Thoughts on the Robert Greene Series

I used to read it but think it is lowbrow bullshit nowadays

So you mastered all 33 strategies and 48 laws? Whew.

>>9742776

Not quite, think I'm on strategy no, 27 think it will take me at least 3 re-reads to truly "master both of them but one must start somewhere right?

>>9742768
What's the point of reading this dumb pop bullshit? If you want to learn about war then read Clausewitz or something.

>>9742826
Reading Clausewitz in 2017 is asking to die from boredom and redundancy. He was revolutionary in the 1800s but everything is now common sense. Sun Tzu's Art of War is unironically better because it is timeless advice thanks to its aphoristic style.

>>9742835
Typical nu-male idiocy.
Sun Tzu is popular with clerks and peasants because the translations sound like something from a fortune cookie allowing a merchant to fool himself into believing his new marketing plan is 'based on Sun Tzu'.
von Clausewitz gives practical, nuts and bolts advice on how to actually wage war. Since the hipster with a Communications degree can't pretend that phrases like,
"Courage, above all things, is the first quality of a warrior"
actually means you should buy his wheat grass smoothie he looks at it with the fear of the weak for the strong.

>>9742915
Typical pseudointellectual idiocy. Tell me more about how 19th century logistics and realpolitik is going to inform me about the way we wage asymmetrical warfare today. Idiot. At least Sun Tzu talks about general strategy with plenty applications, especially in psychological/mental warfare. Clausewitz was brilliant for his own time but the only reason we remember him above other generals is because Napoleonic Warfare was the beginning of the sort of modern warfare relevant to our times. In 500 years he'll be nothing more than a footnote.

File: pleb.jpg (129KB, 622x568px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 622x568px

>>9742928
>asymmetrical warfare
Using terms you don't understand. The American Revolutionary War was 'asymmetrical warfare', just like the Cruel War of the Peninsular Campaign (the term 'guerilla war' was spawned during the Napoleonic War, you dolt, and von Clausewitz discussed the details of asymmetrical warfare in his work as one of the first men to analyze it).
You probably meant 4th generation warfare, but of course - von Clausewitz covered that, too.

>>9743091
>The American Revolutionary War was 'asymmetrical warfare'
History brainlet detected. Most of the important engagements of the American Revolutionary War were orthodox battles. Saratoga, Brandywine, Monmouth, Yorktown, etc.

>You probably meant 4th generation warfare, but of course - von Clausewitz covered that, too.
Please tell me more about how von Clausewitz covered modern counterinsurgencies.

>>9743133
>Most of the important engagements of the American Revolutionary War were orthodox battle
What was Lexington and Concord? Let me guess - you also don't think Vietnam was asymmetrical because of the Fall of Saigon, right?
>Please tell me more about how von Clausewitz covered modern counterinsurgencies.
Considering the term "4th generation warfare" includes conflicts like the Slave Revolt of Spartacus and the Peninsular Campaign *of course* he covered it.
It's just the flashy new name for 'insurgency' and those have been around forever.
So far all you are doing is proving you don't read *anything* on military science.

>>9742768
Let me know when you get to the point that you realize the 48 *cough* "laws" contradict each other repeatedly, have no support, and are nonsensical.
I suspect Greene eats a lot of takeout and saves the slips from the fortune cookies and when he has a few hundred saved up he throws them into the air to make his next 'book'.

>>9743197
>What was Lexington and Concord? Let me guess - you also don't think Vietnam was asymmetrical because of the Fall of Saigon, right?
History brainlet OVERLOAD.

Lexington and Concord were not major engagements compared to Monmouth and Yorktown, which were definitely not asymmetrical warfare. Lexington wasn't even asymmetrical, since the militia met the British in standard line infantry fire. The United States didn't stand a chance until they were able to fight a traditional pitched battle, and that's what they used to win the war. Comparing the Revolutionary War to Vietnam is ludicrous unless you're talking about parts of the Saratoga Campaign and the Southern Campaign, and even then, it was a sideshow at best.

>Please tell me more about how von Clausewitz covered modern counterinsurgencies. Considering the term "4th generation warfare" includes conflicts like the Slave Revolt of Spartacus and the Peninsular Campaign *of course* he covered it.
How would Clausewitz have handled the Iraq War? I'm waiting for some Mattis-tier insight, faggot.

>It's just the flashy new name for 'insurgency' and those have been around forever.
Except insurgencies had a tendency to fail under significant pressure until the modern day. Viriato's efforts failed. Nzinga's efforts failed. The Peninsular War required Wellesley to finish the job. Explain that.

>>9743210
t. brainlet who thinks laws of power contradict when in reality you can find prominent examples that embody both principles like Donald Trump

>>9742776
lol

>>9742775
this is where I wanna be in a year
recommend some books to get to your state plz

>>9743485
>t. brainlet who thinks laws of power contradict when in reality you can find prominent examples that embody both principles like Donald Trump
I'm not going to get political because Trump is a very controversial figure but Trump is not really a good example of following the laws. He lets his emotions and impulsivity get the better of him too much, and doesn't exhibit the humility and caution the book suggests. Obviously he's doing something right but he is not very similar to the exemplars of the laws like Louis XIV or Joseph Fouche, he seems to operate on a different paradigm.