distilled to a certain variable, a 'weight of numbers', but that weight can be dramatically influenced by dependent factors. As an example, a machinegun gives a soldier a great deal more killing power than a spear does, though there still exists a numerical value in which a soldier with a machinegun could not hope to defeat that many soldiers with spears. I eventually came to define this vague concept in general as "local superiority", in which one force is locally superior to another in some form or fashion - and will win the fight, luck depending. Don't discount luck/chaos/randomness. It's there no matter what you do and will shift local superiority randomly on you.

So in essence, winning comes down to maintaining this concept of local superiority. In every fight I've researched between one group and another - and especially a topdog vs an underdog - what exemplified the underdog's success was their embracing of this "local superiority" concept, whether they consciously realized it or not.

What it essentially means is that no matter what the situation or the fight, if you begin and end it maintaining local superiority, you win. Superior in numbers, superior in position, superior in technology - whatever. Even if the enemy is, in the grand scheme, your superior in all ways, if you only engage him where YOU are superior and he your inferior, you will succeed. Sun Tzu goes into this when he talks about 'being like water', where the goal isn't to fight against the greatest resistance, but to step aside or go with it, and strike back where there is weakness.

Realizing this, I came to understand that the greatest military strengths are maneuverability/adaptability, and deception/subterfuge. The first allowing you to change your position from inferior to superior, the second denying your opponent an understanding of whether you are superior/inferior.

Clausewitz obviously, but its 10times longer

bump

I don't know why I laughed at this.

The Art of War by Machiavelli

...

>Trump's admiration for Sun Tzu goes way back. In his 2007 book, Trump 101: The Way to Success, the billionaire turned politician recommends Sun Tzu as one of the best writers on leadership. And in 2010's Think Like a Champion, Trump weighed up Machiavelli and Sun Tzu.

>"One book that I would suggest to you, because it is valuable for business and managerial strategies, is The Art of War by Sun Tzu. It may sound like an unusual business school recommendation, but believe me, it isn't. It's valuable and worth your time. By comparison, another famed book is Machiavelli's The Prince, which is more about political conflict and qualities necessary for leadership than war or business, but its emphasis on power becomes a negative factor. Ethics and integrity seem to get lost somewhere in the shuffle, and therefore the word Machiavellian has become a pejorative term. It's a better use of your time to read The Art of War."

>Members of his cabinet are disciples, too. Trump has nominated General James "Mad Dog" Mattis, a Sun Tzu quoting jarhead, to serve as his Defense Secretary. "The Marine Corps," said Mattis approvingly, "has always been more Eastern-oriented. I am much more comfortable with Sun Tzu and his approach to warfare."

War brings death and destruction
That is relevant and important if there is only one solution to a problem

We're living in a kind of dizzying plethora of potential reactions to the world as it is

An awake commercial mass product mass educational nightmare

There are no equivalents, we must draw new ideas from new experiences.

The Art of War by Machiavelli

The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli.

there are literally thousands of western equivalents, of varying depth and focus.

Machiavelli; Prince

>War and Piece by Dostoevsky
It's war and PEACE you ingrate

Art of the deal

Came here to post this.

My diary desu.

>misusing ingrate

Simple, decent strategy filtered through the incompetence of your superiors.

War and Punishment by Tolstoyevski

...

>People saying The Prince ironically
>Not the LITERAL EQUIVALENT

>War And Piece by Dostoevsky
>western