Who is the Most Old-School?????!

Part one. The Ends and Means

   Sun Tzu      or.....         Carl von Clausewitz? 

 

How can you even compare Carl and Sun? One won't use ten words if a hundred will do, the other gives his battle plan in the form of a five bar poem.

When I was reading Carl I had to go over each page three times to make sense of it. With Sun it was like dripping honey from a jar. It happens so quickly you look down and touch your chin, assuming you spilled something.

Carl is so complex, and said so much, that anything I say about him here will be so abstracted that it may as well be a lie.

And Sun has walked two and a half thousand years to see us. Even his first western translation is 200 years old. How much do we really think we can understand from this man?

The biggest difference everyone mentions is these two parts.

First Sun,

'.. For this reason attaining one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the true pinnacle of excellence. Subjugating the enemy's army without fighting is the true pinnacle of excellence'

Now Carl,

'…. the destruction of the enemy's armed force appears therefore, always as the superior and more effectual means to which all others must give way'

At first glance, Carl sounds stupid. Winning without risk is always smarter in Old School play. You do not fight to be fighting (4^th Ed), you fight for the prize. If the fight destroys the prize the fight is meaningless. But then..

'…. It follows therefore that the destruction of the enemy's military force is the foundation-stone of all action in war, the great support of all combinations, which rest upon it like the arch upon its abutments. All action, therefore, takes place on the supposition that if the solution by force of arms which lies at its foundation should be realised, it will be a favourable one. The decision by arms, is, for all operations in war, great or small, what cash payment is to bill transactions.'

Carl talks for a long, long time about the numerous other ways you can get what you want in war. Manoeuvrings, passive resistance, trickery, attacking the enemy's alliances, political action. But in his view, if you take those paths, and the enemy does not but attacks to destroy your forces, and if you are equal, they win.

Scheming can always be short-circuited by violence.

A game of old school D&D is not about combat , but combat is the core from which all other actions spring. The potential for violence shapes everything. The old-school player plans to avoid it, but, deep in their hearts, they don't truly believe they will.

Carl wins this round. He is the most old-school. So far.

The Scales of Action

This, got me thinking. In particular:- 'Carefully marshalling equipment, using it when it is needed, improvising where necessary, making good logistical choices.'

Necessary qualities of the heart.

“The conclusion that we draw, is that a correct and penetrating eye is a more necessary and more useful quality for a general than craftiness, although that also does no harm if it does not exist at the expense of necessary qualities of the heart, which is only too often the case.

But the weaker the forces which are under the command of strategy, so much more they become adapted for stratagem, so that to the quite feeble and little, for whom no prudence, no sagacity is any longer sufficient at the point where all art seems to forsake him, stratagem offers itself as a last resource. The more helpless his situation, the more everything presses towards one single, desperate blow, the more readily stratagem comes to the aid of his boldness. Let loose from all further calculations, freed from all concern from the future, boldness and stratagem intensity each other, and thus collect at one point an infinitesimal glimmering of hope into a single ray, which may likewise serve to kindle a flame.”

Carl there is talking (I believe) about concealed intentions in warfare, and about trickiness and scheming in general.

People have accused Carl of not respecting trickery and movement, and of regarding war as purely attritional. But he does understand it, he just thinks its not very useful at the largest scale of warfare. But very very useful when using a weaker force against a stronger one, especially when there is a high level of randomness involved.

We can map this understanding onto nerdgames. In particular, almost literally in 40k the conflict between games at 1500 points and 2000 points. Low point games requiring more stratagem, and being less enthralled to list building.

It can also be pushed to D&D. PC's don't bring more guys to the game the same way Wargamers bring more troops (usually). But they have hit points inside them, which are sort of analogous to combat power. The higher the hit points then the more important the long reaches of planning before the game starts, the careful optimisation, the accounting for any conceivable situation.

But at lower HP levels, where one swing of a sword can end you right now, then we are 'let loose from all further calculations' and 'boldness and stratagem intensify each other'. Which is my favourite part of the game.

I left in the first paragraph because I like it when Carl breaks into mild poetics, and because he is managing another bunch of polarities there. The cold penetrating vision, craftiness, and the necessary qualities of the heart.