Lav Radis Yeah, I'm now actually thinking that this is an illustration of his points: Lindy's strength is that he is alive and has internet access. Sun's weakness is that he's dead. So Lindy used his strength against Sun's weakness!
"If you can fight, fight. If you cannot fight, defend. If you cannot defend, surrender. If you cannot surrender, flee. If you cannot flee, die." -Sima Yi, 238 AD, Three Kingdoms China.
***** I agree. But at the same time it may be a translation issue, since it's from chinese. Probably in this sentence "surrender" could have been translated with "take the hit"? I mean, if the order of the words is the correct one in the quotation.
TheAxDwarf If you cannot flee and you cannot defend and you cannot win a fight then you fight anyways. This is known as fatal terrain, it is when your troops will fight the fiercest and the best becuase it is a life or death situation
SWOT. Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities (the enemy's weaknesses), Threats (the enemy's strengths). Found in business textbooks. I think your subsequent points hold too.
And a new Sun Tzu was born. Instead of ink, quill, and paper. He used camera, computer, and internet to spread his word. The way in which war was waged, was never the same. ^^ I had to do it ;)
Game theory. You just described the core of game theory(Nothing to do with video games.). However you did it very well so I'm not sure the beginning explanation was necessary. Nearly everything has been thought of before. It's how well you explain it that counts.
+Lindybeige *You also have something called Paradox Logic.* Which basically states. The more you prepare for something, the less likely it is to happen and something that might seem stupid might be wise, while something that might seem wise might actually be stupid. In this context you could take your "weakness" for example. You protect your weakness, but the more you do. The less its likely to be attacked and if you put too much forces into that protection and your enemy attacks somewhere else. You might have wasted allot of or an unreasonable amount of your best troops in your forces on that task. In a single battle it might have less weight, since people can move short distances if needed. So you are able to recover from your mistake, but on a macro scale it becomes very apparent and even a much larger force can do such critical mistakes. A historical example could be the Maginot Line (French fortification). From the French point of view. Their weakness was the border towards Germany. So they put "all" their efforts into defending it and in doing so decreased the chances of the enemy attacking there in the first place, but it also meant that they wasted allot of troops when the war broke out and the Germans just went around via another nation and ignored the line... So even with game theory or your "4 rules" you still need Paradox Logic to make sure you are taking the right decisions. Ask the wrong questions in game theory and you risk getting a seemingly reasonable conclusions that actually is wrong. Set the wrong level of priorities in your "4 rules" and you also waste or lose.
+sharpie443 If so... then what instantly occurs to my mind is that: The #1 priority is : (if possible) Fool your enemy! Let him play this little mind game and arrive at the wrong conclusion. No wonder ruses are so popular. (Even in evolutionary psychology.. see "Battle of sexes" video)
+Lobos222 And it gets even worse, since often your strength is usually also a potential weakness. In other words, by using your strength you also open up your weakness. The typical example would be, the bigger army you've got the less mobile you tend to be.
While on the topic of priorities in single combat: I'm a practitioner of HEMA, and when I ask others what is the top priority, the objective of combat, I nearly always get the same answer - to kill or otherwise eliminate (or in sports environment - to hit) the opponent. That would mean that a mutual kill/hit is an acceptable outcome, as the primary objective is still achieved. Still... shouldn't the right answer be: to survive/not get hit? What does it matter if your opponent is dead/dying if you yourself are as well? (unless you sacrificed yourself for a cause, such as protecting your loved ones). Food for thought.
Julia Linne Shhhh that upsets the PC masses that like to scream warmonger when you mention the Art of War. We have to keep that under our hat so we can snicker at the morons, its like you are trying to ruin the best part of my week! lol
Well, you're completely right. Businesses uses this concept all the time, although they refer to it as a "SWOT" analysis. SWOT being an acronym for Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats.
As a mention, some commanders use their own weaknesses as traps to draw in enemy commanders for a killing blow. An army is usually weakest whilst attacking, so drawing in an enemy attacker to a perceived weak spot, then trapping them there and crushing them is an incredibly effective method of victory.
Missed the fifth option that comes into play: Create Weakness where none existed before. This is the one that comes into play over long term conflicts more than short (though can happen in short term situations as well with creative minds).
Why not add a 7th. Strength can also be a weakness. Allow your enemy to deploy his strength and into his comfort zone, but you would deny the necessary environment and ingredient and turn it into his weak point. Easy said than done but if you are fighting against all odds, you need to be innovative.
Beside, analysing strength and weakness is not so easy. There are too many blind spot in life. Sw analysis is only for the obvious but there are so many not so obvious factors that only come into play by armchair generals afterwards.
If you know the enemy and you know yourself, the outcome is predictable. You will either win the battle if the situation is in your favor of you will lose the battle, so you will be wise to retreat and attack when the situation changed. If done correctly you will not lose any battle.
I read some of "The Prince" and quickly concluded it was THE playbook politicians follow. Once you read it, you can watch modern politicians and think, "Oh, they're using XYZ move I read about in The Prince."
RodCornholio Which is rather fitting when you consider that it was written to expose to the public the lies and machinations of their rulers in an attempt to break the status quo and deliver power into the hands of the populace. Makes it kind of ironic then that politicians follow it to the letter, playing into Machiavelli's hands. Goes to show, he was a lot brighter than the sort we have now.
Sun Tzu never said those things. He identified the same weaknesses in all armies and made a priority to attack them (split their numbers, deprive them of food or sleep or anything, use politics, demoralize them in any way...). We are all human, so there are weaknesses which everyone has - attacking supply lines was always a good tactic. But Lloyd said those things should apply to any conflict, so it's a different story. And Game Theory sucks - I caught them using lies way too many times, their arrogance pisses me off, their observations are as shallow as their use of kinematics, and none of their videos display theories (theories are about "how stuff work" - while they merely make random observations; conjectures at best)
You're thinking of the RUclips show Firestorm, game theory is a concept that has nothing to do with video-games, its a bit like Machiavellian politics.
You're right about whom I was referencing, but (mathematical) Game Theory can't be substituted by Sun Tzu, since Sun Tzu never constructed a proper model for his ideas. So I still find that previous comment wrong, though for a less bad reason.
I believe it's what it's called a "SWOT analysis" (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats). And yes, there a lot of books about it, mostly aimed at marketing and businesses. But kudos on figuring it out without reading the book, most people only learn about it after reading it, or at university because the teacher told them, like me.
The one I hear a lot of lately is OODA. Observe, Orient, Decide, Act. Much ink has been used on "getting inside your opponent's OODA loop". It's someone else's idea so I won't go into too much detail here, but it's another one which can be generalised to sport, business and everyday life, and can be used on many different timescales.
4:53: "You don't have to think too much about attacking him in his weak point, because you're the stronger army! If you just match your strength against his strength, you'll be fine, you'll win, 'cause you're stronger." Um, that sounds like it could easily turn into a recipe for winning a Pyrrhic victory. Somebody mentioned game theory in a comment, which I think is valuable bringing up here: this assumes that the conflict is zero-sum-one side "wins" and the other "loses." When in reality in many conflicts there are possible "winning" outcomes that are undesirable nevertheless.
LINDYBEIGE! I love your videos man keep it up it gives me something to think about. When i watch war movies there almost all the same. There's always some brave leader rallying up his troops right before going head to head with the enemy ,and dont get me wrong every now and then they show the archers but there famous for wiping out a HUGE amount of men but there only allowed to shoots twice before they charge in there and the "good guys" start cuting down there enemy 2 at a time its almost like there made from hot butter the way the swords cut them. My favorite videos you make are the ones that bring up "variables" that they had to go through like when you explained how they would of probably have killed a wounded soldier. Keep up the good work man
Great video, but the multiple meanings of strength make parts of it ambiguous. I really prefer when you use "superior" to describe the two forces. For instance, when discussing 1 v 1 fights, you use stronger to describe the person at advantage, where strength does not always mean better. For instance, the stronger fighter may have a shorter reach, which result in him being the inferior fighter in this instance, and he would need to remove his opponents advantage, closing the engagement range to maximize his ability to use strength, and minimize the use of reach.
Matthew Whisennand You've both got a point there, but I think it's fine in this case as Lindy is describing a situation with 2 sides, where the subjectivity is fine as it's more comparative rather than 'objective'. He also uses the word superior so there's not much of chance of confusion. At least from what I can tell.
KickingJoub The point where it gets confusing is when he begins describing the 1 v 1 scenario. He continues to label one fighter the "stronger" fighter, which would usually be interpreted as physical strength, which is obviously not what he is trying to say.
Wreqt Guess I'm just used to divining the meanings behind words beyond the obvious. It's still not the wrong word to use by Lindy, but I do get how it might get confusing.
KickingJoub I didn't say it was wrong, just that I preferred the use of the word "superior", which he elected for several times in the video. Mostly just constructive criticism.
As has already been pointed out by 8 of 9 posters (so far) ... yes, Sun Tzu. But Machiavelli and Baron de Jomini each also wrote books titled "Art of War," and those are much more comprehensive than Sun Tzu, at least for the armies of their respective periods. Besides, most historical military treatises at some point will argue that logistics is the most important issue for any army.
