It's a comprehensive treatise meant to be read by students

It influenced generations of strategists so it's pretty good

It's fine.
>Common sense
>from /fit/
Kill yourself

>>7882789
I understand that part and it's cultural significance. But I was wondering if it ever goes into more detail instead of speaking in broad generalizations.

ie in detail on tactics etc.

This guy wrote so early that he named his book 'On War.' That's like getting the name Mike in an MMO. Kudos to him, and happy gaming to all.

>>7882826
>le no intelligent fitizen meme

Some really low quality bait you're using their friend.

>chapter 2, when does it get better ?
>wondering why old military strategy book is dry

Stop reading for vanity and maybe you'll get something out of it

>/fit/izen here
go away and don't come back

>>7882832
if you want details on Napoleonic warfare this isnt the book for you. you dont read kant for a description of neurotransmitters

>>7883042
I don't mean to be ignorant but what would be some books that you would recommend on napoleonic tactics?

>>7883064
They didn't have breath mints in the 19th century

>>7882860
He's not asking when it will stop being dry. Reading comprehension Anon.

>>7882886
Post your Squat and the book you're currently reading.

>>7882779
>All of the stuff covered so far is nothing more than common sense.
All war books are like that. Sure it's common sense while you're sitting in your comfortable home with time to spare, but it might not be so obvious when you're in the middle of the battlefield, with only moments to act, with your actions putting hundreds of lives at stake, and having the necessity of abstracting away all variables of the battle (technology, specific geography, etc.) In order to be able to apply universal warfare principles to it. That's why they make officers drill through all these books, to make strategy second nature.

>>7882832
>ie in detail on tactics etc.
It's a book on strategy, strategy and tactics are two whole different things.