Anybody got any good books on war strategy? (Actually for war, not one of those "and here's how the battle of thermopylae can help you impress your boss" pieces of shit). I'm trying to put together a study guide for this topic, and I'm starting with a basic list of resources.
So far I have:
1)Sun Tzu - The Art of War
1b)Zhuge Liang's and Liu Ji - Commentaries on the Art of War
2)Niccolo Machiavelli - The Prince
3)Niccolo Machiavelli - The Art of War
4)Julius Caesar - Commentaries on the Gallic War
5)Clausewitz - On War
6)Rommel - Infantry Attacks
7)Che - Guerrilla Warfare
8)Mao - On Guerrilla Warfare
8b)Mao - Problems of Strategy in Guerrilla War Against Japan
9)Miyamoto Musashi - The Book of Five Rings
10)David Kilcullen - Counterinsurgency
11)Patrick Pearse - Fianna Handbook
12)William Spaniel - Game Theory 101: The Rationality of War
Strategikon
>>7656089
Bump. Thanks OP, I was looking for a comprehensive list on war literature to help me my Red Dragon tactics
>>7656089
Che's "Guerilla Warfare" was outdated a few years after its conception. "Prince" is a political satire and "Art of War" is full of platitudes. I don't know what it is that you want to study, but you'd be better off checking out some government websites.
that looks p thorough. there are reading lists online for military officers that might include some. maybe some contemporary political theory/history on foreign policy that involves war.
>>7656101
Cheers, added to list.
>>7656108
You're welcome.
>>7656111
I am aware that the Prince was written as a Sarcastic fuck you to an unpopular despot, that doesn't mean that the advice contained therein is inaccurate, and let's face it, it has stood the test of time.
>>7656116
Considered reading "field manuals" put out by various militaries, but upon further inspection those are largely just guides to the regions that you will be fighting in.
>>7656111
meme the posty
Arthashastra. Or at least some sections of it.
>>7656132
Great words are like wine. Wise words are like water.
This is only helpful in so much as it tells you what to look for but I'm sure there are a number of Anarchist writings on civil disobedience, the whys and the hows, that you could dig up. Tiqqun's Introduction to Civil War might be a useful thing to search for, in the sense that servers which host it may host more practical guides too.
Conversely, anything that deals with modern police tactics for dealing with protests, riots or the aforementioned civil insurgency would be just as relevant.
That is, if you're also interested in battles on the street-level and not just general overviews on large scale warfare.
>>7656146
Isn't the Anarchist Cookbook one of those?
>>7656089
I'd recommend Strategy by Lawrence Freedman, if you're not only searching for historical sources. He gives you a pretty wide introduction to strategy from a lot of different angles (war and politics especially)
>>7656151
OP here, and no, the Anarchist cookbook is just a guide to making explosiives, drugs and related shit, by a nutjob with no connections to the real anarchist movement, much of the advice is also horribly unreliable, a better option for the same idea would be the works or Ragnar Benson.
>>7656159
Heard good things about that one. Will consider getting it.
>>7656151
No, the Anarchist's Cookbook is a practical joke intended to cause edgy teenagers to blow themselves up.
I don't mean things like explosive how-to guides but things that might suggest, oh, I don't know, interfering with post-offices or jamming police radio for actual, thought-out tactical purposes.
>>7656179
In that case, the book you're looking for might actually be "Recipe for disaster: An Anarchist Cookbook", a sarcastic fuck you to the original anarchist cookbook written by actual anarchists. Alternately, try looking up one of those Sabotage Field Manuals from WW2, they're largely outdated, but have enough good info to merit the time spent on them.
>>7656089
Hope you're not complying isis practice manual.
Besides, you've got too much theory on that list of yours. I've always valued practical side of things more that Art of War and similar philosophy.
For me it's:
1. Tucidides - The History of the Peloponnesian War (historic work, but there is huge emphasis on battles and logistics)
2. Strategikon (and other Byzantine manuals, they are a true gold mine, and had a huge role in Ottoman tactics for centuries still)
3. Xenophon - Cyropaedia (really undervalued when it comes to ancient greek warfare, and there's also to lesser degree Anabasis)
4. Renatus - De Re Militari
5. Clausewitz - On War
You could also look into historic books that deal with military campaigns.
>>7656228
>compiling
darn autocorrect
Am I the only one that finds many of the folk who actively try to read authors like Sun Tzu to be desperate redpilling try hards with huge insecurity issues who probably hit the gym with the sole intention of getting big and intimidating?
>>7656228
Holy shit, thank you. That was extremely useful, and for the record, no, I have no ties to ISIS, and no intentions to establish any.
>>7656444
No, because Sun Tzu is not about being big and intimidating
>>7656089
but most of those are general conflict philosophy
if you really think that art of war has relevance in modern day, well, your position as a middle manager is wagered.
>>7656444
People who exclusively read Sun-Tzu, and Machiavelli, and who don't actually look into historical warfare, maybe.
>>7656089
Put Sun Tzu at the bottom and put Clausewitz at the top
Art of War is a meme
>>7656111
>The Prince is a satire
What sort of war manuals should one read if he believes that a shtf scenario will turn everyone into cannibal tribes?
Should I look up metalworkin so we can turn steel scrap into spears?
>>7656089
if you are reading this book, then I must tell you that it´s not just about warfaggot
>Patrick Pearse - Fianna Handbook
Irish Republican here, Pearse is deeply respected as an author, martyr and cultural nationalist but he was not a soldier or strategist. Read the IRA Green book if you want Irish literature (though even it is extremely dated and basic)
>>7656471
Pretty hard to get ahold of either when you live in Scotland, but cheers for the recommendation there.
>>7656466
Unrealistic scenario, in such an event either everyone would starve, or civilaztion would be reborn out of a necessity for agriculture. You'd have a better chance either laying low in a fortress, teaming up with other survivors, or scavenging off the remains of the old civilization. If you're looking for advice on surviving in a small-scale resource war between two gangs of wanderer, just study basic guerilla warfare, and probably also the works of Ragnar Benson.