First and most important priority - if you are not a super power or regional power ( because obviously if it was the opposite, a show of force, your capabilities, would rather prevent any conflict as it is the case today - which is preferable obviously ) and war was inevitable, as Lindybeige allready implied, especialy nowdays - is intelligence, especialy counter intelligence. You have to keep your enemy in the dark as much as your cababilities and resources allow you to. Idealy the enemy should only have a vague idea on your state of warfare capabilities / potential and military in general, your actual doctrine and about any ongoing or planned reforms, buildup, future plans and projects if at all. Now this is a game you have to play very smart. You can't hide too much or trick your opponent in thinking you look weak enough to be attacked - unless you are, or at least believe yourself to be in such a outrageously good position that any attack on you would end up in a catastrophic failure / humiliation to your enemy. If that is your goal. On the other hand there is a very great risk in pretending to be very though and having enough resources to defend yourself when actualy you don't. If your enemy believes it's rather balanced or still doable he might very well attack you. In that case unless you are a military mastermind, it will cause you too loose, if not the entire conflict, at least territories you can't defend. An example we can observe today with our own eyes, is the war in Ukraine. You got a very powerful nation which had the smaller weaker nation - pretending to have somewhat powerful military - corrupted and ifiltrated for years if not two decades. It's an easy example because n that case, the infiltration was at point peak, total overkill - the opposing side knew that country's strenght and weaknesses like it's own body to the point where they could exactly tell when it's military would initialy collapse due to ill conditions, low moral and weak affiliation or offer no resistance or partialy even switch sides. Having a huge minority of your own people populating large areas of said country is obviously a huge advantige as we can withness now. Granted Ukraine is rather one of the most worst case scenarios, but nevertheless nowdays, in a digitalized world, being confronted with cyber warfare / EW, you can't hide your economic state, your political state and not even most of your military state and affairs, including what you'd consider classified. We are living in a world where it is hard to even hide your most personal business. It does take a lot of resources and first and most importantly of all - a stable, not much corrupted and a very tightly monitored, tacticaly shielded, secure state and your population being on such an incredibly high level of loyality to the nation, it's integrity, souvereignity etc - satisfied with their condition ( thus consequently loyal to the state ) - in short with such a strong patriotic consciousness that makes bribary, perfidy or treason and espionage very difficult by default. It will probably never become impossible to your enemy but at least you're making it more difficult for him. However, understand that when being so tight on your country's security and applying monitoring ( purely for the benefit of maintaining security, integrity and preservation of your nation ) you have to be running a country in good shape and the people have to be satisfied enough with their condition to remain not only very loyal to themselves but also to the state and it's acting leadership. You realise, those are optimal setups which you will rarely observe in the real world if at all. What means .... don't just take words - work towards those conditions and make reality out of mere concepts. In any case and whatever you apply ( just work your brain in accordance to the circumstances ) make your country as inpenetrable to your opponent's efforts as possible. Be it on infiltration, intelligence gathering, all of those - no matter the scale even in times of best relationship, peace and cooperation .... and even when you believe to be sure to tell yourself that you did a great job preserving all your secrets and nation's security - nobody and nothing will and ever can guarantee you being relatively "safe" or reassuringly unfamiliar to your enemy, to make you sleep peacefully at night or thinking he won't anticipate you. No matter your efforts, in the end he still might have an entire catalogue on not only your *nation's* strenghts and weaknesses. In short, allways consider the worst possibility and draw your best solutions to them. Allways more than less. Draw your solutions to "what if he in fact knew all my strenghts and weaknesses" and the possibiity that he might be able to anticipate your every move or at least most of your moves. Like Lindybeige allready pointed out. Never neglect what you're dealing with on the other side. He is at least just as smart as you are, don't ever have a single doubt on that. He might as well have just as many or even more brilliant people than you have. That is why you have to allways work the best out of your situation and possibilities because he might have not accounted for everything, he might have not considered some things which you must (!) exploit. At the same time look that you yourself have accounted for everything and considered even the most seemingly redicilous of options the enemy may consider. You will allways be surprised by how inventive the human mind can be. However. Despite all, hubris and neglections is apparently and factualy still a very common thing in nowdays military conflicts. Especialy when it is strong against weak. Never assume too much when you don't have a clear picture. Never. Only when your enemy shows neglection and hubris as he is the stronger party, only then plan and take according action. Don't just do something thinking he ain't as smart as he pretends to be. No. No go. Just as much as you hide from him, he as well hides from you. Not only his capabilities as of nation, but also as of leader / fighter.. Underestimation and neglection is happening all the time , at a tremendous cost of lives, when it only requires a cool head, patience and proper planning and preperation to easily turn the tide and win the day in the most desperate of situations. Such kind of errors are very frequent and quite easy to be made and therefore the first problems to adress even before they occur so you rule out any unpredictable move by yourself and your commanders. That said, in the same sense you should also conduct your own intelligence. Expect your opponent to be expecting the very same from you. Not less.Consider the worst also there and be allways prepared for setbacks. In fact, expect them right from start and have backups to the backups. It's nothing less than about life and death. Keep that in mind.
I would say the top priority is to not lose. So for the weaker army, it is about denying the stonger army to use its strength. However if you are the stronger army, you should just protect your weakness. because if the weaker army is not able exploit your weakness, then you are sure to win. That would make the second priority for the weak army to attack the storng armys weakness, and the second priority for the strong army to use his strength. This is not to far away from gurilla warfare. The weak army avoid pitched battles bc the stronger have their strenght there, however the strong army scout arn work on consolidation of position because voulnrebilty to ambushes and supplyshortages is the stong armys weakness.
mrKreuzfeld Often true, but not always. If you die, such as sometimes results from losing a battle, you're not very likely to have much going for you. However you don't always die, in like, business or investment or dinner parties. Not always. Whatever you're risking can be worth the the reward.
True, trying not to lose is wizer, because you are not omiscient. Lose the battle if it will keep you in the war, use stratergy behind tactics to both strengthen your possition and weaken your enemies. By the time the piched battle or seige comes, you should've already won.
Priorities in conflict as Dark Souls taught them to me: 1. survive (meaning, in this order: keep out of range completely, evade (get into range so the opponent attacks, but get out of range before getting hit), defend (stay in range but deflect the attack)) 2. learn your enemy (his reach, speed, moveset, timing) 3. attack (maneuver into good position, and strike, using what you learned in second step) how close am i? (yes, it's in the thumbnail, but I tried to ignore it. also, naturally, I'm commenting before seeing the video) edit: i'm at 2:33 and got such a strong urge to go and try new, artillery-heavy tactic in Wargame: European escalation, that i've got to stop the video and go play for a while. damn your videos that are so interesting and inspiring that they get me to not finish watching them! :-D
In business this is called "SWOT Analysis" -- Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats. (So your enemy's strengths are your threats and their weaknesses are your opportunities).
Over the years in various places, I've spent far too much time in groups discussing our organization's SWOT - strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. Sounds similar to your assessment. In our cases, though, we spent lots of time producing analyses and reports on our SWOT that management, then, immediately ignored and did whatever the hell they wanted.
Chanakya's Four ways of dealing with enemies 1. Saam(Reason with them). 2. Daam (buy off your enemies). 3. Danda (Punish your enemies with force of arms) 4.Bhed (Divide and Conquer) . . . .and...if all this fails 5. Join your enemy.
Sorry to toss a spanner in the works but an often overlooked element of conflict is to undermine your foe. Many conflicts have hinged on one sides ability to do this effectively for example Erwin Rommel's use of spies in the American embassy in Cairo allowed the leaking of vital British military information in his early battles. Just as effective British misinformation and ultra decrypts laid the foundation for his later defeats. On a national scale many coalitions have been undermined by persuading countries to Change sides (Bavaria Napoleonic wars) or throw the battle entirely Finland WW2 Murmansk Campaign You could also say that resolve is the counter to this, ie acts that boost peoples resolve to fight ie incentives (loot/cash for scalps) or moral encouragement (Eisenhowers visit to the paratroopers before D day), arms shipments etc.
I get the Sun Tzu reference, but what you were talking about made me think more of the OODA loop and how you would apply what you are talking about in that cycle.
I would argue that one priority that comes before the four you've listed would be: Understand your objectives and those of your enemy. Many times in military conflict, the destruction of the enemy army is a means to an end rather than an end in and of itself. Though arguably that falls under the category of knowing your weaknesses and knowing your enemy's, just on a larger scale than presented.
