Strategy and tactics books

[Aiki Lee]

Hey everyody,

Can anyone recomend any books on military strategy and tactics? I've already read the obligatory Art of War and Go Rin no Sho. What else is out there worth reading? I'm interested in military strategy from any period of time so whether it's about ancient battlefields or modern ones don't make a difference to me.

 

[jks9199]

For a little light reading... On War, by Clausewitz.

 

[granfire]

Machiavelli.

 

[Chris Parker]

There's quite a range, depending on what you're looking for... there are books like Yagyu Munenori's "Family Traditions of the Art of War", Mitsuo Kure's "Samurai: An Illustrated History" (which includes a range of accounts of historic battles, including the Sekigahara no Ran), and so on, most military bookshops will have a number of books with accounts of European battles, both recent and historic, and so on. Personally, I'd be looking to such accounts, to see the application of strategy, so you can get an understanding from that (especially once you've gotten a handle on military strategy and tactics in the first place), as well as looking to the systems you study... many of those have their own teachings on military strategy on large scales, as well as simply having individual combative methods.

Machiavelli.

Really? Which of Machiavelli's pieces are you suggesting, Gran? I'm not familiar with anything he did to do with military strategy and tactics, only for political strategy and tactics, which is a fair bit different... and even there, there's some questions that need to be asked in terms of what you're actually getting.

 

[elder999]

Xiao An CHin's Thick Black Theory, written in 1911, and promptly banned in China. Or, Thick Face, Black Heart,, derived from Thick Black Theory by Chu-chi Ning.

Both are a bit of a "darkside" kind of mindblower, though, and Ning's book is interesting, and more geared towards business and life.

 

[Blindside]

Try going old school with "De Re Militari" by Vegetius.

There are several online translated copies.

 

[Tgace]

www.clausewitz.com/readings/mcdp1.pdf

The USMC Warfighting Manual

Read it.

 

[elder999]

von CLauswitz has to be read hand in hand with Sun Tzu, in my opinion.

Once that's done, read Mao Tse Tung's, On Guerilla Warfare. Really one of the best military treatises available for a non-armed forces person in today's environment-with that, I'm out of here....:lol:

 

[Tgace]

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/service_pubs/fm3_0a.pdf

Then read this...

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[granfire]

Really? Which of Machiavelli's pieces are you suggesting, Gran? I'm not familiar with anything he did to do with military strategy and tactics, only for political strategy and tactics, which is a fair bit different... and even there, there's some questions that need to be asked in terms of what you're actually getting.

Well, seems to me he approached politics like warfare.

'The Prince' comes to mind. But I was drawing a blank, I was happy to be able to spell his name right.

 

[Chris Parker]

Ha, yeah, you spelled Niccolo di Bernardo dei Machiavelli's name right... as to the rest?

I had a feeling you were referencing The Prince, but that really isn't anything to do with military tactics, other than pointing out that military means can be used to obtain certain goals. But there are a few other things to realize with Il Principe, or rather, some other theories that could colour the impression that might be had of it. Il Principe is a fair departure from most of Machiavelli's other works, in fact, such an extreme departure (in cases diametrically opposed to his previous works) that it is sometimes thought to be more a satire, and to be read as intending the exact opposite of it's literal statements, as a veiled attack on the brutal methods employed by Cesare Borgia, his father Pope Alexander Sextus (Rodrigo Borgia), and the way that the ruling family of Florence (his home), the Medici, had been ousted. This is further supported by the choice of written language ("common" vernacular Italian, rather than the more expected Latin), the fact that it was surreptitiously circulated during Pope Alexanders time, and only publicly published five years after Machaivelli died, with the permission of one of Alexander's successors, Pope Clement VII, Giulio Medici.

That said, the common belief for the text is that it was essentially a "job application" sent to Lorenzo de Medici (although he is thought to have never read it, due to a mistrust of Machiavelli's very pro-republic ideals... another idea that goes against The Prince), and deals primarily with the ruling of subjects, ranging from the differing ways that one can come to power, how to maintain it, the best way to be seen by your subjects, and so on, with the overall theme of a type of "ends justify the means", although the potential pitfalls are mentioned with each path laid out. A good example of this pragmatic approach to ruling people comes when he tackles the question of whether it is better to be feared or loved... in essence, it's better to be both, but if you can only be one, be feared.

So while it's a very interesting read, and has many good ideas that can help in the understanding of power plays and how to be a leader (no matter which way you read it), it really has nothing in there about military tactics. But if we're going to take this form of tactics (one that I'd recommend for any in a teaching position), you could also look at Robert Greene's 48 Laws of Power for interesting accounts and lessons in a similar field.

 

[Aiki Lee]

Thanks for all the great tips. I've written them down and will start reading many of these very soon!

 

[Chris Parker]

Out of interest, Lee, what are you looking for out of these books?

 

[Aiki Lee]

Oh nothing very specific. Mostly just need something read. Two types of things I'd like to read about are both approaches to ways specific generals or armies would deploy military tactics and historical records of how one army defeated another army. For example it would be interesting to me to know how the battle of waterloo played out exactly and if the tactics employed could be shown as a demonstration to each sides overall military strategy.

Something with descriptions of movements from actual battles would be the most interesting for me I think. Personally I'd like to look and see if I can make sense of how my own martial arts lessons could be thought of in a broader sense of how an army might fight, or do the opposite and take larger battlefield tactics and see if I could find how they apply to personal combat.

 

[Chris Parker]

Cool. If we're looking at large-scale battles, I'd also suggest watching documentary channels, such as the History Channel, where there are sometimes series specifically based on such things. There was one ("Decisive Battles") where they went through accounts of the battles, and used game technology to represent them, which was an interesting concept. From there, look to accounts of specific periods and areas, which can help narrow things down. Again, look to military bookshops for your best source. If we were looking at smaller, individual scale, there's a few other things to look at as well. What should be remembered, though, is that there is a fair difference between accounts of battles and tactical texts (such as the Art of War), so focusing on exactly what you're after can help in your search.

 

[Omar B]

How the heck did I know that non of you would mention the compilation of Napoleon's essays? Step your war game up. http://www.amazon.com/Napoleon-Art-War-Jay-Luvaas/dp/0684872714

 

[Bill Mattocks]

As far as Napoleon goes, it seems to me that some of his interpreters have done him little justice, and I don't read French. One of the people who most understood Napoleon and added his own brilliance to military strategy as well as Napoleon's thoughts on war was Baron de Jomini, a Swiss citizen who wrote this:

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/13549/13549-h/13549-h.htm

Jomini and Clausewitz were contemporaries, and many of their theories overlapped, but in public discussions, Clausewitz is spoken of and Jomini typically is not.

http://www.clausewitz.com/readings/Bassford/Jomini/JOMINIX.htm