Sun Tzu posits in his seminal work, The Art of War, that "Every battle is won or lost before it's ever fought." Can this be seen as being an accurate statement in many or most occasions?
It is true for some battles, perhaps many battles, but not for all battles.
What Sun Tzu has in mind is the great set-piece battles the were fought in China at the time, where huge armies would be lined up and then sent off to fight. The battle would go to whoever had prepared best, a combination of the best supplies, the best planning, the best intelligence, the best control of the ground, the best training, etc. The general wound things up and let them go.
But he oversimplifies. Many battles are closely balanced, and tiny changes have big effects. Hannibal would have lost the Battle of Geronium if his hidden reserves of troops had been discovered by any stray patrol. Agincourt might have gone the other way if it hadn't rained. Some say Napoleon would have won Waterloo if his hemorrhoids hadn't been acting up. The number of books that have been written about the ways the Allies could have lost D-Day would crash the server.
Good planning is crucial, but a battle is more like poker than like chess. You make your moves in ignorance, not only of your opponent's moves (as in chess) but of the myriad ways chance can intervene. A good hand can lose, or a bad hand win, even despite optimal play. The greatest general is the one who has planned for the most contingencies, but that doesn't mean the greatest general always wins.
One could say that the chance is all predetermined, but viewed that way, the entire thing was set in place five billion years ago and none of it is worth talking about. The fact is that you do not know these things, and the general has been tasked to win despite the ignorance.
Another thing has changed substantially since Sun Tzu's day is communications. At his time, the general had only minimal effect on the flow of battle because it moved faster than his runners. The process of getting new intelligence, deciding on it, and sending out orders was nearly useless. The general could go home and have a bath, and hear how it went after the fact.
Today, a battle is an active thing. The battle plan may not survive first contact with the enemy, but the general formulates a new plan instantly. The evolving plan is part of the plan, and is not set before the battle begins.
You must still heed Sun Tzu's advice. You have to have everything set up for that to happen. Reserves must be where they are most likely to do good. Communications must be set up so that they are reliable in the din of combat. The old necessities of holding some grounds and ceding others hold. You must still have intelligence so that you know your enemy better than he knows himself.
But it's not the only thing. Art of War is a good place to start, but it is not the only book you must read.
What Sun Tzu has in mind is the great set-piece battles the were fought in China at the time, where huge armies would be lined up and then sent off to fight. The battle would go to whoever had prepared best, a combination of the best supplies, the best planning, the best intelligence, the best control of the ground, the best training, etc. The general wound things up and let them go.
But he oversimplifies. Many battles are closely balanced, and tiny changes have big effects. Hannibal would have lost the Battle of Geronium if his hidden reserves of troops had been discovered by any stray patrol. Agincourt might have gone the other way if it hadn't rained. Some say Napoleon would have won Waterloo if his hemorrhoids hadn't been acting up. The number of books that have been written about the ways the Allies could have lost D-Day would crash the server.
Good planning is crucial, but a battle is more like poker than like chess. You make your moves in ignorance, not only of your opponent's moves (as in chess) but of the myriad ways chance can intervene. A good hand can lose, or a bad hand win, even despite optimal play. The greatest general is the one who has planned for the most contingencies, but that doesn't mean the greatest general always wins.
One could say that the chance is all predetermined, but viewed that way, the entire thing was set in place five billion years ago and none of it is worth talking about. The fact is that you do not know these things, and the general has been tasked to win despite the ignorance.
Another thing has changed substantially since Sun Tzu's day is communications. At his time, the general had only minimal effect on the flow of battle because it moved faster than his runners. The process of getting new intelligence, deciding on it, and sending out orders was nearly useless. The general could go home and have a bath, and hear how it went after the fact.
Today, a battle is an active thing. The battle plan may not survive first contact with the enemy, but the general formulates a new plan instantly. The evolving plan is part of the plan, and is not set before the battle begins.
You must still heed Sun Tzu's advice. You have to have everything set up for that to happen. Reserves must be where they are most likely to do good. Communications must be set up so that they are reliable in the din of combat. The old necessities of holding some grounds and ceding others hold. You must still have intelligence so that you know your enemy better than he knows himself.
But it's not the only thing. Art of War is a good place to start, but it is not the only book you must read.
At the time in which he was writing and within the narrow scope he was referring, yes, I think he was accurate. However, Sun Szu's treatise is now often treated as wisdom that transcends the confines in which he wrote. And at times it may. However, I don't find much inspiration or motivation from such predetermined fatalism. James H. Kellycorrectly addresses the preparation that largely sways each "battle", mental or physical: either you are fully prepared or you are not. The intricate effect of preparation cannot be fully known. Sun Tzu is speaking to that preparation, yet missing the complexity. When I sit down at a chess board against a superior player, there is a high chance I will lose. But it is not determined, not yet. Blunders happen, moments of inspiration or clarity strike. Mostly, I lose. Occasionally, I surprise myself.
The caveat to this quote is the stuff of epic underdog movies: Rudy, Braveheart, 300, The Hunger Games, Slumdog Millionaire... we must believe that against all odds, against any predetermined, fatalistic destiny, the triumph of the will can shine through. The fight does indeed count.
Humbly, I would have phrased the quote more along the lines of "Whether you believe you will win or lose, you are right." The first and most important battle is in the mind. To externalize the result is a bit premature and can be defeating to even try. You may indeed lose the actual battle, but you first must take enough courage to step on the field and approach as one who will triumph.
The caveat to this quote is the stuff of epic underdog movies: Rudy, Braveheart, 300, The Hunger Games, Slumdog Millionaire... we must believe that against all odds, against any predetermined, fatalistic destiny, the triumph of the will can shine through. The fight does indeed count.
Humbly, I would have phrased the quote more along the lines of "Whether you believe you will win or lose, you are right." The first and most important battle is in the mind. To externalize the result is a bit premature and can be defeating to even try. You may indeed lose the actual battle, but you first must take enough courage to step on the field and approach as one who will triumph.
ReplyDeleteHello,
we provide affordable and result-oriented SEO services, please give a chance to serve you.
Thanks
Admin: E07.net
You create sense out of the foremost complex topics.
ReplyDeleteco domain