The Art of War: 2,500 years old and still disappointing

The Art of War: Much myth, few new ideas

Is it worth reading a military treatise from 2,500 years ago to apply its lessons to daily life? The answer emerging from a discussion lasting more than two years is a resounding no, sprinkled with nuances. The text attributed to Sun Tzu is perceived as a collection of obvious truths that anyone with common sense already intuited: study the enemy, divide to conquer, choose good terrain, do not attack when outnumbered, and above all, war is based on deception. Nothing that cannot be learned playing an ambitious game of Risk.

The disappointment is not unanimous, but it is majority opinion. Those who defend the book argue that its value lies not in originality, but in its ability to remind us of basic principles when chaos strikes. Others directly label it unreadable garbage, grouping it with most Eastern classics. The debate quickly shifts to a more interesting question: Why has the West elevated a text that arrived late and poorly on our shelves?

The date of the first translation changes everything

The first French translation dates from 1772; the English one from 1910. By then, the West had centuries of its own military doctrine behind it. According to one participant, Sun Tzu’s thought was irrelevant to the development of Western military philosophy. This "Sun Tzu obsession" is, according to that same view, a recent phenomenon linked to the fascination with martial arts popularized by Bruce Lee in the 1970s. If you want real strategy, check out Gracián and his Oráculo manual y arte de prudencia (Manual Oracle and Art of Prudence).

Russia and Ukraine: The manual nobody trinc

The Ukrainian conflict becomes the recurring example of how the book’s principles are abusa. Sun Tzu warned that attacking cities is a last resort, that war must be quick, and that the general must override an ignorant sovereign when circumstances do not align. The Russian invasion, according to this analysis, did the opposite: mobilized troops without reliable information, overestimated its capabilities, and believed its own propaganda. The consequence was a long, costly war that the Chinese strategist would have advised against from day one.

Deception as doctrine and as trap

Some argue that Russia does apply a fundamental principle: the art of war is based on deception. Their entire political and military philosophy rests on systematic lying, including feigning weakness when strong and strength when weak. The problem is that lying so much eventually convinces you of your own lies. Overestimating capabilities is a documented side effect of constant propaganda. Sun Tzu did not foresee this, or at least not sufficiently.

Lessons that actually work for daily life

Beyond the noise, some principles are rescued as applicable to ordinary life: leading an army of thousands as if it were a single individual, tying everything up with spies before starting any war, always aiming higher than the objective to compensate for trajectory, and not distracting the enemy when they make mistakes. These are platitudes, yes, but ones easily forgotten. The problem is not that the book lies, but that it promises more than it delivers.

The business of war and the elite that never loses

One of the most cynical contributions points to a strategy not found in the book: financing both sides. War is a profitable business for some, and those who put money into both parties ensure they can fish in troubled waters, achieve their goals, and never lose. It is the textbook win-win, and it explains why certain conflicts drag on longer than military logic would recommend.

The overvaluation of all things Eastern

The debate turns toward broader criticism: Eurocentrism is often denounced, but little is said about the overvaluation of everything coming from the East. Architecture, technology, philosophy, spirituality, martial arts. The prestige of the exotic does the rest. Sun Tzu’s book benefits from this aura, but when you strip away the patina of ancient wisdom, what remains is a manual of common sense that any experienced sergeant could have dictated in an afternoon.

In the end, the most repeated conclusion is the usual one: you should read it, if only to say you have. The Art of War does not teach you how to win wars, but at least it entertains just enough to keep you from throwing it out the window.