8 Variation of Tactics | The Art of War by Sun Tzu (Animated)

[@Obtaineudaimonia]

"One must change one's tactics every ten years if one wishes to maintain one's superiority." - *Napoleon Bonaparte* 0:00 - Lesson 1: Keep Moving 0:54 - Lesson 2: What Not To Do 1:41 - Lesson 3: Handling Troops 2:32 - Lesson 4: A Student of War 3:25 - Lesson 5: Advantages & Disadvantages 4:08 - Lesson 6: Eliminate Misfortune 5:17 - Lesson 7: Always Be Ready 6:13 - Lesson 8: Five Dangerous Faults 6:18 - a): Recklessness 6:51 - b): Cowardice 7:30 - c): A Hasty Temper 8:10 - d): Honour/Shame 8:53 - e): Overly Concerned 9:33 - Lesson 9: Take Advantage of Faults

[@friedrice9535]

These videos are much appreciated. Thanks.

[@TheAiurica]

Yes, but Napoleon did not follow his own rule rule. In 1815 he used same outdated tactics of 1805. "They came in the same old fashion and we defeated them in the same old fashion" - Duke of Wellington. :P

[@33Chapter]

Did he learn this rule during this time?

[@tnndll4294]

What does the ART Of WAR say about using DIPLOMACY as a military tactic? Could you make a video on that subject? North Korea used diplomacy to dupe people BILL CLINTON in his failed 1994 Nuke Deal. (See KZbin video number: v=xPbhaBcGke0) And the Russians certainly deceived Obama for 8 years using diplomacy. (See KZbin video number: v=kwQqNdkyZZo)

[@letsgosean]

Thanks so much for making this! You are making the world a better place!!!

[@CallofWar5]

I love the art of war. It applies to every facet of life that involves conflict. Thank you so much for these videos

[@Obtaineudaimonia]

You're welcome.

[@thffkfltm]

Because our life is a war.

[@Skimmerlit]

"He wrote several articles, using historical examples to answer current problems." Sounds familiar lmao

[@viktor4038]

0:17 "In desperate position, you must fart": Had a good laugh, thanks for that :D

[@shaywright6608]

Hannibal's front line didn't retreat at Canae and he didn't want them to die he wanted them to give ground. He even positioned himself directly behind the weak center and said he will either win the battle or die alongside them so I wouldn't say he sacrificed men or that said men retreated

[@gnarthdarkanen7464]

It's an old thread, but worth pointing out here... First, you're hair-splitting about semantics. Retreat vs. Giving ground is a tactical (and very minor) variation on the same essential maneuver. Either term(s) can be applied tactically and without failing in battle, and it's unwise and counter-productive to argue otherwise. Second, Hannibal was a general. This was a battle. ALL GENERALS sacrifice men in battle. It's the nature of the business of war. My advice is to stop quibbling over minutia and pay attention to the wisdom at hand. If there is a SUBSTANTIVE issue to consider, maybe asking questions will do better about exchanging knowledge and making honest gains. :o)

[@pretzelbomb6105]

To say retreat in of itself is dishonorable is not true. Knowing when to fight and when to run is one of the most important skills a general can learn

[@gnarthdarkanen7464]