The Peloponnesian War - Thucydides
>>7656475
There are plenty of PDF's online. Alternatively if you want it in print form, it's in the Appendix of Ed Malony's Secret History of the IRA. It was not a valuable document, it was a formality for volunteers to read and swear themselves into the organisation "I swear to follow my offiers commands blah blah"
>>7656089
Hey. Yes, when I get home Ill share some literature on it. My masters is focused on ancient warfare, but Ive been into medieval too
However Idk modern warfare
>>7656128
>Considered reading "field manuals" put out by various militaries, but upon further inspection those are largely just guides to the regions that you will be fighting in.
Counterinsurgencies can flare up in any region. Best understand how to fight them from one of the very best:
http://www.amazon.com/Marine-Corps-Counterinsurgency-Field-Manual/dp/0226841510
>>7656089
I'm sorry OP, but that isn't a very good list and here's why: Most of it is myopic military theory written from the perspectives of people who were heavily influenced by extremely specific cases. Generally, you want to study the campaigns of generals who fought more of a grander campaign at many fronts and in different terrain.
Clausewitz is good for grander theory and the philosophy of war (Good pick)
Julius Caesar is good for theory, philosophy. His campaign is something you should obviously and definitely study. Everyone usually does.
Sun Tzu - Art of War good, but can be lacking in a lot of detail, thus you need to read more academic texts that will analyze the shit out of what he precisely he means within an historical framework. You need examples, examples and examples, not just sayings.
Rommel, yes because of the multi-faceted aspects he was dealing with, especially since mechanized warfare was now in vogue.
Tactics become less of a factor once you go operational and theatrical. To reduce the latter to a reductio: the 300 Spartans will still lose vs thousands of persians even if they use ingenious tactics and have everything on their side: morale, superlative generals, terrain benefiting them, weather, etc. And even if their enemy is experiencing the exact opposite they will still lose.
Study the campaigns of Hannibal, Alexander the Great, Napoleon, Gustavus Adolphus, Federick the Great, maybe even Ghengis Khan, his yam system is pretty dank and will teach you an important part of communication.
Your books are fundamentally too narrow. You need to get books on grand strategy: diplomacy, economics, politics, technology, morale of the nation, etc.
You want broad broad broad interviews of war, not just some witticisms. I'm disheartened that there isn't any Thucydides's History of the Peloponnesian War for instance. Machiavelli is good for policy-esque thinking (and attitude), but also read his histories (Livy). Read more history on grand wars. Usually you will get a better perspective that way than on focusing on the sayings of people who fought in the wars themselves.
Disregard guerrilla warfare, it's a meme, in fact go ahead and read Guerrilla warfare from the ancient times to the present by Max Boot (I think)to see why it is a meme and why you don't need to read any books on it. Most insurgent campaigns fail, and as an armchair general, they're relatively easy to wage. The thing about guerilla warfare is that it is an irreducible fact of warfare, that it almost always happens when a weak force comes against a stronger force, and when the former still wants to fight. You won't learn much from studying guerilla warfare because most people fight it the same way throughout history, the enemy only changing. There's not much "theory" in it by itself, however, there's much more theory involved in suppressing it. And doing so is relatively simple actually, and it happens, historically, a preponderance amount of times.
>>7656806
cont.
Start here
http://www.amazon.com/Roots-Strategy-Brig-Gen-Thomas-Phillips/dp/0811721949/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1454525988&sr=8-2&keywords=military+Strategy+volume+1
The Root of Strategies is a good series, with good examples.
Study campagins, campaigns and campaigns, and focus on grand strategy more than on tactics. That is all.
>>7656806
>>7656089
This guy has the right idea, OP.
You can get an introduction to a lot of this from Dan Carlin's Hardcore History Podcast.
I disagree with a lot of the dismissal of the art of war in this thread, though. There are good basic principles in there that you can fall back to once you develop more specific understanding.
I also highly recommend Genghis Khan and Subotai, Tamburlaine (temur), general ninja and samurai history, and Hannibal Barka.
And I disagree that you should focus more on strategy than tactics. Both are incredibly important.
>>7656910
Yes, but if he focuses on tactics too much he will get stuck in multiple perspectives and systems that were largely influenced by the technology and culture of the states involved. Maybe he will learn a few principles here and there, (that's actually what he needs to learn anyway) he will inextricably involve himself in unwarranted details about the unit formations, unit tactics, equipment, disciplinary tactics, tasks, etc that were very specific. OP said he wanted strategy anyway, and a more strategical thinker will always beat the more tactical one. You want to play GO, not chess, you want to wage a war, not focus to much on fighting battles. Which is important, yes, but you will see that without a proper strategy, even the most ingenious wins, tactics, won't win you a war. To bring a silly example to mind, its like that young stark boy that lost to tywin. Tywin was losing, tactically speaking, but he always had a strategy. Who won the war? Tywin because he was more diplomatic, political, and devious in his thinking. Its a shitty example, but I think it is apt for the nonce.
If he just focuses on tactics then he will be focusing on very specific cases
http://www.amazon.com/Roman-Battle-Tactics-109BC-AD313-Elite/dp/1846031842/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1454528844&sr=8-1&keywords=roman+military+tactics
^^^^
Since OP probably wants to be a tactician in the modern era, he'd probably do well studying WWII and more modern wars only. If he's gonna focus on tactics, he will need to just focus on the principles (which is what I hope you mean). And these are usually intuitive and easy to understand, and don't take much time understanding desu. What's harder to understand is tactics. In that case I'd recommend him this website
http://www.theartofbattle.com/
>>7656992
>What's harder to understand is tactics
I meant strategy, not tactics.
Mil fag here. I worked on a couple details where we did simulated force on force on a division level with computers real time. Some of it is classified (not like super secrets, little random bullshit) but tell me what you want to know, I might have some old manuals I can dredge up.
OP here, had to fuck off for a while, but I'm going to reply to anyone I missed.
>>7656494
Cheers.
>>7656626
Looking forward to it, unless you're already one of the people later in this thread.
>>7656664
Actually seems helpful, added to the list, cheers.
>>7656806
Okay, I agree with most of this, and I thank you for the thoughtful commentary, but:
>Guerrilla Warfare is a meme.
