Sarchi wrote:If you're going to discuss tactics at least use Machiavelli instead of Sun-Tzu this time.
Machiavelli, by which I presume you mean "The Prince", is not tactics, its policy.
Sarchi wrote:If you're going to discuss tactics at least use Machiavelli instead of Sun-Tzu this time.
ImpalerWrG wrote:Sarchi wrote:If you're going to discuss tactics at least use Machiavelli instead of Sun-Tzu this time.
Machiavelli, by which I presume you mean "The Prince", is not tactics, its policy.
So I will write this as warning... everybody who attack without reason, stealing, vandaling... you will be targets for our rangers and will be tracked if people come out as our friends or trade partners. People who will not use criminal skills will not have to worry.
burgingham wrote:ImpalerWrG wrote:Sarchi wrote:If you're going to discuss tactics at least use Machiavelli instead of Sun-Tzu this time.
Machiavelli, by which I presume you mean "The Prince", is not tactics, its policy.
I actually would describe it as politics mainly, not policies. Despite that Machiavelli is considered to be a standard work for tactics. Political tactics are not so far from war tactics, which brings me to the third luminary (besides Sun-Tzu and Machiavelli) adressing the topic: "War is a mere continuation of politics by other means" Quoted from Clausewitz of course. So to attain a full-fledged grasp on how politics/warfare work one really should have read all three (and probably more). Sticking to a single one of them might limit your view.
Koya wrote:by Sarchi » 11 Feb 2011, 11:21
If you're going to discuss tactics at least use Machiavelli instead of Sun-Tzu this time.
I like Sun-Tzu more![]()
Don't know why, just like how it writed and explained...
dra6o0n wrote:See the contradiction?
DaMaGe wrote:dra6o0n wrote:See the contradiction?
Scotch Koreans?
Return to In Congress Assembled
Users browsing this forum: Claude [Bot] and 0 guests