It's hard to classify this as a strong or weak point, but as surprising as it sound, before you get to the battle, you need to make sure your men can get to the battle. That means feed them, clothe them, supply them with water, ammunition, etc ... This is a lot harder than it sound. In Medieval times, logistic were a nightmare. There's no canned food so you even need to lug around milling stones to mill flour. You can not carry a lot of food and they had to supplemented from the countryside. That means, if you are a big, rich empire like the Romans or Persians, purchasing it from the local population, or, looting, pillaging, etc ... Being a civilian sucks when knights nominally on your own side march through your land, since they'll pretty much strip you of your food. You can't march a lot of people as one enormous block, since the countryside can't sustain them. Dividing them means that smaller forces are vulnerable to defeat in details by a nominally weaker, but concentrated force. Foraging parties are vulnerable since they are small, few in number, heavily burdened with bounties, and whose participants are more interested to run away with the loot than fighting. These foraging parties are small but very vital, and they are vulnerable to a concentrated attacks. So a smaller army can do serious damage to a larger one simply by shadowing it, attacking vulnerable small foraging parties, poison the wells, burn the crops, evacuating the civilians, etc ... That's why a force of horse archers or cavalry is so powerful. On counter raids, they can pick the fight with which raiders, when and where they want, and flee if things go wrong. On the raid, they can flee when they want
Not cavalry, but horse archers specifically. Mobility + speed + reliability + range. Chariots are not reliable they strugle with difficult terrian. Eliphants aren't mobile, they're difficult to control when things get chaotic, and also the enemy will try to refuse engagement with them & they accelerate slowly. Mellee cavalry that is heavy will also make the enemy refuse enguagement, also they have limited range if any, and are often composed of a warrior elite making them difficult to control once enguaged with an inferior force. Mellee cavalry that is light, is a counter to cavalry archers one they enguage them, but they are too easy to counter/defend against, the can't hit and run like cavalry archers can. Cavalry archers can enguage and dissenguage universally on all terrian you can ride a horse on. They are easy to control, and can only be countered effectively by units that can catch them. Yes heavy infantry and cavalry may rule the open field, and archers will dominate seiges, and artillery will overpower every defence with time. But cavarly archers have the ability to be everywhere and no where on the battlefield.
There may also be other courses of action you can take, after evaluating the strenghtd and weaknesses. The thebans used the oblique order and defeated the spartans in two battles. In this tactic instead of attacking your opponents weak point, you concentrate all the presure you can to your opponents strong point
You forgot four more priorities: 1: Make your strenght look even stronger so the enemy will most likely refuse combat and go away 2: Hide your weakness so the enemy won't see how he can beat you and will most likely refuse combat and go away 3: Make your weakness look like your strenght and your strenght look like your weakness, so if the enemy hit your strenght and fail, they will most likely abandon the fight seeing how the false weakness resisted to the assault. 4: If you have many units of wich certain are of high strenght, average strenght and low strenght, you must put them against the enemy in this order: -Launch your stronger side against the weaker side of the enemy -Put your average fighters against the stronger side of the enemy -Put your weaker fighters against the average side of the enemy. Since many people here are putting reading suggestions, here are mines: -The Art of War (Sun Tzu) -Stratagems (Sextus Junius Frontinus) -De Re Militari (Flavius Vegetius Renatus) -The Art of War (written by Giotto Maranzi but attributed to Machiavelli) -The Prince (Machiavelli) -Vom Krieg (Von Clausewitz. This one I haven't finished yet). A good illustration of point 3 appears in the Stratagems of Frontinus. A lacedemonian general was in Egypt to help fight against the Persians. He made his strong and well trained hoplites dress like the egyptians, and gave the Hoplite equipment to the egyptians militias. When the Persian arrived, they attacked, sure of beating the Egyptians easily. But the fight was harder than they expected, since it was the better trained spartans and not the egyptian levies. He then gave a signal and the Egyptian, dressed as Hoplites, came in formation. The persian retreated. They thought that, since they weren't even able to beat what they thought was the weaker front of the enemy, they wouldn't stand a chance against the hoplites.
The main priority in battle; exploitation. Exploit the enemy's weakness/es. Exploit any favour you have, uphill, strength, etc. Even the weakest army in terms of size or strength can best a larger army if they have supporting ballistae, scare tactics like a flame trebuchet, or even something as simple as a height advantage. Even taking out a single ranking enemy can scare the others enough that they fight with less vigor or panic at a very inopportune moment. G'day from Australia, Lloyd. :) Hope you're having a tip-top day.
I think I agree with one of the final points there. To succeed in business, all one needs is to fill a room with large mirrors, then... I dunno, make the competitors to break them and unleash several decades of rough luck?
I always focus on getting the absolute maximum effectiveness i possibly can out of my weaknesses, trusting in my strenghts to just kind of overpower the enemy when it comes their turn to do something
A textbook example of this would be, I think, the Hundred Years War. The english had a decisive advantage in battle with the longbow, in battle the tactic was incredibly easy to put in place (it's essentially camping, with mines) while also being remarquably effective. Wich meant that all their commander could use it and win easily. And so Charles V and Charles VII both made essential strategic choices that allowed them to get the advantage over them. Charles V simply avoided battle with the english whenever it was possible and simply let the english roam and burn the countryside while he would protect castles and cities. It prevented the english from making much progress and so the french only had to focus on besieging english castles and cities afterward, all the while using low-cost strategies and tactics (thanks to Du Guesclin). Thanks to that the french managed to retake a lot of lost territories. They might even have won if it wasn't for Charles VI ruining everything. Charles VII used a much simpler and effective strategy, he invested a lot in cannons, wich outranged english archers and turned the english tactic against them. And thanks to this new weapon, sieges were much faster to resolve and allowed him to essentially go full on blitzkrieg on the english and "win" the war (wich wasn't resolved because even though the french retook possession of all of their territory, the english were to butthurt during peace negotiations for those to actually succed). So it essentially was : English use their strenght to cover their weakness and deny the strenght of the french => The french simply avoid confrontation and then attack the english in their weakspot => Strategic and tactical mess caused by greed and incompetent ruler => The french use their strenght to deny the english strenght and attack them in their weakspot.
Nice thoughts but I think this only applies in suitations where you want to physically disable the enemy. Real military priorities are always: atain freedom of action (ability to damage things at will), atain freedom of movment and deny the enemy those things. That's it. S-W analysis is details.
You mentioned that someone may have already written down the principles for winning conflict. Yes, in 513 B.C.E., Sun Tzu wrote "The Art of War". A good example of your analysis was the Battle of Marathon. Miltades faced a larger Persian force. The Persians had chosen an attack beach surrounded by marsh and mountains, and were unable to get their greatest strength, their cavalry, into the battle. Miltades placed his strongest forces on his flanks (his own weakness) and lured the Persians to place their strongest infantry against the weaker Greek center. The Persian actually crushed the center troops, but then found themselves surrounded by the two strong Greek forces. In ancient times, flanks were particularly weak and vulnerable-- the Greek forces ate into both Persian flanks. The Persians retreated rather than get butchered. On a more meta-level there are four classic elements of chess: initiative, material, position, and pawn structure. It requires initiative to win (you must be able to make the move that causes checkmate). On the short scale (tactics), initiative and material (especially material on the local scale) are the greatest advantages, while on the long scale (strategy) position and pawn structure are the greatest advantages. Those are generalizations -- great chess players have found all kinds of special winning exceptions. Your analysis sounded very tactical and not very strategic. Also, as someone else has already mentioned, the mathematical field of game theory has yielded a number of very useful principles, some of which are highly counter-intuitive.
If you look at the collage of animal/nature pictures on the right side of the background, the green and orangey brown caterpillar is called a Saddleback Caterpillar. I was stung by one recently. Just an interesting thing.
This is normal stuff in business. Whenever a comany makes a strategy that takes its environment inton account e.g. opportunity, weakness, strength and threats, and not just its internal affairs, they basically use this "schema" you are talking about. I forgot what it's called, though. Tough luck ♡
Thats where things get confusing though, because the stronger and weaker sides' main aims counter each other directly in parallel, and so it may then become more advantageous to prioritise a different aspect, if the stronger side is defending its weak point because it is the only feasible means of victory for the weaker side, an attack against its stong point is unexpected and may be more effective. This is why planning any military strategy is so difficult when you have high capability opponents. They both know what is the theoretical best move but have to decide whether the enemy will make that choice too, because if you do and they dont they could swing a surprise blow that shoudn't be threatening on paper, but ends up swinging the fight in their favour.
Management/business theory has a model called SWOT (Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats) that pretty much exactly describes the first half of your video. :)
It seems to me the first two priorities for each side are necessities and the third and maybe fourth are good for minimizing the expenditure of resources over extended campaigns.
The brilliant combat sports analyst Jack Slack apparently agrees with your conclusions. He has a series "Killing the King" about what a challenger could do to beat the reigning champion (who is usually not a pushover), and here's his bottom line: "I am sure you have heard the expression “Don't let him fight his fight” hundreds of times if you have been following the fight game for a while. But that is one of the most important points of the game and something that always comes up in my Killing the King pieces. If you can't work out how to start going about beating someone, look at what they do well and work on taking that away."
Even in the case where the smaller force loses while having all 4 advantages, you can balance the scenario by adjusting the victory conditions, thereby giving the smaller force a "win" even if they can't stop the superior force.
I believe this to be beautifully simple and accurate. However, I would like to add my thoughts on only one part of this I believe could be improved upon: For the weaker army or individual it is crucial that the 3rd priority be hitting with your strength. If you manage to neutralize his strength and reach his (our their) weakness you better be hitting it with your strength for you are unlikely to get a second chance at it. Please let me know your thoughts on this.
It is really best to convince your enemy that they are getting what they want while at the same time doing exactly what YOU want them to do. Lure them into a situation where their greatest strength is either useless or actually a disadvantage.
The "Sun Tzu's Art of War" has similar points. Attack where you are strong and the enemy is weak. Evade where you are weak and the enemy is strong. Many have already made this connection in these comments but did you know that the man "Sun Tzu" most likely didn't write "The Art of War". The Art of War was most likely a collection of guidelines and tactical advice from the experiences of several military leaders in what is known today as China. This would explain why The Art of War suddenly changes tone, writing style and vocabulary at least once or twice before it's end. Likely The Art of War was not written by General Sun Tzu, who was most likely already dead by the time the book first came into circulation, but instead written by several authors over the course of some time to be used as a handbook for ancient Chinese military officers. If you would like to investigate this yourself, I recommend buying a copy translated by academics with interest in the subject as they would be very capable of pointing out evidence to all theories in this regard.