While it is true that Guerrilla units are easier to defeat than larger ones, it's also the mainstream in the modern world, due to the fact that the majority of conflict is happening in unstable regions, with larger players being so unbelievably powerful that guerrilla tactics are the only realistic way to evade them.
>I'm disheartened that there isn't any Thucydide's History of the Peloponnesian War
You are the third person to bring that up, trust me, it's on the list.
>>7656845
Cheers.
>>7656910
Heard of that Podcast before, will see if I can find a good torrent of it (I am incredibly skint)
>>7656992
HOLY FUCK THAT WEBSITE LOOKS USEFUL
>>7657018
Largely interested in prolonged conflicts between civilian groups, and official military personell, preferably in the recent past, as this would make for a more useful base of comparison. I am also largely interested in strategy in the abstract, you know, the kinds that basically apply to all war.
>>7657033
>While it is true that Guerrilla units are easier to defeat than larger ones, it's also the mainstream in the modern world, due to the fact that the majority of conflict is happening in unstable regions, with larger players being so unbelievably powerful that guerrilla tactics are the only realistic way to evade them.
Yeah, yeah I know, but you don't need devote too much time on them. Focus on counter insurgency like my first post>>7656664
had already said, and that's about all you need to know about guerilla warfare: how to fight them. Which has been historically easy. Again, I'd recommend Max Boots Invisible Armies to let you know why I'm saying what I'm saying.
>>7657053
Fair enough.
>>7656089
Okay, so far you guys have recommended:
13)Maurice - Strategikon (recommended twice)
14)Kautilya - Arthashastra (also largely economics)
15)Tiqqun - Introduction to Civil War
16)Strategy - Lawrence Freedman
17)Tucidides - The History of the Peloponnesian war (recommended thrice)
18)Xenophon - Cyropaedia
18b)Anabasis
19)Renatus - De Re Militari
20)IRA Green Book
21)http://www.amazon.com/Marine-Corps-Counterinsurgency-Field-Manual/dp/0226841510
22)Max Boot - Invisible Armies
23)http://www.amazon.com/Roots-Strategy-Brig-Gen-Thomas-Phillips/dp/0811721949/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1454525988&sr=8-2&keywords=military+Strategy+volume+1
24)http://www.amazon.com/Roman-Battle-Tactics-109BC-AD313-Elite/dp/1846031842/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1454528844&sr=8-1&keywords=roman+military+tactics
Anything else?
>>7657063
>http://www.amazon.com/Roman-Battle-Tactics-109BC-AD313-Elite/dp/1846031842/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1454528844&sr=8-1&keywords=roman+military+tactics
This is exactly what I didn't recommend actually. Because doing so will waste your time. I brought this in as an example as to what not to do (getting stuck in specifics). Go ahead and read it though, if you're curious, but there's just so much to read from that company, its only for the fanatics.
>>7656992
Thanks for that website, I was looking for something like that.
I understand what you're saying, but there's a lot of value in learning tactics specifically related to the context. Primarily, it helps one understand tactical development based on context and extrapolate those ideas when faced with new context.
To go along with your game of thrones example (bear with me, I never read the books but I've seen the show up to the point you're talking about), Tywin would never have been able to kill stark without the deceptive tactics employed at the red wedding or whatever. Strategy gets you there, tactics are the execution. To use another example, Genghis Khan was maybe the greatest strategist in recorded history, but he never would have been able to conquor as much of China as he did without first developing an understanding of siege tactics. The first major Chinese city the Mongols tried to sack, I think it was called Xiong Diu, was a major failure because they had no understanding of siege tactics.
It's very important to get in the right position, but it is just as important to be able to execute the strategy.
But I think you're correct when you say you think OP is more interested in strategy. So I concede to you for the purposes of this thread.
>>7657050
So a lot of current tactics and strategy are based heavily on a war of attrition. Which is nothing new, but it has changed.
With a much heavier focus on special operations that war has now when we actually red team or do force on force we focus on the fastest way to disrupt material transport and supply.
I'll give an example:
Country A is fighting Country B. They have recently been engaging on a front for several weeks, a constant battle with no substantial loss on either side because they are technologically equals.
Country A initiates a strategic retreat of some odd miles, country B moves to rout and gain that foothold they lost. The supply lines now shift in favor of country A, because they collapse down onto a supply line only having to push it back. Country B now has to extend a supply line.
While B pushes their lines to gain new ground, A dispatches a unit of Special Operations (SF) they move in either from air, sea or a long infiltrsrion, or possibly strategically left behind in the retreat (we call this a hunter killer more on that, more of tactics though) they now actively disrupt supply and troops, causing enough chaos that A only has to now push back and run over the unit they were originally fighting.
Granted this is a very watered down scenario but one we have actively used to some degree of success.
>>7657071
Care to explain? Osprey books can be well written. They are brief, slighlty populistic, but well sourced and often good first look into certain topic.
>>7657097
Huh, that's actually pretty useful information. Isn't interrupting supply lines how they prevented a Northern victory in the Korean War?
>>7657087
>Tywin would never have been able to kill stark without the deceptive tactics employed at the red wedding or whatever. Strategy gets you there, tactics are the execution.
Ah yes, we're getting different definitions of tactics and strategy here.
I will let you concede the point you conceded but will continue arguing about the importance of strategy>tactics.
The tactics you're speaking of should be studied in a more regressive fashion than in a progressive fashion which is what you're implying in this statement here.
>I understand what you're saying, but there's a lot of value in learning tactics specifically related to the context. Primarily, it helps one understand tactical development based on context and extrapolate those ideas when faced with new context.
The reason this is so is because you want to know the tactics of the day and age you're fighting in first, and then you can go back, if you're curious to how these tactics developed, but you won't learn more tactics per se, but you will learn how different situations and periods call for new systems of thinking, which is a good, but moot point because that is largely decided on many factors beyond your control. If new situations arise that call for new tactics for example, you don't necessarily need to read the historical examples of how people reacted to novel situations in order to affect your current process of critical thinking on how to find the correct mode of operation in a new situation in the modern era. The critical thinking aspect is largely left up to military institutions, policy makers, soldiers, generals, etc.