@Romano Coombs, there's a variation that you've missed... but it gets missed a lot, so I wouldn't beat myself up about it either. Here's the thing. Generally, the Tactic, of giving ground involves a more systematic back-step... AND most people concede that the "visual" is fairly obviously different from the "Strategic Retreat" in regard to (as you put it) "failure to pursue the original objective..." This is a terrible mistake if you wish to pursue any longevity in a militant command. Follow and let me elaborate : How do you face a force several times larger than your own??? (Even a detachment under your command)... You SPLIT that force to manageable chunks, and avoid those who are unnecessary expense. Okay, but how do that? (let's use a basic "fort" as an example) Posture your force as if the original objective is to march in and take the fort. The enemy will then (obviously) bolster securities... Study this architecture, and engineer maximum damage for minimal expense (standard protocol, but worth pointing out) and follow suit with a "scale" offensive. This risks the fewest men at your side, while delivering the worst possible "cage rattling" to the enemy. An inexperienced leader will usher out a formidable opposition, at which, your men are to "tuck tale and RUN"... the pursuit will "visualize" to the enemy that he CAN win and likely "end you"... BUT your purpose is only to shear down his available resources (like manpower)... SO the ACTUAL original objective is to "extract soldiers from the field" by any means necessary. The merry chase can distract the enemy forces then, and leave his "fortified home field" at a disadvantage. It's worth pointing out here, that most leaders (even the experienced) will seize on an "attack of opportunity" if the prize is great enough. Things like ending a long-term or protracted campaign, and medals for themselves, tend to be worthy options... remember that. Still, you've only sacrificed a small portion, and the enemy general will (likely) find that lure too good to avoid sending "every available man" out to the pursuit... Tsung Tsu would say "Appear weakest where you are strong, and appear strongest where you are weak." SO I'm only suggesting that this "style" stacks that upon the dubious distinctions between "retreat" and "give ground"... which is about as different as "backing off" versus "run like hell"... (lolz) Once you've managed enough nuisance and lure to get most of the available manpower out of your way, you can then send in your primary force (the majority of your detachment, etc...) to take the "hard ground" of the enemy fortification. Time should be given to make sure the outward expense of soldiers to the chase has little or no chance to return or rectify their blunder... AND it's been historically documented as successful in a fair number of campaigns and wars. Feel free to look for distractions, and guerrilla tactics to learn more... you probably shouldn't just accept the word of a wall of text, anyway. In any case, this represents the use of Retreat Stratagem in the furthered success of a small (skirmish?) campaign, and pointedly suggests that a retreat does NOT necessarily mean anything to do with "failure". The true military leader already understands that there is no such thing as failure... only "quit". Until the very last breath of the very last man willing to fight a cause is extinguished, nothing fails. It only gets "set back"... the campaign can be "quit" for a variety of reasons, from peaceful negotiations to an imbalance of expense versus potential profits. AND that's where "Failure is not an option." really comes from... not that we can't allow a failure (though it's often propagandized for that) but that it doesn't really exist in the first place. Simply put, it means, "Until we've achieved the mission objective, we're not coming home or going on leave." I warned you before, it's counterproductive to squabble over minutia, and this IS minutia. ;o)

[@Ggdivhjkjl]

Brutus always said Caesar was ambitious. It sure was a grievous fault, and grievously did Caesar render it.

[@soumenin]

Thanks Eudaimonia for such a great effort. Awaiting patiently for chapter 9, 10,11,12 and 13 .

[@aarolamsa2756]

The eight variations of tactics all apply to the winter war.

[@sarahobah]

I am addicted to your videos. Thank you for making them.

[@LudvigFlorin]

Dude this is so valuable...

[@benquinney2]

Right up my alley

[@waxworse]

(6:13)

[@jynexe3056]

1:10 I'm offended you didnt use Gallipoli as an example

[@MichaelHarto]

all boils down to 1... risk management

[@fanofeminem3817]

Awesome video!!

[@ivankhalil7632]

why commodus is a coward by killing cleander ?

[@kerryaidan]

Great videos, but the Julius Caesar and Commodus examples here were a bit weak.

[@AndrewJHayford]

King Guy is a scrub?

[@mollywantshugs5944]

Andrew Hayford yes. He was a scrub, anyway.

[@belligerentinstigator944]

These videos would be more interesting if they flowed a little better. presenting 2 events as being related, and then not explaining how they are related, then talking about tactics that are totally unrelated to the situation makes it hard to watch. Please try not to do this at all in your videos.

[@Kalleosini]

Why use a map of modern USA to represent the colonies in the 1700s? If someone watching this wasn't already made aware, they might come to think that the borders actually looked like that back then. your drawing of Constantinoples walls is just a wall next to a wall, anyone who doesn't know what you mean by a double wall, may assume based on the animation that it is an extension of the original wall. Rather than a wall in front of another wall. I like that you come with examples on how the advice of Sun Tzu can be used in Business, but by focusing on only that you miss the whole point that it is true for any competitive environment. But I'll excuse you as you're probably a capitalist anyway. you wanna focus on what matters to you.

[@aramfingal5180]

(1) The 13 colonies borders were not well-defined and disputed in many places, even after independence, so the maps we see in the present involve a lot of guesswork that doesn't reflect the reality of the time. (2) No matter which map he drew of the 13 colonies, many viewers would be confused (including many Americans, unfortunately). (3) Even the 13 colonies alone were vastly larger than Britain, so his point is correct.