This approach also strongly resembles "SWOT" Strength, Weakness, Opportunity, and Threat assessment. Very similar to some very good systems that all boil down to 'use evidence to make decisions.'
What about the battle terrain? You can always try to lure the enemy into favorable battleground like a forest, if you have lots of infantry, or plains, if you have good cavalry.
Sounds like you did a SWOT analysis for armies Strengths (internal; within your control and harder for competitors to assess if they don't know about you) Weaknesses (internal) Opportunities (external; outside your control and is easily observable by all) Threats (external)
First priorty: Feeding and equipping your army, yes i know that many people will think that this is trivial however a good commander in the medival era could determine where someone was going to march through just by determining where an army could march so that it will be able to forage closely to itself thats why Napoleans whole flying colums was revolutinary because it broke its army down to more manageble size and manuvered it in peices rather quickly over terrain that prior wasn't accessible to something of its size and it would come together at the predetermined point. Furthermore an army that is able to eat well and has good shoes will make better time than the army that doesn't thus giving them an advantage in mobility a good book that turned me on to this idea is Supplying War by Von Creveld I do not profess to being even the most basic of military researchers only that i have read some texts mainly The Art of War by Sun Zu as well as the above mentioned Supplying war which stressed logistics and how one might use them and abuse them to win a war or a conflict. And i believe that it was Sun Zu that said the best way to attack someone is to destroy its ability to fight which one could interpret as destroying its abilbity to feed and clothe is soldiers. This could even lead to an inferious force winning out against a superious force tl;dr An army marches on its stomache so make sure that there is enough food, also making sure that its armor doesn't have holes in it is probably a good thing this should be a commander's first priority as destroying an enemies ability to fight you is the best way of winning a conflict and can even lead to a victory that would otherwise be unachievable.
How would you apply this in a discussion as an exterior person? For example: Carl built a house on Steve's land, but Carl didn't know it was Steve's land. Steve wants Carl gone, but Carl would like to stay. They both consult you ( let's say, the "town guard" ) because they can't figure it out.
Lloyd, you are missing something important - maybe the weaker army just wants to defend ? At Crecy did the French achieve all 4 priorities ? The most important priority is to determine and maintain the "aim". What is your goal in the battle - it might not be to crush the enemy. Example Battle of Britain. The Germans never maintained a consistent aim, the British did. At Waterloo the British allowed the French to use their main strengths - their huge cavalry reserve and the Old Guard.
there is only one priority in conflict, survival. both people want to survive so they do what they can to do that. your main priority as a victim of violence should be to get away. if you attack someone who is attacking you there is a chance of severe injury or death, so always try to avoid conflict whenever and wherever possible. when the circumstance does not allow you to avoid conflict then your priority shifts to defense. you shouldn't outright attack someone; bystanders will see you and can assume that you are the aggressor if you are curb-stomping a guy's teeth out for stealing your favourite watch, for example. if the attacker flees NEVER PURSUE. You don't know if they have friends with weapons, you don't know where he is going. focus on remembering what happened so you can tell the authorities. sincerely, a person who has taken 8 years of self defense and has been mugged before.
I think the hidden premise here are that weakness have a bigger impact on actual strength, and is easier to avoid, while maximizing strength have its limit. For instance a force of 10, in weak state can be 2, and maximized can be 12. But if things go other way around like having an army that care less about weakness, eg: normal(10) weakness(9) max(12),then one may come to another conclusion that it's more important to prevent other army using its full strength. All in all it's just a number game,get the best number for oneself and worst number for enemy,bigger ratio the better.
Sun Tzu: Measurement, estimation of quality, evaluation of odds, achieving victory :-). Another relevant quote is "if our army is two times greater, we should split it in two." I won't write a discussion and makes this boring. Just wood into the fire/food for thought.
best to attack in last moment when the opponent thinks is gonna hit the target easy,usually people tend to not care or defend in the last moment because they already imagine they are reaching the target.in that monent u have an opening
I forget from whom I heard this, but I thought it rather profound at the time. "Never attack your enemies' weaknesses, undermine their strengths." Thoughts?
I live in The United States of America and as such am terribly undereducated in world events. Would you mind explaining the beef between the French and the British? It has always been a curiosity to me and your way of explaining and presentation seems perfect for it!
sounds like everything I ever learned in both debate, and self defense classes...that wasn't a dig, just observing that your principles are sound. It works very well in verbal conflict as well. protect your own weakpoints..and go after the other guys...if he has a weaker position, then you hit hi there....verbally of course.
The industry uses Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) framework on a regular basis. SWOT had been put together at the Stanford Research Institute ca 1968.
Attacking an enemy's weakness -- I can see now why military leaders spend lots of effort (they do, don't they?) analyzing the psychology of opposing generals. Is he cautious? Be bold. Is he bold, and likely to make a dramatic, risky move? Lure him into a trap. ...
I'm fairly sure the Alternatives point towards Fantasy. I just lack certainty whether I'm correct about the origin of the second. Though probably not all, since identifying a common enemy is... well, the saying "Enemy of my enemy" had to come from somewhere, yes.
Priorities according to A. V. Suvorov: "Subordination! Practice! Discipline! Smartness! Hygiene! Health! Fun! Daring! Courage! Victory! And glory, glory, glory!" In a sense, Sun Tzu in his "Art of War" described how to fight on a strategic level, what to do if you're an army leader, while Suvorov in his "Art of Victory" pointed out what officers and soldiers need to know to train themselves advance and win.
While Sun Tzu is the most known it isn't actually as influential in Europe as others. Primarily because it wasn't known in Europe till relatively recently. Earliest known "art of war" was written by Vegetus and also little known guy (a bit later though) called Machiavelli. This isn't to say that Sun Tzu is unimportant or that he doesn't matter, just that the basic principles are as old as there is writing and I am sure far before hand. I strongly recommend reading all of these, as they are wonderful resource.
I have a question, and please correct me if my assessment upon which I base my question is wrong. In the Battle of Agincourt, the French army's greatest strength (numbers) was also arguably its weakness as well. What do you do in this case for attack and defense?
Principles of grappling. "attacking with my greatest leverage, against his greatest leverage, during his moment of weakest balance, from a position of superior balance."
How about adding 'recuperate' or 'consolidate' to the priority list? I guess there's an argument for putting it under 'defend', but it seems like a separate priority to me.
Unknown and obscure guy named Sun Tzu wrote some similar stuff some time ago in a small kingdom somewhere in Asia.
Lav Radis Yeah, I'm now actually thinking that this is an illustration of his points:
Lindy's strength is that he is alive and has internet access.
Sun's weakness is that he's dead.
So Lindy used his strength against Sun's weakness!
Lav Radis Unknown and obscure? I'm not sure that is even a little true
***** You have discovered hallowedfools weakness.
hallowedfool lol dumbass
Selvinski Wilhelm
OMG HE MISSED A BAD JOKE HE MUST BE DUMB
Lindybeige's Art of War
+Stannis Baratheon Azor Ahai reborn + Sun Tzu come again = unstoppable
"If you can fight, fight. If you cannot fight, defend. If you cannot defend, surrender. If you cannot surrender, flee. If you cannot flee, die." -Sima Yi, 238 AD, Three Kingdoms China.
TheAxDwarf And if you are Woody Allen, flea: F-L-E-A.
TheAxDwarf You forgot self-destruct. Allahu Akhbar!
***** I agree. But at the same time it may be a translation issue, since it's from chinese. Probably in this sentence "surrender" could have been translated with "take the hit"? I mean, if the order of the words is the correct one in the quotation.
TheAxDwarf if you cannot die gotto to 1
TheAxDwarf If you cannot flee and you cannot defend and you cannot win a fight then you fight anyways. This is known as fatal terrain, it is when your troops will fight the fiercest and the best becuase it is a life or death situation
SWOT. Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities (the enemy's weaknesses), Threats (the enemy's strengths). Found in business textbooks. I think your subsequent points hold too.
+Pavlos Papageorgiou Ah... the things we wish we knew when we were young.
I heard about these in chess tho
Yeah, that's where my GCSE Business Studies head went upon hearing these.
And a new Sun Tzu was born.
Instead of ink, quill, and paper. He used camera, computer, and internet to spread his word.
The way in which war was waged, was never the same.
^^ I had to do it ;)
"A good general not only sees the way to victory, he also knows when victory is impossible" - Polybius
Stormfox the purpose of the "Kobayashi Maru" test.
Total war quotes
sun tzu quote also
Game theory. You just described the core of game theory(Nothing to do with video games.). However you did it very well so I'm not sure the beginning explanation was necessary. Nearly everything has been thought of before. It's how well you explain it that counts.
+sharpie443 I did my dissertation on game theory. This was partly what led me to evolutionary psychology.
Lindybeige
Very cool. My degree is in Economics which involved learning a lot of game theory.
+Lindybeige
*You also have something called Paradox Logic.*
Which basically states. The more you prepare for something, the less likely it is to happen and something that might seem stupid might be wise, while something that might seem wise might actually be stupid.