To go back to GoT, Tywin didn't win the tactical war on paper, he only won one "right" battle, at the wedding (which was a Clausewitzian center of gravity at the time). This is a case in point of a strategical objective of winning the war trumping "winning the battles."
Yes, tactics are in some sense the execution of strategical policy but you're making a point that doesn't need to be made. Strategically, the Stark boy was at a loss, but tactically he wasn't. Tywin was at a strategical advantage, but a tactical loss, but still won the war which points to the fact that a summation of tactical victories won't secure you anything, just like it didn't secure the U.S in Vietnam where the strategy was lacking.
Tactics are only useful for executing the right strategies, but beyond that they're useless when your strategical thinking is off-base. Hence strategy>tactics.
Just because I need bullets to shoot a gun (tactics) at a person doesn't mean that I will necessarily kill him. For I need to aim at him (strategy).
>>7657087
Ghenghis was great, Alexander was great, but in the end both only conquered one big empire. For me true genius showed only Karolus Magnus. In war every season of his active life, on all four corners of his realm. Huge empire built with increadible attention to logistics and religious integration of conquered land.
>>7657138
I can't speak nearly as much on the Korean war, but I wouldn't doubt it.
The biggest game changer in modern war isn't bigger bombs or faster planes, it's how rapidly we can get 'bullets and beans' to war fighters. How fast we can refuel those planes, how we can do it in flight. And when you can have a constant flow of that fuel and those bullets you basically have and endless fight. We can keep it up 'forever' in theory so thr only way to stop that is killing the guy carrying that fuel.
Campaigns of Alexander - Arrian
Storm of Steel - Jünger (has some good practical tips from the soldier's point of view)
On Pain - Jünger (good stuff about a modern soldier's mindset and the value of war)
>>7657119
I mean go ahead, it's just so much information that you will be obnubilating your mind with, all of the cases get extremely specific, it's better to focus on the principles themselves, which I guess can be generalized (usually) even when the cases get extremely specific, but that's hard to do and might take some time for you to understand how that can be applicable to modern war. Modern warfare is more of a broader thing now, it's a amalgamation of several factors and institutions working together to accomplish a specific grand strategical goal. But knowing how the romans scissored their formations to fight a raging termagant or how they set up their order of battle before the fight is of historical interest only, but not for modern day tactical fighting that OP is probably looking for. It will generally be very hard to see how those cases can be applied in a modern situation. If your thinking is metaphorical, then maybe you could. The company is great, and their work is the ne plus ultra of historical military tactics, but it might not be practical for modern day fighting entirely. I think the formations are probably of interest, and how these changed throughout the battle might be important for modern day tacticians, but some of the other details they go into might not be so vital because those tactics were constrained by the technology of that day.
>>7656089
>be brazilian
>hard time fiding decent books on their native language or in another language with a good translation
>find the book of five rings
>it's filled of comments explaining to the brazilian public how the book relates to some "biblical" concepts and how you can use it to impress your boss and suceed in life.
I literally took a black permanent marker and censored every page comment.
>>7657281
Oh shit, Uh OP forgot to say, try looking for the Mini-manual of the urban guerrila. It was written by a guy who oposed to the dictatorship here, pretty good book used by CIA and such. Don't trust it to much as he was ambushed and you could use him to pick noodles out of water. Another good book is Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare used in Nicaragua. I don't even know why I read this shit but hey I do..
>captcha is pasta
Thanks Mr. Botnet
>>7657193
here's a thesis by some dutch guy that gives a an overview of the work an american strategist called John Boyd. Boyd developed the concept of the ooda loop, basically using time as a weapon, his ideas are massively applicable to "post-modern" asymmetrical warfare.
>Secondly, the postmodern school addresses the shift from modern armed forces based on 19th century style mass armies consisting of conscripts operating mechanized
military systems produced by industrial age heavy industries following an attrition type doctrine in war in which victory depended on out-producing an opponent while eliminating
its armed forces towards postmodern militaries of professional armed forces manned by highly skilled personnel operating not weapons but a conglomerate of increasingly capable precision sensors and long range stand-off precision munitions aiming to paralyze the opponent through system-wide parallel attacks on numerous centers of gravity.
http://chicagoboyz.net/blogfiles/OsingaBoydThesis.pdf
Osinga turned his thesis into this book, which gives you an idea of the contents
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Science-Strategy-War-Strategic-History/dp/0415459524
>>7657164>>7657087
>The reason this is so is because you want to know the tactics of the day and age you're fighting in first, and then you can go back, if you're curious to how these tactics developed, but you won't learn more tactics per se, but you will learn how different situations and periods call for new systems of thinking, which is a good, but moot point because that is largely decided on many factors beyond your control. If new situations arise that call for new tactics for example, you don't necessarily need to read the historical examples of how people reacted to novel situations in order to affect your current process of critical thinking on how to find the correct mode of operation in a new situation in the modern era. The critical thinking aspect is largely left up to military institutions, policy makers, soldiers, generals, etc
To expatiate on this more.
The point I'm making here is that your critical thinking is purely yours (if it is somehow taken out of the context of military institution,policy makers, soldiers, generals, etc that is)
Your critical thinking is your fluid intelligence, your natural thinking, your IQ in a way. The argument I'm making here is that you won't affect that critical thinking if you read cases of how people critically thought in those novel situations (historical tactical development). All you really need is the basic underlying principles, the rest is left up to you. There are two different levels of tactics we are talking of, really. The one level is that of the one constrained by your technology and the period you live in. The other is simply conceptual, almost philosophical. The latter is what is important, the former not so much, unless you find metaphorical ways that it can somehow still inform the latter.
>>7657373
If I recall correctly both of them are available for free in several sources across the interwebs.
>>7657308
>http://chicagoboyz.net/blogfiles/OsingaBoydThesis.pdf
>Osinga turned his thesis into this book, which gives you an idea of the contents
>http://www.amazon.co.uk/Science-Strategy-War-Strategic-History/dp/0415459524
Which should I read
The book or the thesis itself?
Not OP by the way.
