Attack your enemy when they're weak

Pasta
I think it also says when your strong act weak and when weak pretend to be strong.

If only Hitler had read it

Sun Tzu wasn't even translated in Europe until the 19th century, so long after chivalry ended

The level of education of the average internet OP nowdays is much higher than what Sun Tzu had to work with. You have far more information, far more examples of historical fuck ups and even entertainment media is laced with useful data. Sadly it all seems to increase your voracious appetite for cocks.

>block attacks
>attack the enemy
>work hard
>do what they aren't expecting
Never thought of it that way

Zhou Period-Warring States China was ruled by feudal warrior classes who did have a notion of chivalry.

The most famous example was Duke Xiang of the State of Song, who was considered the flower of the chivalry of his time, who allowed the Chu army that outnumbered him time to cross a river unmolested, to uphold the principles of Gentlemanly Warfare.

>you need modern day education to do hunter and gatherer tier deduction

>dont use mercs they might backstab you
>betray everyone, das all in da game nigga

Wow...

>In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns
Really makes you think.

But muh honor and glory

>LEEROY JENKINS!!!!

>attack people where they are weak
>do not get attacked where you are weak
>try to predict your enemy
Captain fucking obvious.

I'd like to imagine that most chinese generals who read this shit were like "why the fuck does this retard think he needed to write this down? does he think everyone but him is retarded?"

its satire

You just can't post something meaningful instead of shitposting bait? Truly a moron.

>if you want to win stop losing so much
wooooooooooow

Well depends on the motives of said war, doesn't it? Do you want to win it or just have it?

>attack your enemy when they're weak
You'll be surprised how many idiots in history like to attack their enemy when they're strong. Maybe including you as well if you're in charged.

To be fair. People back in the day were not in the habit of playing total war and watching 50 min youtube videos about battles. Nor did they watch movies depicting large scale battles either.

So the basics of a large scale battle more sophisticated than a brawl or a skirmish would have been unknown to most.

So it was probably usefull reading back in whatever century you could get your hands on a copy, but today, most 15 year olds have more knowledge about battles than this book contains.

Most 15 years attack their enemies head on instead of flanking them in videogames.

when i play total war i pretty much ignore all conventional wisdom in the name of roleplaying.

I view it like I view How to Win Friends and Influence People. It's not necessarily groundbreaking stuff but it has all of the obvious stuff that you wouldn't always think about in one easy to read and digestible package.

>Ancient Warfare was literally a competition between noble fucks who abide by gentlemanly codes of warrior conduct.
>Dozens of examples where his tenets are ignored even in the modern era.

It is the easiest, things which people often fail to grasp.

>dont run towards fire it might hurt

Kinda like studying pedagogy, you have a relation to most of the subject through personal experience, but it is not until you read the various teories, that might seem obvious like John "people will avoid bad things" Watson, but it's through these theories and works you can get a wider view and reflection on the subject.

>19th century Europe
>not obsessed with honour and chivalry

Those warrior code kinda things are omnipresent in history. It's not restricted to Samurai and Knights. There were always warriors and leaders who thought a straight fight was the only honorable thing. Just look at the fuckin greeks. A bit of Sun Zu would've done them good.

>honour
that was a thing
>chivalry
Jesus was more real than that

>women and children first was never a thing in the 19th and early 20th centuries

>hurr durr people back in the day
mmmm.
I don't know if you are pretending but I'll attack anyway
You morons are more retarded

t. brainlet

If you were using the true Sun Tzu tactics, you would never play COD head on with another if you could help it, as that is not using your strength against their weakness. If you were forced to play, you would do things like cut the power supply to their house, have someone break their fingers before the match, kidnap their loved ones or try to get them arrested for something so you win by default.

If only.

I'm blackmailing Hiro to delet your post right now.

If it really is so overrated, there wouldn't be so many soldiers still study it till today, including your precious US army such as Norman Schwarzkopf and "Mad Dog" Mattis. If war really is that simple like you think, then everyone can be Alexander, Napoleon or Sun Zi, right?

In fact, your "arrogant" attitude is also showing your "ignorant", this mental factor is exactly one of important ways what Sun Zi emphasizes to defeat enemy. And he's right.

[孫子兵法.始計篇]:"兵者詭道也.......卑而驕之."
"All warfare is based on deception....If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant."

If I'm general, I'll be very glad to fight opponents like you.

Zhang Wei please.

youd be dogmeat like all the other chinese filth

Machiavelli
>Control ur country dont just fuck around if ur in charge of it
Marcus Aurelius
>Moderate ur lifestyle lol
Aquinas
>cos u can keep asking y about things the very first thing is god
Prince Siddhartha
>u gotta stop feelin

If it is so obious, why did it take whiteys more than a millenia to come up with their own version of it (Clausewitz)?

that's the fucking point, betray or be betrayed

The ironic thing is in Machiavelli's own career his employing of mercenaries has been far more successful than his endemically raised Florentine army which was a complete failure that literally cost him his career

Why are these brainlets so venerated?

I hope this is bait.

>Veeky Forums
>anything meaningful

It's not bait. I read the book and I was somewhat disappointed considering how venerated it is. Then I just sort of assumed that it was really groundbreaking for it's time but pretty elementary by today's standards. I don't know what else to tell you. Was I supposed to meditate for 500 hours on each sentence to understand it's super true hidden meaning or something?

>show up late to everything

Yeah but the Book of the Five Rings should be read as near poetry where every line or sentence has meaning to it. I'm not riding Musashi's dick but when I read the Five rings, I had to reread a few sections over because I felt like I was missing a bigger picture. Truly a lot of thought was put into the writing of this book and if you were to reread it a few times over with a certain mind state of reading poetry and philosophy then youd get something more than "muh duel weild technique."

>the Book of the Five Rings should be read as near poetry
And SunZi's The Art of War should be read as "Classical Chinese", because it's how it's written originally and it's beautifully written and consist Daoism concepts, many of its sentences become proverbs in Chinese, even in Japanese. They lost in translation when you read it in English or any other languages.

>Truly a lot of thought was put into the writing of this book and if you were to reread it a few times over with a certain mind state of reading poetry and philosophy
Here is the thing, Book of the Five Rings heavily contains allelopathy and dialectical thinking(like Light/Dark, Yin/Yang,...etc) very similar to essential idea of The Art of War. The concept of Miyamoto's "Niten Ichi ryu"(二天一流) school literally means "Moon(Yin) and Sun(Yang). You can easily see the influences derived from the art of war and Chinese philosophy if you really understand them.

>>In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns
>Really makes you think.
It seems that although simple it is a well needed lesson people choose to ignore over and over again

so all pretty good advice just Aquinas happens to be a dumbfuck who is confused about language
siddhartha might be a bit excessive but also not too bad a thing to aspire for for most of the emotionally unstable retards people usually are

are you having trouble with the book? would you like some help?