The article notes that Sun Tzu's celebrated victory over the Chu was very short-lived, since the Chu remnants promptly allied with the Qin and the Yue to roll them back within two years, and his Wu clan was entirely exterminated within three decades.
I think this is like applying the "If you're so smart, why aren't you rich?" logic to war; it's a multifaceted thing, you can do everything right and still lose.
It wouldn't still be mandatory reading at war colleges the world over if it didn't still have merit, or if it had no merit to begin with.
I mean, Clauswidtz is a way better reading, with less vague information, still a bit wrong concerning modern warfare (although Russian seems to use it). And his teaching were applied effectively multiple times, with success, even during ww2. A bit dryer and less applicable for young edgelords. And more than half the St-Cyr (officer school) I knew/talked to fit in this category ten years ago, I doubt it changed much.
"infamous army" by Georgette Heyer (she pretty much invented the bodice-ripper genre which Barbara Cartland drove a long way afterward) was on the reading list at cranwell college. Best description of the battle of waterloo ever, alongside the romance. The lead characters include Harry Smith and his Wife, who are the stars of "the spanish bride" which is about the campaign in Spain, when not about smooching and teenage love affairs. She became Lady Smith.. of Ladysmith (south Africa) fame. Nothing like doing "the crown" before fictionalised fact was on netflix
Sometimes, the reading list is quite varied.
They could have chosen the first 2 chapters of Stendhal's "charterhouse of parma" if you want a vibe from down at the platoon level (for much the same reasons as Heyer's book was chosen for an overall view at Wellington's level)
Cranwell College is the Royal Air Force college (for those like me who didn't know).
But, while Georgette Heyer invented the Regency romance, hers are not "bodice-rippers". They're far better than that.
"An Infamous Army" is kind of a strange book. It's half a romance, and half a war story, and it doesn't quite work as either one, but it works well as itself.
Okay let us suppose there are three probable reasons for such a book to be chosen as mandatory reading: because it is right, because it is wrong, or because it is historically important as a landmark in the history of military thought.
I believe it is the first of those three. Many books have been written since that are now outdated, while The Art of War is not.
> because it is right, because it is wrong, or because it is historically important as a landmark in the history of military thought.
> I believe it is the first of those three.
I believe it's fairly obvious it's the third. It's a landmark because it's the first. It's read for the same reasons people care about Plato and Aristoteles. Not because they were correct about everything, but because that's what everything since then builds upon.
> let us suppose there are three probable reasons for such a book to be chosen as mandatory reading: because it is right, because it is wrong, or because it is historically important as a landmark in the history of military thought.
You might have better luck with some actual reasons. Assuming you're right and then complaining that nobody believes you even though your assumptions plainly show that you're right isn't going to make you sound any more credible.
Instead of just asserting that I'm wrong and that there is some elusive and esoteric reason I am overlooking without actually stating it, you could just state it, and then, theoretically, if you are right, I and all the other readers would be better off...
I'm willing to change my mind, but you're not giving me anything to change it to.
Without being familiar with the details this sounds as if they bit off more than they could chew (or invaded more than they could hold). Holding territory is way, way harder than winning it in the first place.
If your actions led to your own clan's erradication 30 years after the fact then tour actions might not have been the smartest (unless e.g. your clan was going to be erradicated either way and you managed to buy them time).
And the articles notes there were multiple reasons for that, including an invasion by a third party and a coup attempt. Even the best military strategy won't survive first contact with the enemy, especially multiple ones from different directions.