Im fairly sure he isnt looking to apply anything to modern war from the list he posted. Its just good to know stuff. And Osprey certainly never isnt going into detail too much. Yes, they appear to have stuff on everything, but noone is forcing anyone in reading everything. You just pick what you like and go from there. An what they have realy isnt going too deep. Its on level of minor scientific article. Popular history with plenty of pictures and illustrations. Perfect when you go past wikipedia and web. You have far deeper, (and much more expensive) options elsewhere.
You could say reading stuff like that is banal and useless, but Ive only passing interest in history, and have still read plenty on ancient military tactics and weaponry. Last time a work dealing with hardiness and manufacture of late medieval plate armour. Obscure topic, but I had fun reading it. Same goes for ancient tactics.
People read Art of War for its philosophy, I dont blame them, I just get that from first hand, from what worked, what didnt, how minds worked thousands of years ago, and finally I read them for the stories. History is like Silmarillion, it appears dull, and blank, but looking at it from right angle, it offers a whole world of insane tales. With added bonus that they are true.
>>7657164
I understand and agree. You make a very strife point. This may be pedantic of me, but tactics are not just the gun and bullets but the mode of killing, no? You may be able to aim, but how would you kill the man if you had no understanding of modes of killing-- be it with a gun, sword, or your hands?
>>7657176
I don't understand how that differentiates Charlemagne from Genghis Khan?Genghis Khan created a much larger empire with with the with the same attentions. When he and later Khans were in power, a girl could supposedly walk the entire silk road alone with a pot of gold on her head and be untouched. The Mongol rulers all paid attention to complex and nuanced religious differences within their empire, and, later, respective empires, both as methods of control and eventually choosing faiths between them. Most of the Mongol empires, though authoritarian, did offer religious freedom. I don't know much about Charlemagne, so do you mean, like, a lasting empire?
>>7657310
This is an excellent breakdown. I admire how clearly you're able to communicate that. I would like to clarify though that what you are describing here is a method by which one can find a solution to a problem. What I am emphasising, and I blame myself for my lack of clarity, is that to engage creative thinking, one needs to have a base of comparisons to draw upon. So yes, raw critical thinking will absolutely get you a solution to your problem, but I am generally interested in having many solutions to my problem and the luxury of choice.
I like that you said that it was a philosophical question, because that's the way it is looked at in samurai martial tradition. It is, in my mind, most definitely the case that this is a question of philosophy and that when one is skilled enough and has enough experience, one can use basic principles to adapt to whatever the situation is. If you've heard, say, Bruce Lee talk about how you need to be like water; or Musashi talk about void as the fifth element in Go Rin No Sho; or (and this might be a stretch, I'm not sure yet) writers talk about negative capability; they're all describing understanding of basic principles and adaptation to the required context. And this is because it is the most simple approach, which of course is often the best approach. But to be simple, one needs an extremely strong foundation, I think especially in the subconscious. If you look at war, fights, writing, or even cooking, there are shared basic principles that govern proficiency in all, the difference is the context. But the creativity initially comes from the subconscious and then from (say for drafting with writing (but you could just call it prototyping and have that apply more widely to anything you want to compare it to)) the conscious mind. The pieces first have to fall into place, and then one must out them in the right place to do the right thing in the right way and so on. For that initial creativity, the subconscious needs a lot of data.
>>7657505
>You make a very strife point.
wut
>>7657517
Strong *
>I don't understand how that differentiates Charlemagne from Genghis Khan?Genghis Khan created a much larger empire with with the with the same attentions. When he and later Khans were in power, a girl could supposedly walk the entire silk road alone with a pot of gold on her head and be untouched. The Mongol rulers all paid attention to complex and nuanced religious differences within their empire, and, later, respective empires, both as methods of control and eventually choosing faiths between them. Most of the Mongol empires, though authoritarian, did offer religious freedom. I don't know much about Charlemagne, so do you mean, like, a lasting empire?
You're missing the point. He united Mongol tribes and killed Ming. That's all he did. His generals and relatives conquered the rest.
Karolus led his armies. Every season he'd personally recruit, organize, and then lead his army himself. Recruitment would start in winter, then at least one minor raid per year. For all his life he campaigned on all fronts , and when he conquered he used religion in a previously unseen way to cement his rule.
Yeah it all fell apart with successions, but I'm not comparing empires, only leaders.
>>7657753
I'm an idiot. Mongols killed Song not Ming.
>>7657753
Oh interesting. Can you expand on the religion bit or provide some recommendations for further reading?
>>7656089
I don't understand how to relate it to my life at all.
>>7657505
>"You must say with a sincere heart: "We will be your subjects; we will give you our strength". You must in person come with your kings, all together, without exception, to render us service and pay us homage. Only then will we acknowledge your submission. And if you do not follow the order of God, and go against our orders, we will know you as our enemy."
—Letter from Güyük to Pope Innocent IV, 1246.
>tl;dr great blue sky gave me the right to rule everything under him and who is this pópee you talk about, he like you must kneel.
>>7657799
Start with Vita Karoli Magni. Respected autobiography written shorty after his death.
Then you have plenty of modern content. Just go through citations on his Wikipedia page.
>>7658059
I've heard of that message before and like it a lot. Why did you post it, anon?
>>7656089
Mostly naval stuff, because I'm ex-navy:
David Evans & Mark Peattie - Kaigun [Tells you everything the Japanese did wrong when they (stupidly) chose to pick a fight with the US]
Toshi Yoshihara and James R. Holmes - Red Star Over The Pacific [Analysis of contemporary Chinese maritime strategy as poised against the US]
Ed. Thomas J. Cutler - The U.S. Naval Institute on Naval Strategy [Collection of essays on USN naval strategy]
Was trying not to veer too much into the realm of history, but I probably failed. Hope it helps, all the same.
Excellent thread. I wonder if this could be added to the wiki, or perhaps a torrent made to have them all in one place.
The Book of Five Rings
Book by Miyamoto Musashi
>>7656111
>The Prince
>satire
youve got me fukin triggered m9
>>7656089
Seconding Boyd, Also read Stirling Newberry articles on Iraq.
Out of the mountains is good
>>7657505
>This may be pedantic of me, but tactics are not just the gun and bullets but the mode of killing, no? You may be able to aim, but how would you kill the man if you had no understanding of modes of killing-- be it with a gun, sword, or your hands?