In this context you could take your "weakness" for example.
You protect your weakness, but the more you do. The less its likely to be attacked and if you put too much forces into that protection and your enemy attacks somewhere else. You might have wasted allot of or an unreasonable amount of your best troops in your forces on that task.
In a single battle it might have less weight, since people can move short distances if needed. So you are able to recover from your mistake, but on a macro scale it becomes very apparent and even a much larger force can do such critical mistakes.
A historical example could be the Maginot Line (French fortification). From the French point of view. Their weakness was the border towards Germany. So they put "all" their efforts into defending it and in doing so decreased the chances of the enemy attacking there in the first place, but it also meant that they wasted allot of troops when the war broke out and the Germans just went around via another nation and ignored the line...
So even with game theory or your "4 rules" you still need Paradox Logic to make sure you are taking the right decisions. Ask the wrong questions in game theory and you risk getting a seemingly reasonable conclusions that actually is wrong. Set the wrong level of priorities in your "4 rules" and you also waste or lose.
+sharpie443 If so... then what instantly occurs to my mind is that: The #1 priority is : (if possible) Fool your enemy! Let him play this little mind game and arrive at the wrong conclusion. No wonder ruses are so popular. (Even in evolutionary psychology.. see "Battle of sexes" video)
+Lobos222 And it gets even worse, since often your strength is usually also a potential weakness. In other words, by using your strength you also open up your weakness. The typical example would be, the bigger army you've got the less mobile you tend to be.
While on the topic of priorities in single combat: I'm a practitioner of HEMA, and when I ask others what is the top priority, the objective of combat, I nearly always get the same answer - to kill or otherwise eliminate (or in sports environment - to hit) the opponent. That would mean that a mutual kill/hit is an acceptable outcome, as the primary objective is still achieved. Still... shouldn't the right answer be: to survive/not get hit? What does it matter if your opponent is dead/dying if you yourself are as well? (unless you sacrificed yourself for a cause, such as protecting your loved ones). Food for thought.
+Skorsson Yes, sporting competition and to-the-death fights have differing orders of priority.
This is the sort of man who would be great to go to the pub with!
I guess you already read Sun Tzu's "The Art of War".
The Napoleonist wanted to write exactly the same...
***** The Art of War, however, strongly advises against letting your soldiers die. In fact it strongly advises against going to war at all...
Julia Linne Shhhh that upsets the PC masses that like to scream warmonger when you mention the Art of War. We have to keep that under our hat so we can snicker at the morons, its like you are trying to ruin the best part of my week! lol
***** It's mostly because the average chinese soldier of the Spring and Autumns era has no idea how to write traditional mandarin
The Napoleonist \Sun Tzu is overrated and is often misused/misinterpreted/misappliedpeople should start with the basic Murphy's Laws of Combat
I wonder what a French Lindybeige would look like.
He would presumably make videos about berets, baguettes, and those stupid english speakers XD
Masra94 He would have trouble growing such a magnificent beard.
Masra94 I would miss the jumpers.
Both arms would be permanently raised in the "I surrender" pose. I kid. I kid.
Masra94 ...
WHY are you wondering that!?
Well, you're completely right. Businesses uses this concept all the time, although they refer to it as a "SWOT" analysis. SWOT being an acronym for Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats.
As a mention, some commanders use their own weaknesses as traps to draw in enemy commanders for a killing blow. An army is usually weakest whilst attacking, so drawing in an enemy attacker to a perceived weak spot, then trapping them there and crushing them is an incredibly effective method of victory.
acrefray I do it in debates and strategy games/electronic or other wise.
Missed the fifth option that comes into play:
Create Weakness where none existed before.
This is the one that comes into play over long term conflicts more than short (though can happen in short term situations as well with creative minds).
Joseph Teller and the sixth could be making the enemy think that there is a weakness, when there isn't.
Why not add a 7th. Strength can also be a weakness. Allow your enemy to deploy his strength and into his comfort zone, but you would deny the necessary environment and ingredient and turn it into his weak point. Easy said than done but if you are fighting against all odds, you need to be innovative.
Beside, analysing strength and weakness is not so easy. There are too many blind spot in life. Sw analysis is only for the obvious but there are so many not so obvious factors that only come into play by armchair generals afterwards.
SWOT analysis: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats. Well known in marketing.
If you know the enemy and you know yourself, the outcome is predictable. You will either win the battle if the situation is in your favor of you will lose the battle, so you will be wise to retreat and attack when the situation changed. If done correctly you will not lose any battle.
if you know the enemy and know yourself you may not fear a hunderd battles
-sun tsu
Let me add Carl von Clausewitz's "On War" as a relevant text as well.
Yes... this absolutely this. Brilliant book.
Matthew Whisennand Machiavelli's "the prince" as well
Joshua R. Poulson Maybe Jomini as well, although von Clausewitz supercedes him. Maybe Nathan Bedford Forrest too.
I read some of "The Prince" and quickly concluded it was THE playbook politicians follow. Once you read it, you can watch modern politicians and think, "Oh, they're using XYZ move I read about in The Prince."
RodCornholio Which is rather fitting when you consider that it was written to expose to the public the lies and machinations of their rulers in an attempt to break the status quo and deliver power into the hands of the populace. Makes it kind of ironic then that politicians follow it to the letter, playing into Machiavelli's hands. Goes to show, he was a lot brighter than the sort we have now.
i wish you made more film historical inaccuracy breakdowns. and videos every day. that would be amazing.
No it wouldn’t
my rule of winning when it comes to anything is "just dont die"
Before game theory, Sun Tzu said this.
Sun Tzu never said those things. He identified the same weaknesses in all armies and made a priority to attack them (split their numbers, deprive them of food or sleep or anything, use politics, demoralize them in any way...). We are all human, so there are weaknesses which everyone has - attacking supply lines was always a good tactic.
But Lloyd said those things should apply to any conflict, so it's a different story.
And Game Theory sucks - I caught them using lies way too many times, their arrogance pisses me off, their observations are as shallow as their use of kinematics, and none of their videos display theories (theories are about "how stuff work" - while they merely make random observations; conjectures at best)
You're thinking of the RUclips show Firestorm, game theory is a concept that has nothing to do with video-games, its a bit like Machiavellian politics.
You're right about whom I was referencing, but (mathematical) Game Theory can't be substituted by Sun Tzu, since Sun Tzu never constructed a proper model for his ideas.
So I still find that previous comment wrong, though for a less bad reason.
If your opponent is Skallagrim, then never give him the opportunity to unscrew his pommel, or he will use his supperior strength to end you rightly.
This helped me beat a mission I was stuck on in Fire Emblem Fates. Thanks m8!
I believe it's what it's called a "SWOT analysis" (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats). And yes, there a lot of books about it, mostly aimed at marketing and businesses. But kudos on figuring it out without reading the book, most people only learn about it after reading it, or at university because the teacher told them, like me.
sounds like you just discovered a SWOT analysis
Independently invented.
The one I hear a lot of lately is OODA. Observe, Orient, Decide, Act. Much ink has been used on "getting inside your opponent's OODA loop". It's someone else's idea so I won't go into too much detail here, but it's another one which can be generalised to sport, business and everyday life, and can be used on many different timescales.
4:53: "You don't have to think too much about attacking him in his weak point, because you're the stronger army! If you just match your strength against his strength, you'll be fine, you'll win, 'cause you're stronger." Um, that sounds like it could easily turn into a recipe for winning a Pyrrhic victory.
Somebody mentioned game theory in a comment, which I think is valuable bringing up here: this assumes that the conflict is zero-sum-one side "wins" and the other "loses." When in reality in many conflicts there are possible "winning" outcomes that are undesirable nevertheless.
LINDYBEIGE! I love your videos man keep it up it gives me something to think about. When i watch war movies there almost all the same. There's always some brave leader rallying up his troops right before going head to head with the enemy ,and dont get me wrong every now and then they show the archers but there famous for wiping out a HUGE amount of men but there only allowed to shoots twice before they charge in there and the "good guys" start cuting down there enemy 2 at a time its almost like there made from hot butter the way the swords cut them. My favorite videos you make are the ones that bring up "variables" that they had to go through like when you explained how they would of probably have killed a wounded soldier. Keep up the good work man
Great video, but the multiple meanings of strength make parts of it ambiguous. I really prefer when you use "superior" to describe the two forces. For instance, when discussing 1 v 1 fights, you use stronger to describe the person at advantage, where strength does not always mean better. For instance, the stronger fighter may have a shorter reach, which result in him being the inferior fighter in this instance, and he would need to remove his opponents advantage, closing the engagement range to maximize his ability to use strength, and minimize the use of reach.
Yes, because Strength and Weakness are subjective. Superiority is the official term used in most relevant books I have read.
Matthew Whisennand You've both got a point there, but I think it's fine in this case as Lindy is describing a situation with 2 sides, where the subjectivity is fine as it's more comparative rather than 'objective'. He also uses the word superior so there's not much of chance of confusion. At least from what I can tell.
KickingJoub
The point where it gets confusing is when he begins describing the 1 v 1 scenario. He continues to label one fighter the "stronger" fighter, which would usually be interpreted as physical strength, which is obviously not what he is trying to say.
Wreqt Guess I'm just used to divining the meanings behind words beyond the obvious. It's still not the wrong word to use by Lindy, but I do get how it might get confusing.
