I’ve ranked my Top 10 Wars of history, essentially by combination of iconic status and idiosyncratic preference, but how do I rank them by their art of war? Typically for the victors, that is, but not always – albeit based on my occasionally idiosyncratic application of Sun Tzu’s The Art of War?

That is, how do I rank them by the strategic or tactical brilliance on display? Entirely differently as it turns out, with no entry in the same place ranking it has in my general Top 10 Wars.

Although at least there is mostly some strategic or tactical brilliance on display in the entries in my Top 10 Wars. It’s surprising how often wars seem to be just grinding slogfests – opponents slogging it out without much (or any) strategic or tactical brilliance on display and winning through sheer attrition or as the last man standing.

In fairness, I can’t help but feel that while Sun Tzu’s The Art of War is a cult classic of military strategy, it’s a little…overrated. It often comes across as some sort of performance poetry – hiding that when it’s not being obvious, it’s being obtuse. Nowhere is this more evident than in its defining principle that the true art of war lies in winning without fighting. Well obviously, but how?

It brings to mind Bart Simpson’s response when his karate teacher gives him a copy of the book for his first lesson and instructs that we learn karate so as not to use it – “Um, I already know how not to hit a guy”. Or the meme of the armchair historian or strategist – “I would simply be superior to my opponent from the outset”.

I also can’t help but feel that The Art of War is a little outdated and hence unfair for my more modern entries. As military historian H.P. Willmott points out in his general history of one of the entries in this top ten, wars against industrial opponents are necessarily wars of attrition – for which Sun Tzu and his pre-industrial art of war has no easy answers.

Anyway, here’s how I rank my Top 10 Wars by their art of war.

 

S-TIER (GOD TIER) – could teach Sun Tzu a thing or two

 

 

(1) MONGOL CONQUESTS – MONGOL INVASION OF EUROPE

 

There were a few contenders for top spot in art of war, but I couldn’t resist giving it to the Mongols, not least for their conquest of the homeland of Sun Tzu, give or take a few centuries from Sun Tzu himself.

Forget Sun Tzu – the true Art of War was written by Genghis Khan and the Mongols, in conquest not Taoist poetry. A friend and I used to observe the irony of Sun Tzu’s homeland of China – a country that historically has gotten its ass kicked as often as not. We also observed the same irony for Machiavelli’s The Prince originating in Italy – a country historically better known for political chaos than competence.

Of course, part of that may have been the reliance of the Mongols on the use of terror, arguably a more effective way of winning without fighting than the covert pacifism of Sun Tzu.

But seriously – an army that conquered almost all Eurasia clearly excelled in the art of war, particularly given how lopsided their victories were for how small their population was compared to their enemies. Part of this was that they were supremely adaptable at coopting the people they conquered for further conquests and strategies of war beyond their characteristic horse blitzkrieg. It’s surprising how small the actual Mongol forces were.

Like other nomadic herding tribes on horseback in the Eurasian steppes until recently in history, the Mongols consistently punched far above their weight in wealth or population – a recurring feature consistently observed by historians such as Azar Gat and John Keegan, as well as with what historian Walter Scheidel dubbed the steppe effect and anthropologist James C. Scott dubbed the Golden Age of the Barbarians.

The horse blitzkrieg of the Mongols embodied much of the mobility and maneuver favored by Sun Tzu – for speed, surprise, and shock, The horse blitzkrieg was a recurring feature mounted (heh) by nomadic herding tribes in the Eurasian steppes – but none were more supremely effective at it than the Mongols, one of the most proficient and versatile military forces in history.

 

(2) ALEXANDER’S CONQUEST OF THE PERSIAN EMPIRE

 

Alexander’s Conquest of the Persian Empire was a close contender for top spot in art of war, for the same reason of consistently winning against the numerical odds as the Mongol Conquests. Winning against the numerical odds or when outnumbered is probably the best demonstration of the art of war.

It only lost out to the Mongol Conquests for the top spot because I couldn’t resist the delicious irony of the Mongols conquering the homeland of Sun Tzu. It was close though as we all know Alexander the Great would have conquered China too if he’d made it there, whether he went through Central Asia or India.

Let’s face it – Alexander the Great would have kicked Sun Tzu’s ass, cutting through all that mystic Taoist poetry like the Gordian knot. I know it and you know it.

Both Alexander and the Mongols pulled off the distinctive feat of conquering Persia, often erroneously touted as some sort of military impossibility – not unlike Afghanistan being touted as the graveyard of empires, which they also both conquered.

However, Alexander did it when Persia was the Persian or Achaemenid Empire, the world’s largest empire to that date by size and by share of world population, in about seven years or so but really about half of that with the rest mopping up, with an army that was predominantly infantry unlike the Mongols.