I agree, tactics can be a mode as well
>>7657505
>For that initial creativity, the subconscious needs a lot of data.
I think you might be right on the general point here. I'm only going to agree with you based on my intuition however, but would want to spend some time finding the reasons for why this is so. You made me think about chess players who study previous chess games and this being how they inform their current creative and critical thinking. What I'm not so sure about (why I'm worried and why I'm agreeing only superficially) is if OP would be studying "previous chess games" purely, or would he be studying games like checkers, stratego, risk, Go.
And you hit on that here
>If you look at war, fights, writing, or even cooking, there are shared basic principles that govern proficiency in all, the difference is the context.
I'm only worried that to get anything out of these games, chess players would probably have to be "metaphorical" in their thinking, and would probably do better just studying chess games alone. The point should be made that a guy who's playing checkers, and other board games more than studying chess games would probably have a weaker ELO.
>>7656089
your pic related is a horrible book
>>7656142
quoted.
>>7656089
What, no love for Jomini?
Extreme Ownership - Jocko Willink
>>7659379
Jomini was platitudinous and not as sophisticated a thinker as Clausewitz, but sure. He's still important, but not as important and influential as Clausewitz.
>>7656089
The level of armchair general in this thread is painful. So I'll try to address a whole bunch of points.
>>7656146
This is a good point, because Insurgency and civil disorder/unrest is the only way to conduct politico-military conflict in this era. Conventional warfare isn't worth it, consider the persian gulf war as an example.
>>7656228
This guy knows that history is more important than the study of tactics and strategy. Context, political policy, participant will, morale and many other incalculable factors play a part.
>>7656806
Clausewitz is an example of the study of Napoleonic tactics from an enemy perspective. It is well thought out and definitely a classic. Don't weigh yourself by it though, it is the obsession of lazy bureaucratic military officers of the present to pretend that work is the be all and end all.
Julius Caesar is clearly a strong charismatic leader, the focus should be on his leadership style and how he exploited propaganda to motivate his supporters and dissuade his enemies.
Sun Tzu is the Le Rochefoucauld of warfare. Simple, straight forward idioms with significant implications behind them.
I haven't read Rommel sadly, but I have studied the military history of the first world war closely. It is strongly worth noticing that the deep penetration, deep manouevre and mobile warfare doctrines were developed from case studies in the 1920's
Gustavus Adolphus should be studied thoroughly, as should Wittgenstein. The campaigns of the third years war are a very interesting evolutionary process.
Thomas Carlyle's Fredrick the Great, and Heroes and Hero Worship.
Genghis Khan is a waste of time to study though, his campaigns and mobile warfare were unstable and were dependent upon his charismatic leadership to unite and command large
Books to add:
Seven Pillars of Wisdom - T. E. Lawerence
Learning to eat soup with a knife - John Nagl
Thesis: Military Intelligence in the New Zealand Land Wars, 1845-1864. - Clifford Roy Simons
Robert Greene's book on war strategies is a good read.
OP here,
>>7658190
Did not know Charlemagne had an early biography, fucking listed.
>>7658471
Cheers, I hadn't really thought about Naval strategy specifically, but I will get around to it at some point, and these seem like good resouces on the topic.
>>7658580
Agreed, this has been far more useful than I initially expected. At the very least, we've got to chart this shit.
>>7658690
That was on the original list, I started with, at the very top of the thread.
>>7659130
Out of the mountains added to the list.
>>7659226
I went for the most obvious book I could given the subject matter. Wouldn't have even bothered if images weren't mandatory.
>>7659379
*googles* His main book is called the art of war. Of fucking course it is, because two books by that name wasn't enough. Added, anyway.
>>7659396
Seems interesting.
>>7659611
Check'd.
>>7659626
>Julius Caesar is best for studying leadership, and propaganda.
Mate, if we're talking propaganda, I might as well add Edward Bernays to the list.
>Gustavus Adolphus should be studied thoroughly, as should Wittgenstein.
Duely noted.
>Books to add.
Added.
>>>7659630
I've read it, what part of "Actually for war, not one of those "and here's how the battle of thermopylae can help you impress your boss" pieces of shit", did you not understand?
>>7660195
If you're excited about Middle Age biographies, there's a good one about Alfred the Great by Asser.
>>7660201
Added.
>>7660216
I'm not sure if anyone's mentioned it, but I'd definitely recommend Plutarch's Lives, filled with biographies of great leaders and generals such as Caesar, Lysander, Themistocles, Alexander, and Sulla.
Get the Modern Library edition if you do want it.
Alright, so as someone already suggested adding this to the wiki, and I agree that that would be a good idea, I figured I showed point out that this is what I have so far:
1)Sun Tzu - The Art of War
1b)Zhuge Liang's and Liu Ji - Commentaries on the Art of War
2)Niccolo Machiavelli - The Art of War
3)Niccolo Machiavelli - The Prince
4)Jomini - The Art of War
5)Clausewitz - On War
6)Che - Guerrilla Warfare
7)Mao - On Guerrilla Warfare
7b)Mao - Problems of Strategy in Guerrilla War Against Japan
8)Miyamoto Musashi - The Book of Five Rings
9)David Kilcullen - Counterinsurgency
9b)David Kilcullen - Out of the Mountains
10)IRA Green Book
10b)Patrick Pearse - Fianna Handbook
11)William Spaniel - Game Theory 101: The Rationality of War
11b)William Spaniel - Game Theory 101: The Complete Textbook
12)Julius Caesar - Commentaries on the Gallic War
13)Maurice - Strategikon (recommended twice)
14)Kautilya - Arthashastra (also largely economics)
15)Tiqqun - Introduction to Civil War
16)Lawrence Freedman - Strategy
17)Tucidides - The History of the Peloponnesian war (recommended thrice)
18)Xenophon - Cyropaedia
18b)Anabasis
19)Renatus - De Re Militari
20)Rommel - Infantry Attacks
22)US Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual
23)Max Boot - Invisible Armies
24)The Roots of Strategy series.
