How do you feel about "all Clausewitz, all the time"?
I haven't actually seen that much Clausewitz for epigraphs (possibly I am reading the wrong end of the historical spectrum for this). So for me, "some Clausewitz, some of the time" would be really quite refreshing.
I just feel that any time someone groans, "Oh, that again," it's gotten to be too much of A Thing.
Clausewitz is what people used to quote before Sun Tzu became all fashionable in the '80s, alas.
Ah, I missed the Clausewitz phase between Tacitus and Sun Tzu.
when non-military people have heard of Clausewitz. It's dense reading. Also makes me feel illiterate, since I only know about Clausewitz because I know military people.
2011-07-26 08:43 pm (UTC)
Re: It surprises me ...
My grandpa was a Marine, and my mother spent a year of my childhood up to her neck in Liddell-Hart, so...yes, non-military, but.
Kinda like the only astrologer of the 1500s was John Dee.
Your tags, they are awesome.
I shall restrain my impulses to whack certain authors repeatedly (Jim Butcher specifically comes to mind) with the "To defeat your enemy you must pretend inferiority and encourage your enemy's arrogance" bit, then, because I am sick to the back teeth of reading stories containing the notion that all human conflict can be boiled down to "stand up to the bully and they will be scared off, show weakness to the bully and they will be all over you". Not all people one might wish to oppose are that tactically dumb.
Edited at 2011-07-25 12:48 am (UTC)
Um. Is it okay that I quoted Sun Tzu when I also quoted Liddell-Hart?
Also, this is the second Sun Tzu post on my flist currently.
Sure. Liddell-Hart signals that you don't just default to Sun Tzu, you use Sun Tzu when it's appropriate.
(Also, as my mother's daughter I am contractually bound to tell you that even if it had not been okay, Liddell-Hart covers a multitude of sins.)
It was even ironic Liddell-Hart, because I used the one about twisting the truth producing abominations of thought. *g*
Liddell-Hart is often ironic, isn't he? (Unintentionally, I mean - it's hard to imagine someone with more self-awareness saying and writing some of the things he did...)
MWahahaha. Yeah, that was exactly what I meant. ;-)
Tacitus isn't even a very good pre-medieval author for war-related things. Xenophon is better. The Strategikon of Emperor Maurice or the Tactica of Leo VI are better yet.
(Not that I would also be frustrated by this trend, or anything.)