Of course, that was because Alexander’s conquest of the Persian Empire involved one of the finest fighting forces in history, the Macedonian phalanx, led by one of finest military leaders of history, without a defeat to his name, usually against numerical odds. Heck – it’s often argued whether the Persians had more Greeks in their army than he did.

As the saying goes, fortune favors the bold and Alexander was certainly bold, with a sense of his own greatness as well as the weakness of his Persian enemy and their emperor Darius III in particular, all of which fortunately for him proved to be true.

“Alexander became legendary as a classical hero in the mould of Achilles, featuring prominently in the historical and mythical traditions of both Greek and non-Greek cultures. His military achievements and unprecedented enduring successes in battle made him the measure against which many later military leaders would compare themselves, and his tactics remain a significant subject of study”.

 

(3) SPANISH CONQUEST OF THE AZTEC EMPIRE

 

Rounding out god tier and the third of my three contenders for top spot in art of war, we have the Spanish Conquest of the Aztec Empire

Somewhat surprisingly as Cortes does not have the dazzling strategic or tactical victories in battle as Alexander or the Mongols – which perhaps best illustrates that the art of war is not a matter of winning battles.

Cortes won against far longer numerical odds against him than either the Mongols or Alexander, and arguably the longest such odds of any war in history. Obviously when your forces of a few hundred (or few thousand with reinforcements) defeat an empire of millions in a few years, you’re doing something right in the art of war.

Partly this came down to a qualitative advantage of technological superiority beyond anything in Sun Tzu’s experience, two of Jared Diamond’s titular trinity of guns, germs, and steel – although of that trinity, germs did the most damage (and the most to even the numerical odds), again beyond anything in Sun Tzu’s experience.

Partly it also came down to good fortune, and even more so, the boldness it favors – which was in Sun Tzu’s experience. Say what you will about Cortes, but he certainly had cojones.

And partly it did come down to factors you can definitely draw from Sun Tzu – subterfuge, and above all diplomacy or alliances, which was how Cortes really won his war, arguably the model of winning without fighting. The true reason for the Spanish victory was that the Spanish force didn’t win it as such but rather led a much larger military force consisting predominantly of their native American allies against the Aztecs.

 

A-TIER (TOP TIER) – not quite up there with god tier but still strategy maxxing, sometimes on more than one side

 

(4) GREEK-PERSIAN WARS

 

The Greeks in the Persian Wars were almost exact contemporaries of Sun Tzu on the other side of the world, as the Persian Wars commenced a few years before the traditional date given to Sun Tzu’s death in 496 BC – and I’m inclined to favor the Greeks over Sun Tzu when it came to demonstrated art of war in actual history. Winning without fighting is all very well, but sometimes you have little choice but to fight – and to fight in desperate defence against numerically superior forces.

Hence the genius of Greek strategy, consistently fighting at geographical bottlenecks or chokepoints, including the straits of Salamis. Beyond that, the Greeks won because “they avoided catastrophic defeats, stuck to their alliance, took advantage of Persian mistakes” and possessed tactical superiority with their hoplite forces.

However, I just can’t rank the Greeks in the Greek-Persian Wars in the same tier as Alexander’s conquest of the Persian Empire – given that after all Alexander conquered the Persian Empire rather than just repelled it and with a similar disparity of forces as faced by the Greeks in their Persian Wars.

 

(5) HUNNIC WARS – HUN INVASION OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE

 

I have to rank the Huns close to the Mongols, albeit top-tier to their god-tier, as yet another horse blitzkrieg of mounted nomadic tribes from the Eurasian steppes and the most formidable one prior to the Mongols, founding an empire that should be ranked as the fourth great empire of late antiquity and menacing the other three – Persian Empire as well as eastern and western Roman empires – in turn.

Like the Mongols and those other mounted nomadic tribes from the Eurasian steppes in general, the Huns punched well above their weight in numbers – “they were likely vastly outnumbered by the settled populations they conquered or forced to move, such as the Goths.”

Certainly the Huns demonstrated the art of war, despite their reputation for savage barbarism. At a tactical level, they had the usual speed, surprise and shock of the Eurasian steppes horse blitzkrieg – while strategically, they also sought out ways of winning without fighting through tribute and political alliances.

However, I just can’t rank them in the same tier as the Mongols. Firstly, there’s the greater scale of the Mongol conquests – the world’s largest land empire after all – but secondly the greater span as well. Both the Mongol and Hunnic empires may have similarly broken up or fragmented, but the Hunnic empire did so quicker and with less enduring impact, dependent as it was on Attila’s charismatic leadership.

