Thanks for the links. Lots of infomration to sort through.

Any ‘historical’ type movie with shields, swords, infantry and cavalry, etc. is always entertaining. They put quite a bit of money into those productions like Kingdom of Heaven, Gladiator, or Braveheart.

Jai, do you have any book recommendations on Guru Gobind Singh? I’d really like to read more up on Sikh history.

I don’t personally know of any books specifically about Guru Gobind Singh although I’m sure they’re around — as I mentioned earlier, a book on the Guru’s military strategies was once discussed on the Sikhnet website, but I can’t remember the name — however, there is a huge amount of information available on the internet, as follows:

AllaboutSikhs (Extensive biography of Guru Gobind Singh, 9 pages long — the “next” button right at the bottom of the first page is easy to miss. Absolutely packed with information).

Sikh-history.com

Sikhs.org (Doesn’t contain a biography of Guru Gobind Singh, but does include excellent summaries of the previous 9 Gurus’ lives).

Sikhiwiki

Sikhnet (check the “Sikh History” tab on the toolbar on the left side).

All of the above also contain extensive information on Sikh history in general, along with the associated major figures.

Thanks for the various links in your own post too I bet you enjoyed the film Kingdom of Heaven as well, although the recent “director’s cut extended DVD” version is supposed to be far better than the original cinema version.

I freely admit that I really liked Tom Cruise’s The Last Samurai. Obviously a sanitised version of that era and culture (as was Gladiator in relation to the Roman Empire), but still poignant, stirring stuff.

Speaking of Rome, Rubicon is supposed to be quite good and is written by the same author behind “Persian Fire”. Another one for my shopping list.

He inhaled books on military strategy and war, educating himself better than even some of his generals.

Theoretical knowledge was valued very highly in the 18th century too, from what I know about the American War of Independence. It was the done thing to read up on such matters as much as possible, and this was apparently regarded as often being good enough to qualify a person as a military leader even if he didn’t actually have much practical experience of warfare.

Agreed 100%.

Jai, do you have any book recommendations on Guru Gobind Singh? I’d really like to read more up on Sikh history.

There’s a film coming out (I think next year) called 300, about the Battle of Thermopylae (official movie website here). It’s based on graphic novels by the same guy who wrote Sin City, and looks quite exciting.

I am VERY excited to see this. I saw the teaser trailer a few weeks ago and it was AWESOME. I have the Sin City books thanks to a friend who gifted me the series. Gates of Fire by Stephen Pressfield is a great historical fiction book on the Spartan struggle at Thermopylae. Most NCOs and Officers in the US Military have read this at some point it time (if not required reading among certain units). Books on the history of the Peloppensian war are an interesting study, too.

In regards to the American Civil war,Abraham Lincoln, with minor military exprience (Illinois militia), felt he didn’t know enough about wars when the civil war broke out. He inhaled books on military strategy and war, educating himself better than even some of his generals. For mutineers, there is a civil war link to the Sepoy/Sepia mutiny. The second most popular battle weapon during the American Civil war was the P53-Enfield. The same one that caused uproar in the subcontient for the animal fat grease on cartridges.

I personally don’t entirely agree with; amongst other things, I’m not a believer in passive-aggressive tactics, not to the extent Gandhi was anyway.

I believe in the strategy, but not necessarily its blanket application to all spheres of conflict. It was the right moment and place for such tactics. I don’t think the likes of Hitler or Stalin gave two hoots about such things and ultimately such strategy against them wouldn’t have worked (from a non-violence standpoint).

Very true.

Jai, just as many of Guru Gobind Singh’s adversaries never came around to appreciating what an amazing, humane leader he was,

Agreed, but many did, including the “Commander-in-Chief” Aurangzeb, albeit during the twilight of his life after decades of strife and bloodshed. I’m sure you also know the records of Mughal generals switching sides in the middle of battles upon finally coming face-to-face with the Guru, along with Mughal historians who acknowledged that he was a “living saint” even though technically they were on the “wrong” side.

Much of it was to do with Guru Gobind Singh’s impeccably ethical and humane conduct both on the battlefield and off it. Basically, his actions spoke for themselves, and not only proved the legitimacy of his own saintliness and moral authority, but indirectly undermined the claims of those who were arrayed against him. This is especially relevant when you remember that his opponents claimed a) that God was only on “their side” due to them belonging to the “true faith”, and b) that they therefore claimed divine sanction for their actions.