KickingJoub
I didn't say it was wrong, just that I preferred the use of the word "superior", which he elected for several times in the video. Mostly just constructive criticism.
As has already been pointed out by 8 of 9 posters (so far) ... yes, Sun Tzu. But Machiavelli and Baron de Jomini each also wrote books titled "Art of War," and those are much more comprehensive than Sun Tzu, at least for the armies of their respective periods. Besides, most historical military treatises at some point will argue that logistics is the most important issue for any army.
my new favourite channel. Thanks for making such good and funny video's.
First and most important priority - if you are not a super power or regional power ( because obviously if it was the opposite, a show of force, your capabilities, would rather prevent any conflict as it is the case today - which is preferable obviously ) and war was inevitable, as Lindybeige allready implied, especialy nowdays - is intelligence, especialy counter intelligence. You have to keep your enemy in the dark as much as your cababilities and resources allow you to. Idealy the enemy should only have a vague idea on your state of warfare capabilities / potential and military in general, your actual doctrine and about any ongoing or planned reforms, buildup, future plans and projects if at all. Now this is a game you have to play very smart. You can't hide too much or trick your opponent in thinking you look weak enough to be attacked - unless you are, or at least believe yourself to be in such a outrageously good position that any attack on you would end up in a catastrophic failure / humiliation to your enemy. If that is your goal. On the other hand there is a very great risk in pretending to be very though and having enough resources to defend yourself when actualy you don't. If your enemy believes it's rather balanced or still doable he might very well attack you. In that case unless you are a military mastermind, it will cause you too loose, if not the entire conflict, at least territories you can't defend. An example we can observe today with our own eyes, is the war in Ukraine. You got a very powerful nation which had the smaller weaker nation - pretending to have somewhat powerful military - corrupted and ifiltrated for years if not two decades. It's an easy example because n that case, the infiltration was at point peak, total overkill - the opposing side knew that country's strenght and weaknesses like it's own body to the point where they could exactly tell when it's military would initialy collapse due to ill conditions, low moral and weak affiliation or offer no resistance or partialy even switch sides. Having a huge minority of your own people populating large areas of said country is obviously a huge advantige as we can withness now. Granted Ukraine is rather one of the most worst case scenarios, but nevertheless nowdays, in a digitalized world, being confronted with cyber warfare / EW, you can't hide your economic state, your political state and not even most of your military state and affairs, including what you'd consider classified. We are living in a world where it is hard to even hide your most personal business. It does take a lot of resources and first and most importantly of all - a stable, not much corrupted and a very tightly monitored, tacticaly shielded, secure state and your population being on such an incredibly high level of loyality to the nation, it's integrity, souvereignity etc - satisfied with their condition ( thus consequently loyal to the state ) - in short with such a strong patriotic consciousness that makes bribary, perfidy or treason and espionage very difficult by default. It will probably never become impossible to your enemy but at least you're making it more difficult for him. However, understand that when being so tight on your country's security and applying monitoring ( purely for the benefit of maintaining security, integrity and preservation of your nation ) you have to be running a country in good shape and the people have to be satisfied enough with their condition to remain not only very loyal to themselves but also to the state and it's acting leadership. You realise, those are optimal setups which you will rarely observe in the real world if at all. What means .... don't just take words - work towards those conditions and make reality out of mere concepts. In any case and whatever you apply ( just work your brain in accordance to the circumstances ) make your country as inpenetrable to your opponent's efforts as possible. Be it on infiltration, intelligence gathering, all of those - no matter the scale even in times of best relationship, peace and cooperation .... and even when you believe to be sure to tell yourself that you did a great job preserving all your secrets and nation's security - nobody and nothing will and ever can guarantee you being relatively "safe" or reassuringly unfamiliar to your enemy, to make you sleep peacefully at night or thinking he won't anticipate you. No matter your efforts, in the end he still might have an entire catalogue on not only your *nation's* strenghts and weaknesses. In short, allways consider the worst possibility and draw your best solutions to them. Allways more than less. Draw your solutions to "what if he in fact knew all my strenghts and weaknesses" and the possibiity that he might be able to anticipate your every move or at least most of your moves. Like Lindybeige allready pointed out. Never neglect what you're dealing with on the other side. He is at least just as smart as you are, don't ever have a single doubt on that. He might as well have just as many or even more brilliant people than you have. That is why you have to allways work the best out of your situation and possibilities because he might have not accounted for everything, he might have not considered some things which you must (!) exploit. At the same time look that you yourself have accounted for everything and considered even the most seemingly redicilous of options the enemy may consider. You will allways be surprised by how inventive the human mind can be. However. Despite all, hubris and neglections is apparently and factualy still a very common thing in nowdays military conflicts. Especialy when it is strong against weak. Never assume too much when you don't have a clear picture. Never. Only when your enemy shows neglection and hubris as he is the stronger party, only then plan and take according action. Don't just do something thinking he ain't as smart as he pretends to be. No. No go. Just as much as you hide from him, he as well hides from you. Not only his capabilities as of nation, but also as of leader / fighter.. Underestimation and neglection is happening all the time , at a tremendous cost of lives, when it only requires a cool head, patience and proper planning and preperation to easily turn the tide and win the day in the most desperate of situations. Such kind of errors are very frequent and quite easy to be made and therefore the first problems to adress even before they occur so you rule out any unpredictable move by yourself and your commanders. That said, in the same sense you should also conduct your own intelligence. Expect your opponent to be expecting the very same from you. Not less.Consider the worst also there and be allways prepared for setbacks. In fact, expect them right from start and have backups to the backups. It's nothing less than about life and death. Keep that in mind.
I would say the top priority is to not lose. So for the weaker army, it is about denying the stonger army to use its strength. However if you are the stronger army, you should just protect your weakness. because if the weaker army is not able exploit your weakness, then you are sure to win.
That would make the second priority for the weak army to attack the storng armys weakness, and the second priority for the strong army to use his strength.
This is not to far away from gurilla warfare. The weak army avoid pitched battles bc the stronger have their strenght there, however the strong army scout arn work on consolidation of position because voulnrebilty to ambushes and supplyshortages is the stong armys weakness.
mrKreuzfeld Often true, but not always. If you die, such as sometimes results from losing a battle, you're not very likely to have much going for you. However you don't always die, in like, business or investment or dinner parties. Not always. Whatever you're risking can be worth the the reward.
True, trying not to lose is wizer, because you are not omiscient. Lose the battle if it will keep you in the war, use stratergy behind tactics to both strengthen your possition and weaken your enemies. By the time the piched battle or seige comes, you should've already won.
Priorities in conflict as Dark Souls taught them to me:
1. survive (meaning, in this order: keep out of range completely, evade (get into range so the opponent attacks, but get out of range before getting hit), defend (stay in range but deflect the attack))
2. learn your enemy (his reach, speed, moveset, timing)
3. attack (maneuver into good position, and strike, using what you learned in second step)
how close am i?
(yes, it's in the thumbnail, but I tried to ignore it. also, naturally, I'm commenting before seeing the video)
edit:
i'm at 2:33 and got such a strong urge to go and try new, artillery-heavy tactic in Wargame: European escalation, that i've got to stop the video and go play for a while. damn your videos that are so interesting and inspiring that they get me to not finish watching them! :-D
In business this is called "SWOT Analysis" -- Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats. (So your enemy's strengths are your threats and their weaknesses are your opportunities).
Over the years in various places, I've spent far too much time in groups discussing our organization's SWOT - strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. Sounds similar to your assessment. In our cases, though, we spent lots of time producing analyses and reports on our SWOT that management, then, immediately ignored and did whatever the hell they wanted.
Chanakya's Four ways of dealing with enemies
1. Saam(Reason with them).
2. Daam (buy off your enemies).
3. Danda (Punish your enemies with force of arms)
4.Bhed (Divide and Conquer)
.
.
.
.and...if all this fails
5. Join your enemy.
Sorry to toss a spanner in the works but an often overlooked element of conflict is to undermine your foe. Many conflicts have hinged on one sides ability to do this effectively for example Erwin Rommel's use of spies in the American embassy in Cairo allowed the leaking of vital British military information in his early battles. Just as effective British misinformation and ultra decrypts laid the foundation for his later defeats. On a national scale many coalitions have been undermined by persuading countries to Change sides (Bavaria Napoleonic wars) or throw the battle entirely Finland WW2 Murmansk Campaign
You could also say that resolve is the counter to this, ie acts that boost peoples resolve to fight ie incentives (loot/cash for scalps) or moral encouragement (Eisenhowers visit to the paratroopers before D day), arms shipments etc.
I get the Sun Tzu reference, but what you were talking about made me think more of the OODA loop and how you would apply what you are talking about in that cycle.
I would argue that one priority that comes before the four you've listed would be:
Understand your objectives and those of your enemy. Many times in military conflict, the destruction of the enemy army is a means to an end rather than an end in and of itself.
Though arguably that falls under the category of knowing your weaknesses and knowing your enemy's, just on a larger scale than presented.
Short and sweet: Carpe jugulum.
Birdblizzard Rest in peace, dear Terry :.(
Thomas Thomani
Sir Terry shall be remembered.