Also, there’s the little matter of the Huns being more demonstrably rebuffed from their invasion of the Roman Empire than were the Mongols from their invasion of Europe, notably with the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains and withdrawal from Italy. However, that’s arguably consistent with the art of war in Attila’s aims being not much more than raiding on a grand scale to exact tribute – and both the western and eastern Roman Empires, particularly the latter, got lucky from the stroke of fortune of his death from other causes, not unlike Europe with death of the Mongol great khan.

The Hunnic invasion of the Roman Empire is also interesting as one of my top ten entries that you can argue for the art of war demonstrated by both sides. Indeed, you might argue for it more so for the Roman Empire, particularly for the western empire as it managed effective resistance against the Huns even as it was crumbling.

Ironically, “the Huns really disliked eastern Romans but loved western Romans”. Indeed, the latter had effectively allied itself with the Huns against their other enemies – by further irony not unlike the eastern Romans were subsequently to do with the Mongols.

When the Huns invaded the western empire, the Romans demonstrated quite the art of war, firstly by reversing their former alliance with the Huns to ally with the Visigoths and other Germans against the Huns in Gaul, and then by diplomacy for the withdrawal of the Huns from Italy without further fighting. Of course, part of the latter was the eastern Romans under their emperor Marcion reversing their former strategy of paying off the Huns with tribute for an effective and perfectly timed attack on the Hunnic heartland.

 

(6) AMERICAN INDIAN WARS – SIOUX WARS

 

The Sioux Wars are another of my top ten entries you can argue for the art of war demonstrated by both sides, albeit far more so for the United States at the level that counts – winning the war.

Tactically, the Sioux demonstrated the speed, surprise and shock that is part of the art of war – indeed, similarly to the mounted horse tribes of Eurasian steppes that were so effective elsewhere, not surprisingly given the geography of the Plains.

The only problem was they were too little and too late – a few centuries too late, against an industrial adversary that used the true strategic art of war for winning without fighting – picking curb stomp battles from a position of overwhelming material superiority.

It also demonstrates something of an issue for guerilla warfare. Guerilla warfare is often touted as the ultimate expression of the art of war – and it often is, avoiding pitched battles to outlast the adversary, but it had one limitation, particularly in pre-modern history.

Mao Tse-Tung wrote that “the guerilla must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea” – which is all very well unless your opponent is willing and able to drain the sea, displacing or eliminating the whole people or at least enough of them to neutralize any guerilla resistance.

 

(7) COLD WAR

 

Wait – what? The Cold War as top tier art of war? They didn’t even fight!

Of course, that’s the point. Ironically, cold war strategy is the essence of the art of war of winning without fighting. Which the Americans and their allies did, although not without some lapses on their part – most notably land wars in Asia.

Indeed, it might be said the Second World War and Cold War were the peak of the American art of war. Although I’m not sure what Sun Tzu would have thought of his art of war being applied from the logic of nuclear weapons and mutually assured destruction.

Although you could argue for the Cold War as yet another of my top ten entries where both sides demonstrated the art of war. For their part, the Soviet Union was at a disadvantage vis-a-vis the United States at the outset of the Cold War, notably against American economic strength and atomic monopoly. However, they played to their strengths – supporting communist guerilla movements in the developing world, hence those land wars in Asia, which saw them achieve a rough parity with the United States in the 1960s and 1970s.

The United States ultimately won by playing to its strengths – not unlike Batman, the superpower of being rich and its ‘family’ of alliances, with arguably the most critical being a de facto alliance with China against the Soviet Union. Significantly, the Soviets had no major allies at the end of the Cold War – just dependencies, mostly rebellious against them.

 

B-TIER (HIGH TIER) – still strategic (on one side or another) but starting to get to winning by slogging it out

 

(8) PUNIC WAR

 

Obviously the Romans excelled in the art of war as a whole, but not so much facing Hannibal on their home territory in Italy – although arguably not even for Hannibal either, given his failure to achieve anything decisive from all his tactical brilliance and victorious battles. In fairness, Roman commanders Fabius Maximus and Scipio Africanus turned it around in Italy and Africa respectively, the latter effectively matching Hannibal’s brilliance in enemy home territory.

Reading Roman military history often prompts me to see the Romans as the Soviet Union of ancient history – winning through the manpower to replace one lost legion after another – and never more so than in the Second Punic War against Hannibal, which is eerily reminiscent of a Roman parallel for the Soviets in Barbarossa. Just ask Pyrrhus – who gave the world the term Pyrrhic victory because the Romans could just soak up their losses and keep coming.

This is something of a caricature for the Romans as well as the Soviets winning through brute force of manpower – both of which were as capable of finesse in the right circumstances, usually a combination of good leadership combined with well-maintained or experienced forces. The Roman legion was the finest fighting force of its time, with a discipline and tactical superiority that allowed it to outfight opponents that outnumbered it – as in the Battle of Alesia or Battle of Watling Street. Although one of the greatest strengths of the Roman legion was not so much its skill in fighting but in engineering, again as at Alesia.

