There's not a hair's breadth of difference between the teachings of Sun Tzu and the type of warfare waged by Caesar. Fledmaus made the same point with Genghis Khan. From the fact that choose not to contest the points that either of us put forward, I can only surmise that you are in agreement. The teachings of Sun Tzu are universally applicable across antiquity and into the modern age.
The question now is how best to apply them to the present situation with Russia.... wouldn't you agree?
Genghis Kahn read Sun Tzu's collected works of the many battle commanders, tossed 'em then went out and conquered a continent called Asia. The Kahn were conquerors not book compilers of others post battle summaries which is what Sun Tzu was in fact.
I reiterate that Western military commanders apply Sun Tzu better than Sun himself applied the precepts and principles that were already practiced and which were recorded by Sun in the Thirteen Chapters. The question remains anyway whether the individual Sun Tzu existed at all, similarly to the question of Shakespeare.
As for your completely wrong assertions there isn't a dime's worth of difference between Caesar and Sun Tzu, I have pointed out definitively the manner and style of warfare of each of 'em. I say again, the two methods of waging war are radically different. The Roman mindset in general was one of permanence. Roman generals always sought finality. Destroy, assimilate, or ally with an enemy, don't simply defeat him only to meet again. The Western way of war in fact stresses contact, impact, and direct confrontation with the enemy.
The US alliance system and structures post WW II are inspired and predicated on Caesar's model of mutual and viable alliances that worked so well for Caesar in battle and for Rome and the Republic in peace and prosperity. Eastern thought, i.e., Sun Tzu's theories, taught strictly there aren't any "permanent" allies or "friends" even relatively speaking and that, rather, there are only temporary expediencies, i.e, short term and useful practicalities.
Sun Tzu stressed the indirect approach. Sun recorded the Eastern avoidance of an engagement unless in favorable circumstances. Sun recorded the Eastern practice of annoyance, misdirection, the threatening of alternate points; wearing down the enemy's willpower or morale through subterfuge, to attack only that which is weak; disperse then concentrate. So one can choose between Western war or Eastern war because one man's meat is another man's poison. You fail to see this and you fail completely and abysmally.
Indeed Caesar would never practice or allow most of the Eastern *****footing in war recorded by Sun Tzu as the standard doctrine in the East. U.S. did allow all of it however as its wrongheaded military policy in Vietnam for instance. Caesar in Vietnam would have invaded the North and done away with 'em.
Or ally with 'em which is what the US has done with Vietnam anyway. Sun Tzu would still be fighting in VN to this day. And Hanoi being Asians would have reciprocated of course. With still no end in sight.
The 7 States Wars Sun participated in went on for hundreds of years, whereas in Europe a hundred years war was the exception. The US civil war was fought for four years using the modern technology of the time. And yes, while Sun Tzu continues to be applied in the present, so does Caesar. Sun would have been overwhelmed by WW II and China was in fact overrun by it and easily so. WW II showed Japan was more like Caesar and the West than it was anything like Sun Tzu and the mainland Asians. It is safe to say but for the US involvement in WW II Japan would have overrun Australia too.