It's hard to classify this as a strong or weak point, but as surprising as it sound, before you get to the battle, you need to make sure your men can get to the battle. That means feed them, clothe them, supply them with water, ammunition, etc ... This is a lot harder than it sound. In Medieval times, logistic were a nightmare. There's no canned food so you even need to lug around milling stones to mill flour. You can not carry a lot of food and they had to supplemented from the countryside. That means, if you are a big, rich empire like the Romans or Persians, purchasing it from the local population, or, looting, pillaging, etc ... Being a civilian sucks when knights nominally on your own side march through your land, since they'll pretty much strip you of your food. You can't march a lot of people as one enormous block, since the countryside can't sustain them. Dividing them means that smaller forces are vulnerable to defeat in details by a nominally weaker, but concentrated force. Foraging parties are vulnerable since they are small, few in number, heavily burdened with bounties, and whose participants are more interested to run away with the loot than fighting. These foraging parties are small but very vital, and they are vulnerable to a concentrated attacks.
So a smaller army can do serious damage to a larger one simply by shadowing it, attacking vulnerable small foraging parties, poison the wells, burn the crops, evacuating the civilians, etc ... That's why a force of horse archers or cavalry is so powerful. On counter raids, they can pick the fight with which raiders, when and where they want, and flee if things go wrong. On the raid, they can flee when they want
Not cavalry, but horse archers specifically. Mobility + speed + reliability + range. Chariots are not reliable they strugle with difficult terrian. Eliphants aren't mobile, they're difficult to control when things get chaotic, and also the enemy will try to refuse engagement with them & they accelerate slowly. Mellee cavalry that is heavy will also make the enemy refuse enguagement, also they have limited range if any, and are often composed of a warrior elite making them difficult to control once enguaged with an inferior force. Mellee cavalry that is light, is a counter to cavalry archers one they enguage them, but they are too easy to counter/defend against, the can't hit and run like cavalry archers can. Cavalry archers can enguage and dissenguage universally on all terrian you can ride a horse on. They are easy to control, and can only be countered effectively by units that can catch them. Yes heavy infantry and cavalry may rule the open field, and archers will dominate seiges, and artillery will overpower every defence with time. But cavarly archers have the ability to be everywhere and no where on the battlefield.
If this was crusader kings 2 then all you have to do is acquire horse archers
I was talking about a video game dude.
tefras14 and if this was Mount and Blade all you need isSwadian knights.
XD
There may also be other courses of action you can take, after evaluating the strenghtd and weaknesses. The thebans used the oblique order and defeated the spartans in two battles. In this tactic instead of attacking your opponents weak point, you concentrate all the presure you can to your opponents strong point
You forgot four more priorities:
1: Make your strenght look even stronger so the enemy will most likely refuse combat and go away
2: Hide your weakness so the enemy won't see how he can beat you and will most likely refuse combat and go away
3: Make your weakness look like your strenght and your strenght look like your weakness, so if the enemy hit your strenght and fail, they will most likely abandon the fight seeing how the false weakness resisted to the assault.
4: If you have many units of wich certain are of high strenght, average strenght and low strenght, you must put them against the enemy in this order:
-Launch your stronger side against the weaker side of the enemy
-Put your average fighters against the stronger side of the enemy
-Put your weaker fighters against the average side of the enemy.
Since many people here are putting reading suggestions, here are mines:
-The Art of War (Sun Tzu)
-Stratagems (Sextus Junius Frontinus)
-De Re Militari (Flavius Vegetius Renatus)
-The Art of War (written by Giotto Maranzi but attributed to Machiavelli)
-The Prince (Machiavelli)
-Vom Krieg (Von Clausewitz. This one I haven't finished yet).
A good illustration of point 3 appears in the Stratagems of Frontinus. A lacedemonian general was in Egypt to help fight against the Persians.
He made his strong and well trained hoplites dress like the egyptians, and gave the Hoplite equipment to the egyptians militias.
When the Persian arrived, they attacked, sure of beating the Egyptians easily. But the fight was harder than they expected, since it was the better trained spartans and not the egyptian levies.
He then gave a signal and the Egyptian, dressed as Hoplites, came in formation.
The persian retreated. They thought that, since they weren't even able to beat what they thought was the weaker front of the enemy, they wouldn't stand a chance against the hoplites.
Maskirovka!
The main priority in battle; exploitation.
Exploit the enemy's weakness/es.
Exploit any favour you have, uphill, strength, etc.
Even the weakest army in terms of size or strength can best a larger army if they have supporting ballistae, scare tactics like a flame trebuchet, or even something as simple as a height advantage.
Even taking out a single ranking enemy can scare the others enough that they fight with less vigor or panic at a very inopportune moment.
G'day from Australia, Lloyd. :) Hope you're having a tip-top day.
I think I agree with one of the final points there. To succeed in business, all one needs is to fill a room with large mirrors, then... I dunno, make the competitors to break them and unleash several decades of rough luck?
My mom walked in and she said why are you watching some stranger talk about war. and I just kept watching.
I always focus on getting the absolute maximum effectiveness i possibly can out of my weaknesses, trusting in my strenghts to just kind of overpower the enemy when it comes their turn to do something
A textbook example of this would be, I think, the Hundred Years War. The english had a decisive advantage in battle with the longbow, in battle the tactic was incredibly easy to put in place (it's essentially camping, with mines) while also being remarquably effective. Wich meant that all their commander could use it and win easily.
And so Charles V and Charles VII both made essential strategic choices that allowed them to get the advantage over them. Charles V simply avoided battle with the english whenever it was possible and simply let the english roam and burn the countryside while he would protect castles and cities. It prevented the english from making much progress and so the french only had to focus on besieging english castles and cities afterward, all the while using low-cost strategies and tactics (thanks to Du Guesclin). Thanks to that the french managed to retake a lot of lost territories. They might even have won if it wasn't for Charles VI ruining everything.
Charles VII used a much simpler and effective strategy, he invested a lot in cannons, wich outranged english archers and turned the english tactic against them. And thanks to this new weapon, sieges were much faster to resolve and allowed him to essentially go full on blitzkrieg on the english and "win" the war (wich wasn't resolved because even though the french retook possession of all of their territory, the english were to butthurt during peace negotiations for those to actually succed).
So it essentially was : English use their strenght to cover their weakness and deny the strenght of the french => The french simply avoid confrontation and then attack the english in their weakspot => Strategic and tactical mess caused by greed and incompetent ruler => The french use their strenght to deny the english strenght and attack them in their weakspot.
Nice thoughts but I think this only applies in suitations where you want to physically disable the enemy. Real military priorities are always: atain freedom of action (ability to damage things at will), atain freedom of movment and deny the enemy those things. That's it. S-W analysis is details.
You mentioned that someone may have already written down the principles for winning conflict. Yes, in 513 B.C.E., Sun Tzu wrote "The Art of War".
A good example of your analysis was the Battle of Marathon. Miltades faced a larger Persian force. The Persians had chosen an attack beach surrounded by marsh and mountains, and were unable to get their greatest strength, their cavalry, into the battle. Miltades placed his strongest forces on his flanks (his own weakness) and lured the Persians to place their strongest infantry against the weaker Greek center. The Persian actually crushed the center troops, but then found themselves surrounded by the two strong Greek forces. In ancient times, flanks were particularly weak and vulnerable-- the Greek forces ate into both Persian flanks. The Persians retreated rather than get butchered.
On a more meta-level there are four classic elements of chess: initiative, material, position, and pawn structure. It requires initiative to win (you must be able to make the move that causes checkmate). On the short scale (tactics), initiative and material (especially material on the local scale) are the greatest advantages, while on the long scale (strategy) position and pawn structure are the greatest advantages. Those are generalizations -- great chess players have found all kinds of special winning exceptions.
Your analysis sounded very tactical and not very strategic.
Also, as someone else has already mentioned, the mathematical field of game theory has yielded a number of very useful principles, some of which are highly counter-intuitive.
If you look at the collage of animal/nature pictures on the right side of the background, the green and orangey brown caterpillar is called a Saddleback Caterpillar. I was stung by one recently.
Just an interesting thing.
This is normal stuff in business. Whenever a comany makes a strategy that takes its environment inton account e.g. opportunity, weakness, strength and threats, and not just its internal affairs, they basically use this "schema" you are talking about.
I forgot what it's called, though. Tough luck ♡
Victorious armies win first, then engage in battle.
Dude, this is nice. And it's something you can apply in everyday life. Thanks mate!
Thats where things get confusing though, because the stronger and weaker sides' main aims counter each other directly in parallel, and so it may then become more advantageous to prioritise a different aspect, if the stronger side is defending its weak point because it is the only feasible means of victory for the weaker side, an attack against its stong point is unexpected and may be more effective. This is why planning any military strategy is so difficult when you have high capability opponents. They both know what is the theoretical best move but have to decide whether the enemy will make that choice too, because if you do and they dont they could swing a surprise blow that shoudn't be threatening on paper, but ends up swinging the fight in their favour.
Management/business theory has a model called SWOT (Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats) that pretty much exactly describes the first half of your video. :)
Sounds like you're talking about a SWOT analysis - something that's talked about a lot in MBA classes. Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats.
Most important bit of life advice I've listened to so far.
It seems to me the first two priorities for each side are necessities and the third and maybe fourth are good for minimizing the expenditure of resources over extended campaigns.