 

X-TIER (WILD TIER) – not so Sun Tzu but something of a paradox for the art of war

 

(9) VIETNAM WAR

 

Wait – what? Surely the Vietnam War should rank in high rather than wild tier for art of war on the part of the Vietnamese, as the literal textbook example of it – both by the Vietnamese using it as their strategy text during the war and the Americans after that war as a result.

It’s been famously said that the Americans won all the battles but lost the war. Almost as famous is the Vietnamese rejoinder (to Col. Harry Summers Jr) to the Americans winning all the battles – “That may be so. But it is also irrelevant.” And so it was for the Vietnamese, the Vietnam War was not about battles but winning the war – which was a matter of endurance or outlasting their adversary, although the casualties and heavy fighting involved leads me to rank it in wild rather than high tier.

The Vietnam War, along with other successful modern insurgencies, has often led to observations of guerrilla warfare as synonymous with, or even definitive of, the art of war. Not so much in pre-modern history – although it did occur in the right circumstances, you don’t tend to hear too much of successful guerrilla warfare, because states were prepared to wipe out or displace entire populations to eliminate resistance.

However, counter-insurgency in modern warfare is notoriously tricky. There is arguably a modern, smart way of winning against insurgency, or there remains the more brutal way, but few modern states have demonstrated the means or above all patience to achieve the former without invariably lapsing into the latter or something resembling it. Just ask the Americans about the coup against Diem, My Lai, the bombing, napalm, Agent Orange or the Phoenix program.

Of course, insurgency can be tricky as well. After all, what do you do with all your forces while you are avoiding all those battles – but at the same time hoping to expand your political control? Insurgencies often default to a brutal answer – killing civilians. You know, those civilian collaborators or representatives of your enemy. Even those insurgencies seen as the “good” ones. Just ask the city of Hue during the Tet Offensive.

 

 

(10) SECOND WORLD WAR

 

The Second World War is something of a paradox when it comes to the art of war, hence its wild tier ranking

On the one hand, it was one of the most complete victories (by the Allies) in military history – and certainly in modern military history, where it is also a rare anomaly being fought to the unconditional surrender and occupation of the enemy states.

Military historian H.P. Wilmott colorfully illustrated the rarity of its victory and relative mobility by his observation that WW2 was the last war of the nineteenth century while WW1 was the first war of the twentieth century. Whatever else you might make of this observation, I think it applied at least in that most wars of the twentieth century (and onwards) are closer to the static stalemate of WW1 than to WW2, which remains something of an anomaly. Elsewhere, Willmott attributes that anomaly to a brief window where mobile offensive firepower outpaced defensive firepower – but the balance swung back to defensive firepower, even during WW2 itself, hence the strength of defense by the Axis before their defeat and the effort by the Allies required to overcome it to defeat them.

On the other hand, winning the war took a lot of fighting – and dying, although the majority of casualties were Allied civilians – seemingly contrary to Sun Tzu’s maxim that the art of war lies in winning without fighting. Historian John Ellis almost sneers to that effect in his description of Allied victory in the title of his WW2 history, Brute Force, while also observing in that book’s preface that it was only Germany and Japan that won elegant victories – that is, without crushing material superiority. Willmott offers something of a corrective to that viewpoint, particularly the question left begging by Ellis. Willmott even observes the same elegant victories – Germany in western Europe in 1940 and Japan in south-east Asia in 1941-1942 as not excelled in the war – but observing that it is demonstrative of their ultimate inability to wage war that both lost despite those victories.

In part, this apparent contradiction of Sun Tzu’s art of war is explained by two factors of which Sun Tzu knew nothing – modern firepower and modern industrial production, with Willmot observing for the latter that a modern industrial state can only be defeated by attrition.

The paradox of art of war in the Second World War is deepened in that the major combatants – Germany, Britain, the Soviet Union, Japan, and the United States – all undoubtedly demonstrated military proficiency at different points or in different ways. The distinction between the Axis and Allies is that while Germany and Japan arguably demonstrated a more consistent military proficiency than their opponents, they were hopelessly outclassed by the Allies in understanding war and waging it – that is, in the art of war. Both Germany and Japan sought to achieve supremacy through victory, while the Allies achieved victory through supremacy consistent with the art of war.

The theme of H.P. Willmott’s The Great Crusade – the best single-volume history of the war – is the refutation of the popular myth of German military excellence. As he paraphrased Oscar Wilde, to lose one world war may be regarded as misfortune, to lose both looks like carelessness. Contrary to the art of war, Germany military genius lay in fighting, not in war.