Given the modern-day parallels regarding OBL’s jihad, one can see the relevance of all this today too. Similarly…..

I think many of the adversaries in the “War on Terror” today would not come around either, even if Guru Gobind Singh’s approach (as described so well by you) were applied. That doesn’t mean that one shouldn’t stick to the highest ethical standards of course…

Yes I agree that many of the modern-day adversaries wouldn’t necessarily come around (and we know Guru Nanak’s recommendation “Do not argue with fools” — sometimes relevant here on SM too !), but that doesn’t mean one shouldn’t “try anyway”. Some of the opponents will gain sufficient clarity, some obviously won’t, but you give it your best shot and keep trying, whilst of course doing what is necessary (within limits) to defend yourself and other third-parties who may be under attack. Plus the second paragraph above is also extremely relevant.

Moreover, if the Western and international forces currently working against Al-Qaeda and its supporters used this approach, we would also not have problems such as huge collateral damage, Guantanamo, extraordinary rendition, Abu-Ghraib, the controversy surrounding the (non)-existence of WMDs, along with a whole bunch of other issues which undermine the West’s moral authority — indeed moral advantage — in this struggle from a global perspective, and a) unwittingly give further ammunition to the extremists’ claims, and b) alienate neutral/moderate Muslims everywhere.

Yes you’re absolutely right about Gandhi. The great man’s approach wouldn’t necessarily have worked against the Mughals or Al-Qaeda, though. But it was the most effective strategy given the circumstances, albeit one which — with all due respect — I personally don’t entirely agree with; amongst other things, I’m not a believer in passive-aggressive tactics, not to the extent Gandhi was anyway. However, Guru Tegh Bahadur’s sacrifice of his own life for the sake of the Kashmiri Brahmins could possibly be construed as a passive-aggressive maneouvre to some degree. Nevertheless, there is frequently more than one effective solution to a problem, and Gandhi ji’s approach was definitely one of the “right” answers.

Wikipedia to the rescue again, it has a summary of 33 Strategies of War.

Thank you so much for this — I had no idea all this was on Wikipedia too ! Quite a lot of fascinating reading material for me to plough through.

Wikipedia also has a huge amount of information on the American Civil War; I downloaded about 100 pages worth of info into a Word document a few months ago and I still have to read through most of it. It’s quite heavy-going in places, but extremely interesting nevertheless. I’d really like to see a film called Gettysburg too; over 4 hours long but apparently very good. Also stars Martin Sheen (amongst others), who I’m a bit of a fan of these days.

There’s a film coming out (I think next year) called 300, about the Battle of Thermopylae (official movie website here). It’s based on graphic novels by the same guy who wrote Sin City, and looks quite exciting. A book called Persian Fire about the Greek-Spartan conflicts (including the aforementioned battle) also looks very interesting; it’s also very “readable”, quite sardonic in places. I’ve flicked through it but haven’t bought it yet. One more to add to my ever-increasing shopping list, I guess

By the way, a quick addendum to my previous thoughts about Sun Tzu: There were some aspects of his mindset I obviously disagree with, but I don’t think he was necessarily completely ruthless. For example, he advocated against killing enemies who were retreating, or (quoting/paraphrasing) “completely destroying your adversary — simply defeat should be sufficient”; I guess it was due to the dangers of becoming sadistic in such matters, along with being motivated by revenge, anger, etc. Which, interestingly, was also what Guru Gobind Singh taught.

PS. You don’t have to call me Jai Singh — just “Jai” is fine. The full username is only for people I don’t have an extensive (positive) commenting history with or SM participants I don’t like very much

If someone thinks that some of these books are strategy out of a can, well, you’ve missed the boat. There is no recipe, only examples that build into our understanding of a pretty complex world.

Jai, just as many of Guru Gobind Singh’s adversaries never came around to appreciating what an amazing, humane leader he was, I think many of the adversaries in the “War on Terror” today would not come around either, even if Guru Gobind Singh’s approach (as described so well by you) were applied. That doesn’t mean that one shouldn’t stick to the highest ethical standards of course…

Of course they did. Not liking Gandhi has nothing to do with whether they recognized him as THE leader of an independece movement. Gandhi’s physical appearance and mannerisms played the passive part to his inner stregth and aggressive non-violence and social campaigns. It doesn’t mean it was an act. Geniuinely beleiving and having passion for good strategy is imperitave. Ulitmately, if you’re not for real, you’ll be exposed as a fake sooner or later. He lead from the front.