The brilliant combat sports analyst Jack Slack apparently agrees with your conclusions. He has a series "Killing the King" about what a challenger could do to beat the reigning champion (who is usually not a pushover), and here's his bottom line:
"I am sure you have heard the expression “Don't let him fight his fight” hundreds of times if you have been following the fight game for a while. But that is one of the most important points of the game and something that always comes up in my Killing the King pieces. If you can't work out how to start going about beating someone, look at what they do well and work on taking that away."
Even in the case where the smaller force loses while having all 4 advantages, you can balance the scenario by adjusting the victory conditions, thereby giving the smaller force a "win" even if they can't stop the superior force.
I believe this to be beautifully simple and accurate.
However, I would like to add my thoughts on only one part of this I believe could be improved upon:
For the weaker army or individual it is crucial that the 3rd priority be hitting with your strength.
If you manage to neutralize his strength and reach his (our their) weakness you better be hitting it with your strength for you are unlikely to get a second chance at it.
Please let me know your thoughts on this.
It is really best to convince your enemy that they are getting what they want while at the same time doing exactly what YOU want them to do. Lure them into a situation where their greatest strength is either useless or actually a disadvantage.
The "Sun Tzu's Art of War" has similar points. Attack where you are strong and the enemy is weak. Evade where you are weak and the enemy is strong.
Many have already made this connection in these comments but did you know that the man "Sun Tzu" most likely didn't write "The Art of War".
The Art of War was most likely a collection of guidelines and tactical advice from the experiences of several military leaders in what is known today as China.
This would explain why The Art of War suddenly changes tone, writing style and vocabulary at least once or twice before it's end.
Likely The Art of War was not written by General Sun Tzu, who was most likely already dead by the time the book first came into circulation, but instead written by several authors over the course of some time to be used as a handbook for ancient Chinese military officers.
If you would like to investigate this yourself, I recommend buying a copy translated by academics with interest in the subject as they would be very capable of pointing out evidence to all theories in this regard.
In Business it is called a SWOT analysis. Strength, Weakness, Opportunity, Threats. It is one of the first things you learn in a MBA program.
This approach also strongly resembles "SWOT" Strength, Weakness, Opportunity, and Threat assessment. Very similar to some very good systems that all boil down to 'use evidence to make decisions.'
In business we call this a SWOT analysis for:
-strenghts
-weaknesses
-opportunities
-threats
What about the battle terrain? You can always try to lure the enemy into favorable battleground like a forest, if you have lots of infantry, or plains, if you have good cavalry.
Sounds like you did a SWOT analysis for armies
Strengths (internal; within your control and harder for competitors to assess if they don't know about you)
Weaknesses (internal)
Opportunities (external; outside your control and is easily observable by all)
Threats (external)
Great to see this video starting with a trailer full of fire arrows
Needed this, thanks.
First priorty: Feeding and equipping your army, yes i know that many people will think that this is trivial however a good commander in the medival era could determine where someone was going to march through just by determining where an army could march so that it will be able to forage closely to itself thats why Napoleans whole flying colums was revolutinary because it broke its army down to more manageble size and manuvered it in peices rather quickly over terrain that prior wasn't accessible to something of its size and it would come together at the predetermined point.
Furthermore an army that is able to eat well and has good shoes will make better time than the army that doesn't thus giving them an advantage in mobility a good book that turned me on to this idea is Supplying War by Von Creveld
I do not profess to being even the most basic of military researchers only that i have read some texts mainly The Art of War by Sun Zu as well as the above mentioned Supplying war which stressed logistics and how one might use them and abuse them to win a war or a conflict. And i believe that it was Sun Zu that said the best way to attack someone is to destroy its ability to fight which one could interpret as destroying its abilbity to feed and clothe is soldiers. This could even lead to an inferious force winning out against a superious force
tl;dr An army marches on its stomache so make sure that there is enough food, also making sure that its armor doesn't have holes in it is probably a good thing this should be a commander's first priority as destroying an enemies ability to fight you is the best way of winning a conflict and can even lead to a victory that would otherwise be unachievable.
You're essentially talking about conducting a ranked SWOT analysis: strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats.
How would you apply this in a discussion as an exterior person?
For example: Carl built a house on Steve's land, but Carl didn't know it was Steve's land. Steve wants Carl gone, but Carl would like to stay. They both consult you ( let's say, the "town guard" ) because they can't figure it out.
Lloyd, you are missing something important - maybe the weaker army just wants to defend ? At Crecy did the French achieve all 4 priorities ? The most important priority is to determine and maintain the "aim". What is your goal in the battle - it might not be to crush the enemy. Example Battle of Britain. The Germans never maintained a consistent aim, the British did. At Waterloo the British allowed the French to use their main strengths - their huge cavalry reserve and the Old Guard.
there is only one priority in conflict, survival. both people want to survive so they do what they can to do that. your main priority as a victim of violence should be to get away. if you attack someone who is attacking you there is a chance of severe injury or death, so always try to avoid conflict whenever and wherever possible. when the circumstance does not allow you to avoid conflict then your priority shifts to defense. you shouldn't outright attack someone; bystanders will see you and can assume that you are the aggressor if you are curb-stomping a guy's teeth out for stealing your favourite watch, for example. if the attacker flees NEVER PURSUE. You don't know if they have friends with weapons, you don't know where he is going. focus on remembering what happened so you can tell the authorities.
sincerely, a person who has taken 8 years of self defense and has been mugged before.
I think the hidden premise here are that weakness have a bigger impact on actual strength, and is easier to avoid, while maximizing strength have its limit.
For instance a force of 10, in weak state can be 2, and maximized can be 12.
But if things go other way around like having an army that care less about weakness, eg: normal(10) weakness(9) max(12),then one may come to another conclusion that
it's more important to prevent other army using its full strength.
All in all it's just a number game,get the best number for oneself and worst number for enemy,bigger ratio the better.
Controlling and stacking variables
Reminds me of Robert E Lee. On some level, he knew this and his Union counterparts didn't until Grant.
Sun Tzu: Measurement, estimation of quality, evaluation of odds, achieving victory :-). Another relevant quote is "if our army is two times greater, we should split it in two." I won't write a discussion and makes this boring. Just wood into the fire/food for thought.
best to attack in last moment when the opponent thinks is gonna hit the target easy,usually people tend to not care or defend in the last moment because they already imagine they are reaching the target.in that monent u have an opening
I forget from whom I heard this, but I thought it rather profound at the time.
"Never attack your enemies' weaknesses, undermine their strengths."
Thoughts?
Weak spots can also be indirect things, like mobility, the commander's ego, even their superstitions.
I live in The United States of America and as such am terribly undereducated in world events.
Would you mind explaining the beef between the French and the British?
It has always been a curiosity to me and your way of explaining and presentation seems perfect for it!
Conflicts are generally won by using combined arms.A large single force of any kind of weaponry will always be vulnerable to a force of combined arms.
sounds like everything I ever learned in both debate, and self defense classes...that wasn't a dig, just observing that your principles are sound. It works very well in verbal conflict as well. protect your own weakpoints..and go after the other guys...if he has a weaker position, then you hit hi there....verbally of course.
The industry uses Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) framework on a regular basis. SWOT had been put together at the Stanford Research Institute ca 1968.
Lindy Time! Yaaay! Everyone to the computer, it's time for the show!
This is very similar to SWOT (strengths, weakness, opportunities, threats) it's used in corporate and self help all the time
Attacking an enemy's weakness -- I can see now why military leaders spend lots of effort (they do, don't they?) analyzing the psychology of opposing generals. Is he cautious? Be bold. Is he bold, and likely to make a dramatic, risky move? Lure him into a trap. ...
I'm fairly sure the Alternatives point towards Fantasy. I just lack certainty whether I'm correct about the origin of the second. Though probably not all, since identifying a common enemy is... well, the saying "Enemy of my enemy" had to come from somewhere, yes.
Priorities according to A. V. Suvorov:
"Subordination! Practice! Discipline! Smartness! Hygiene! Health! Fun! Daring! Courage! Victory! And glory, glory, glory!"
In a sense, Sun Tzu in his "Art of War" described how to fight on a strategic level, what to do if you're an army leader, while Suvorov in his "Art of Victory" pointed out what officers and soldiers need to know to train themselves advance and win.
While Sun Tzu is the most known it isn't actually as influential in Europe as others. Primarily because it wasn't known in Europe till relatively recently.
Earliest known "art of war" was written by Vegetus and also little known guy (a bit later though) called Machiavelli.
This isn't to say that Sun Tzu is unimportant or that he doesn't matter, just that the basic principles are as old as there is writing and I am sure far before hand.
I strongly recommend reading all of these, as they are wonderful resource.
I have a question, and please correct me if my assessment upon which I base my question is wrong.
In the Battle of Agincourt, the French army's greatest strength (numbers) was also arguably its weakness as well. What do you do in this case for attack and defense?
If you are inherently stronger, defending your weaknesses, while allowing your strengths to triumph, seems the smarter method.
"Paper covers rock. Rock blunts scissors. Scissors cut paper." ~ Sun Tzu, probably.
Principles of grappling. "attacking with my greatest leverage, against his greatest leverage, during his moment of weakest balance, from a position of superior balance."
How about adding 'recuperate' or 'consolidate' to the priority list? I guess there's an argument for putting it under 'defend', but it seems like a separate priority to me.
When fighting against giant crabs, always remember to hit their weak point for massive damage.