If Sun Tzu's Art of War is so potent, why is it not a secret?

[ekompute]

The Art of War is one of the oldest books on military strategy in the world. The principles Sun Tzu expounded have been said to have been utilized brilliantly by such great Asian leaders as Mao Zedong, Giap and Yamamoto. Sun Tzu's Art of War has been credited with influencing Napoleon, and even the planning for Desert Storm.

What then was the MOTIVE of those who first published Sun Tzu's The Art of War, hailed as one of the greatest book on military strategy in the world? Whoever published Sun Tzu's The Art of War must have contemplated that the book would also be read by his enemies. Why then would he put his army and his kingdom at risk?

I have written two blog articles:
* Sun Tzu’s Art of War Exposed!
* Lifting the Veil of Conspiracy on Sun Tzu’s Art of War
You may want to read it to understand where I am coming from so as to have a more fruitful discussion.

[Grandpa Troll]

Well, I dont mean to be offensive, I just usually click links of people I dont know.

I will however add a comment:

I was not around during the actual happenings/occurences which brought fame,legend or perhaps lore to thiese accomplishments.

I would suspect bringing to light the tacticts as well as the brilliance of this tactician would simply record and reveal what has transpired.

We, (you,I or anyone else) could sit here, with our knowledge (or perhaps lack of) and proclaim or rip apart what we have read.

We could, but it wouldnt really make a hill of beans.

Perhaps he was not a brilliant general or perhaps he was, but his victories over opponents stratefies have been recorded and when based upon equal input of information available, he did in fact show superiority.

Would his "supremacy" hold water, would he past muster against todays tactics?

To me, thats comparing crescent wrenches to apricot marmelade, for when he showed brilliance, he had more insight than those who he oppossed.
Today, many brilliant military minds or those individuals such as you and I who through the availability of data and comparability via the world wide web, could turn his theories into swiss cheese.


I offer the example whenever I watch reenactments of battle engagements, as a veteran, as a former combatant, think to myself why would anyone simply march headon into a blaze of gunfire or archery practice?

Why not use flankers and traps?

Now Sun Tzu's theories, yes brilliant, but he was not exposaed to guided missiles or thermonuclear devices, or perhaps NBC or dirty bombs, acts such as virues or contamination of water supplies or airborn attacks that would render those who breathed it incapacitated.


When taken at face value, yes Sun Tzu was a brilliant military motivator and consumate commander. But I ask you, what if he, still as an individual, were not to have at his disposal, the troops or resources he had, would he have had as great a success or be hailed as a great leader, or would he have been the ill prepared imbecile who fell in the presence of his enemies?

I am no expert by far and please do not take any remarks I make as attacks but more so as possibilities, I am working on getting off my meds, so sometimes my mind drifts, not completing a thought.

Perhaps through time we can discuss further, if not here, then maybe in a more appropriate setting of the History Forum?

Thanks for your post however, and for the time you spent scrutinizing historical accuracies in current times.

Gramps

[The Capo]

I don't know, I would think this is comparable to saying "shouldn't Machiavelli's 'The Prince' be kept a state secret?"

I mean, it was written a long time ago, its hard to keep a secret for that long.

[Krill]

Wrong forum.