Which is better?

Sun Tzu or Machiavelli?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prince#Interpretation_of_The_Prince_as_political_satire_or_as_deceit
cryptome.info/cia-FM30-31B.htm
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Both are completely different and not comparable.

There are also countless more, never stay in the meme territory when it comes to reading.

Btw some say Cao Cao re-wrote the art of war and what we have today is his book, not Sun Tzu's

I started to doubt something wasn't quite right when several times on each page there would be "Cao Cao did nothing wrong" slipped between sentences

Sun Tzu will teach you basic strategy & tactics that seem obvious but are logically ordered and presented & can help starter commanders a lot & instantly applyable but only truely useful or strategically advantage/edge wise when used in combination with specific details relevent to say geolocalities or spot scenarios. Machiavelli is this same aspect except in a political arena/court of individuals rather than resource allocation & distribution on an ordered battle field.

Sun Tzu's Art of War is recommended reading at westpoint so it is a legit strategy starter pack. It will get you to break down your situation, figure out what your priorities and options are, assess and manage risk and move you towards a flexible yet forward thinking plan.

LIES

t. Not Cao Cao

Why the hell would you compare Sun-zi to Machiavelli? Han Fei-zi would make more sense.

>westpoint

"I KNOW A LOT MORE ABOUT WAR THAN YOU DO SERGEANT, AFTER ALL MY DADDY WAS A FULL BIRD COLONEL"

(still not as bad as citadel though)

Machiavelli

You pleb.

Chinese version of Machiavelli was Shang Yang, not Sun Tzu.

>How to Lose Friends and Alienate People

Carl Von Clausewitz's "On War"

Wasn't Machiavelli books supposed to be satire and not taken seriously?

Memefully, Han Fei is the "Chinese Machiavelli." He was like the Mencius to Legalism.

that's a meme

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prince#Interpretation_of_The_Prince_as_political_satire_or_as_deceit

Sorry for wikipedia but some people 50 years ago believed it.

Edward Luttwak

>drawing wisdom from only one place

Well most people drew wisdom from the elder of their village. It seemed to have worked.

From what I recall, Machiavelli wrote stuff that was pro-republicanism both before and after he wrote the The Prince, and Lorenzo de Medici had Machiavelli's arms broken for this.

But IIRC The Prince also wasn't published until after Machiavelli's death and was "dedicated" to Lorenzo, it was also written in common Italian rather than Latin, so I have a feeling Machiavelli intended it to be both a fuck you to Lorenzo, and as a false flag document to inflame the population against the ruling classes. Similar to Voltaire's Candide or the various false documents the Russian government has produced over the years such as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars, and FM 30-31B.

>false documents the Russian government has produced over the years

Source?

It's well known that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion was created by the Russian government, and was spread by the Okrhana through Russian nationalist groups, especially after they lost the 1905 war against Japan and the 1905 rebellion, which were both blamed on Jews. (The tract itself was largely plagiarized from other previous writings, including stuff by Maurice Joly and Alexandre Dumas.)

FM 30-31B first showed up in Turkey in the 70s and was exposed as a KGB forgery in the 80s.
cryptome.info/cia-FM30-31B.htm

And in 1983-1985 the KGB and Stasi began publishing a number of fake medical texts claiming that either HIV/AIDS was a CIA conspiracy, or it didn't exist at all.

Most recently the Russian government has been busted using edited satellite photos in a attempt to make it look like they had nothing to do with the MH-17 shootdown in 2014.

Kautilya

debape me plebs

they're both kek af.

>"Lol, if u dont like that guy, create this fake bed that is actually a spike-pit trap. 10/10 Masterful politics." - The Arthashastra.

>Both are completely different and not comparable.

/thread

He was the best Dwarf Fortress player in all of India.

Book of five rings
>Hasn't been turned into a meme for neets to pretend they know anything about military strategy
>an excellent follow up reading to the limerick of war
>actually emphasises the reader having a brain
>inb4 posting its table top name ripoff

Is that Miyamoto Musahi's book?

>piece of satire meant to criticize the medici by saying they weren't even good tyrants
>book on how to fight a literal war
neither is better, they're barely comparable

sure it is

>which is better?

He meant Machiavellis art of war vs sun tzus art of war

>was exposed as a KGB forgery in the 80s.

I think that the phrase "its authenticity solely denied by agent Wilson" is far more accurate

yes, Musashi is the author