Board Thread:Lore Discussion/@comment-97.81.240.58-20130603234626/@comment-24261859-20140404064656

Smoking.Chimp wrote: "All warfare is based on deception." (Sun Tzu, Art of War, 1:18) - as are all politics! :^)

But, more to the point, Sun Tzu characterises a good general as one who is able to negotiate a victory without shedding blood. An example I've heard of which might fit this requirement is that of Frederick II when he took Jerusalem. Planning, preparation and victory through negotiation; all classic Art of War if what I've heard about it is accurate. However, getting into the side of war, where things go badly and blood must be drawn, even the strategy and tactics are a matter of political savvy as you must alter your enemy's perception of reality (just as politicians and lawyers try to do to their adversaries). The key, in warfare, is to deceive your enemy as to where your troops are, what their morale is and what formation you are using to counter your enemies moves.

It works the same way in Chess. If you know the openings, you can quite reliably squeeze just about any non-tournament player into defeat with straighforward jurisprudence of the game. But if you wish to defeat any of the regular tournament players, you must know the openings well enough to be able to use the appearance of one opening to disguise another or convince your opponent you have made a mistake when using a non-jurisprudent response to set up a fork, pin, discovery or other position/tesuji which offers you a decisive advantage. This is, very much, about developing a tactical or strategic advantage by manipulating perception - which is political rather than technical. I am aware that Sun Tzu writes that it is preferable to win without fighting through cunning diplomacy, deception, and so forth, but the political savvy you describe being used in battle (manipulating what your enemy knows) does not seem like quite the same thing (to me) as drawing the terms of a treaty. I don't deny that Sun Tzu stresses the need for both, but military diplomacy and civil diplomacy aren't exactly the same thing. It is quite possible that Titus Mede II failed on both accounts, as he did not have sufficient intelligence to understand that the Thalmor were not necessarily negotiating from a positon of strength, but his skill on a purely tactical level is evident, even if we cannot say that he is a skillful military leader in general.

Alternatively, we may attribute his success not to his own competence, but to the incompetence of the Thalmor. One of Sun Tzu's most repeated points is that "the lowest [form of warfare] is to attack a city. Siege of a city is done only as a last resort." Instead, the Altmeri armies clearly did not consider this as they laid siege to the Imperial City and took staggering losses. Nor did they realize that pressing a desparate enemy will cause them to fight all the more viciously, possibly taking you by surprise, a principle also stated in The Art of War, observed in Titus Mede II's stunning victory against their armies in the Imperial City.

It is likely that the Thalmor realized their mistakes, as they corrected them after the Concordat had been signed. "The next best [to "striking while schemes are being laid"] is to attack alliances," as Sun Tzu writes before his criticism of an extended siege. The Thalmor obviously accomplished this goal, or we wouldn't be having this discussion. ;)