25)Ross Cowan - Roman Battle Tactics 109BC-313AD
26)Arrian - Campaigns of Alexander (recommended twice)
27)Jünger - Storm of Steel
27b)Jünger - On Pain
28)Carlos Marighella - Minimanual of the Urban Guerilla
29)Science, Strategy and War: The Strategic Theory of John Boyd
30)Vita Karoli Magni
31)David Evans & Mark Peattie - Kaigun
32)Toshi Yoshihara and James R. Holmes - Red Star Over The Pacific
33)Ed. Thomas J. Cutler - The U.S. Naval Institute on Naval Strategy
35)Jocko Willink - Extreme Ownership.
36)Seven Pillars of Wisdom - T. E. Lawerence
37)Learning to eat soup with a knife - John Nagl
38)Thesis: Military Intelligence in the New Zealand Land Wars, 1845-1864. - Clifford Roy Simons
39)Asser - Life of King Alfred.
>>7660304
See you in 5 years. I expect you to have conquered the world by then.
>>7660322
Jesus Man, it's going to take me five years just to learn the theory. Twenty years, maybe.
can't wait to see the ultimate reading list. I'll hate myself for doing such a thing but I'll probably try to tackle a lot of it.
>>7660414
Ultimate reading list will likely only be slightly different by this point, just broken the list as it exists into different categories for ease of use, considering charting it.
Basics/Start here:
1)Sun Tzu - The Art of War
1b)Zhuge Liang's and Liu Ji - Commentaries on the Art of War
2)Niccolo Machiavelli - The Art of War
3)Niccolo Machiavelli - The Prince
4)Jomini - The Art of War
5)Clausewitz - On War
6)Miyamoto Musashi - The Book of Five Rings
Urban/Guerilla Warfare:
7)Che - Guerrilla Warfare
8)Mao - On Guerrilla Warfare
8b)Mao - Problems of Strategy in Guerrilla War Against Japan
9)David Kilcullen - Counterinsurgency
9b)David Kilcullen - Out of the Mountains
10)IRA Green Book
10b)Patrick Pearse - Fianna Handbook
11)Tiqqun - Introduction to Civil War
12)Max Boot - Invisible Armies
13)US Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual
14)Carlos Marighella - Minimanual of the Urban Guerilla
Scientific Approach/Analysis:
15)William Spaniel - Game Theory 101: The Rationality of War
15b)William Spaniel - Game Theory 101: The Complete Textbook
16)Science, Strategy and War: The Strategic Theory of John Boyd
17)Lawrence Freedman - Strategy
18)Ed. Thomas J. Cutler - The U.S. Naval Institute on Naval Strategy
19)Thesis: Military Intelligence in the New Zealand Land Wars, 1845-1864. - Clifford Roy Simons
Ancient Wars:
20)Julius Caesar - Commentaries on the Gallic War
21)Maurice - Strategikon (recommended twice)
22)Kautilya - Arthashastra (also largely economics)
23)Tucidides - The History of the Peloponnesian war (recommended thrice)
24)Xenophon - Cyropaedia
24b)Anabasis
25)Renatus - De Re Militari
26)Arrian - Campaigns of Alexander (recommended twice)
27)Asser - Life of King Alfred.
28)The Roots of Strategy series.
29)Ross Cowan - Roman Battle Tactics 109BC-313AD
30)Vita Karoli Magni
Modern Warfare (WW2 onwards):
31)Rommel - Infantry Attacks
32)Jünger - Storm of Steel
32b)Jünger - On Pain
33)Toshi Yoshihara and James R. Holmes - Red Star Over The Pacific
34)David Evans & Mark Peattie - Kaigun
N/A:
35)Jocko Willink - Extreme Ownership.
36)Seven Pillars of Wisdom - T. E. Lawerence
37)Learning to eat soup with a knife - John Nagl
>>7660493
>WW2 Onwards
>Storm of Steel
>>7660502
Yeah, I meant WW1, sorry about that.
>>7659379
>Jomini
Bastard doesn't even deserve his own mother's love. OP ignore this faggot
>>7659423
He was a major influence on battle strategy during the American Civil War, though his attitudes fell out of favor as time went on. I agree about the general argument against him, but overlooking his contribution to the historical evolution of military strategy would be unfortunate, despite the light he is held in today.
No Coup d'État: A Practical Handbook?
>>7660676
Elaborate, immediately.
>inb4 google it.
I am.
>>7660685
It's just an examination of coups and how to go about doing 'em. I don't know if it counts as strategy or not, but I'd say it's as relevant as The Prince is (that book's military relevance boiling down to "Italian mercenaries bad, Italian militias good").
>>7660493
Ex-Navy anon from yesterday here, here's a few more texts that might be worth looking into:
Mark R Peattie - Sunburst: The Rise of Japanese Naval Air Power, 1909 - 1941 [Sequel to Kaigun, the other author passed away between the publication of both texts; the information within was meant to be included in Kaigun, but there was literally too much information to be squeezed into one book. This one focuses on Japanese air power, and its rise and fall in the Pacific Theatre]
Japanese army operations in the South Pacific Area: New Britain and Papua campaigns, 1942–43 - Trans. Steven Ballard [IJA Operations in Southeast Asia / South Pacific; not a lot of self-assessment of their failures since it was written by the IJA, but still interesting nonetheless]
Other stuff: In general, the US Naval Institute Press churns out a lot of quality texts and/or translations (the USN is arguably the only blue water navy left in the world, after all). Also, some advice, if I may - eventually after covering a broad spectrum of texts, you may want to settle down on a particular area of interest / specialisation. There's a lot of great texts on here, but not sure if the volume of information is manageable in one lifetime.
Small Wars Journal - US Marine Corps
Some of the information is outdated, like how to load and maintain a Browning M1919 but it was recommended by General Mattis as reading before the invasion of Iraq. Make of that what you will
>>7661293
whoops, manual not journal
http://www.military.com/New-Gettysburg-Game/1,16378,gettysburg-main.htm,,00.html
This was an interesting five minutes. See if you can pick a confederate battle plan to achieve victory.
I didattack, attack, envelop right, envelop right. Resulted in victory.
>>7656461
Sun Tzu's text can't be seen alone, being conversation with a whole continuum of commentators throughout the history. and, being written in Classical Chinese, also semantically looser than the end translation.
You should get the version that had both the original and includes commentary by other strategists like Cao Cao etc... which is also chock full of the teachings being utilized in practical scenarios. It also includes a Western commentator bringing up examples of Caesar etc...
For that matter, all Classical Chinese sources has to be seen in continuum, because Classical Chinese texts are crafted in reference to the word usage of other texts, since the language has no straightforward grammar.
Furthermore the 'commonsensicality' of it was apparently lost on the Greeks, who were more 'honour based' in their fighting. Sun Tzu and the Romance of the Three Kingdoms begins a Chinese love for trickery and deceit (necessary at the brutal times that Sun Tzu was set in) and political realism that bleeds into the whole discourse. In China you'd probably find all sorts of references to the text if you study the speeches of Mao and businessmen for example. The principles have entered the lexicon of common usage, and so cannot be ignored. I guess you could say then that it became a trascended meme, which is language itself. The 'updated' and modernized version of political realism in China probably be the untranslated Thick Face Black Heart theory.
Basically, its all about context context context. If not youre gonna miss the richness of a text.
Martin van Creveld
>>7660512
Adapting to Win: How Insurgents Fight and Defeat Foreign States in War
>>7656151
The author actually came out a little while ago and basically said he was a teenager pissed about vietnam and was just venting. It and many of it's iterations are full of inaccuracies.
For something actually good, look into "The A Files: An Illustrated Handbook on the Art and Science of Things that Go Boom"
>>7662031
Also, "The Chemistry of explosives", by J. Akhavan, and "Ragnar's Guide To Home And Recreational Use Of High Explosives
", by Ragnar Benson.
>>7662088
Ragnar has gained somewhat of a reputation for putting information in his books that he hasn't bothered to test himself. Be careful.
can we please specify what translations for these?
I'll start: Art Of War, Jo Han-Sun translation.
>>7662540
Why that version?
>>7656111
>"Prince" is a political satire
Yes. But not all satirists are pussies who need to pretend their enemies are idiots.
There's an Italian saying: Molti nemici, molto onore. More enemies, more honour. And is there more honour in swatting flies, or in killing giants?
>you'd be better off checking out some government websites.
To learn the dirty secrets of modern Princes, we'll need another Machiavelli. Or maybe a Snowden of literature.
>>7660614
>He was a major influence on battle strategy during the American Civil Wa
Yeah this is a good point. I heard that the civil war would have been fought more efficiently and less sloppily if the generals were reading Clausewitz though.
Is there anything with an emphasis on small teams hitting key targets? Coupled with overall strategy.
>>7661418
Eh, I took a totally different plan and won.
>delay, attack, left, right
>>7660493
A few more worth adding, although these are primarily naval.
The influence of sea power upon history by Alfred Mahan.
Corbett's Principles of maritime strategy
Anti-Access Warfare by Sam J. Tangredi
Kaigun: Strategy, Tactics, and Technology in the Imperial Japanese Navy, 1887-1941 by Evans and Peattie
Seven Pillars of Wisdom is about Lawerence of Arabia and his insurgent campaign in the first world war.
John Nagl is an American Lieutenant Colonel who produced much of the contemporary counter insurgency stuff.
Add the Arthashastra by Kautilya as well. Fantastic book on statecraft, written around 300BC.
Herodotus's histories might fit in there too, it has quite a bit on the topography on foreign nations. That sort of collective intelligence gathering is mandatory for proper operational conduct. Even if it is rumour based, it demonstrates the need for military intelligence.
If you want, there are some rare out of print books which are considered well worth collecting too.
- Strategic intelligence for american world policy
- Nazi Secret Warfare in Occupied Persia (Iran): The Failure of the German Intelligence Services, 1939-45, this is the most relevant book you will ever find on actions against iran.
>>7663201
go to bed isis
this is the redditiest thread I've seen in a while
all those basement Machiavellis and cool neomasculinist warfare fedoramen channeling their dick energy
>>7663848
>I have not read the thread and I must shitpost
Masculinist wannabe-Machiavellis are infinitely preferable to wannabe-Stoics anyway.
>>7663202
Interesting. I just remember the historians kept beating up Lee for not seizing the high ground early, so I felt concentration of force and cutting off the enemy communications would work. And it did achieve victory, though the enemy retired in good order. Gimme a few panzers and it would have been a total rout. A fairly predictable strategy, I'll admit.
>>7661808
>greeks honor based
Thucydides would like to have a word with you. If only Iphikrates had written a military manual. He was a general as good as Lu Xun.
You can find training manuals from the American army all over the internet. Dunno about higher level stuff, but there's definitely crash courses on how to lead at the section or platoon level.
>>7661808
which version is that?
>>7663300
OP here:
>Primarily Naval
Thanks to you, and that other guy, I now have so many naval books that they get their own category.
>Seven Pillars of Wisdom, Arthashustra, and Kaigun
Already recommended, and added earlier on.
All other books have been added to the list.
>>7665416
Perfect. Fucking. Description.* Sorry.
>>7665424
protip, fire and forget
Currently considering posting the final version of this list, (i.e. whatever version exists, when the thread 404s), on /k/, and seeing what they make of it.
wow, I'm impressed with that list OP. Everyone has Sun Tzu and Clausewitz, but most people don't even know Zhuge Liang or Miyamoto. You could add Jomini to the list, but idk if there are english translations available. And maybe Sherman
>>7657505
why are those hyenas attacking the cow?
aren't they carrion-eaters?
>>7666298
No.
>>7660510
Also, although I enjoyed Jünger's books, they don't focus on tactics/strategy. You can read them if you want, but you won't learn any strategy.
>>7666298
Don't feel bad, the cows also made that mistake.
This thread went from page one to page 7 over the course of a few hours, after spending three days toggling between 3, and 4. Either this board just surged in activity, or we've hit the bump limit.
nice list
>>7657308
I really don't think you "got" what Boyd was meaning. Unless you're being stupidly simplistic for a reason...
It's more about synthesis of information - which is actually a telltale sign of intelligence anyways and is its true indicator.
bamp
seems the list is going over well. someone writing this up for the sticky I'd suppose?
>>7656146
>recommends anything written by Tiqqun
lol I didn't realize people here were into the meme-archists?
