NOT AS "MODERN" AS SUN TZU - Rated 
Today, when you mention The Art of War, people refer immediately to the book by Sun Tzu. However, the only works published for the general public during Macchiavelli's life are the Decennale Primo, the Mandragola, and this one. The work being review was published in Florence by Macchiavelli in august 1521 and it had an immediate success and many reprints.
Having completed already The Prince and the Discorsi, and not foreseeing any possibility of returning to public service, Macchiavelli decided to write a book about warfare, in part as a result of his meetings and conversations with a group of young alumni and friends at the Orti Oricellari. Some of these were involved, in 1522, in a conspiracy to kill Cardinal Giulio de'Medici,Master of Florence.
The Art of War is not a textbook, but rather a humanistic treatise on the subject, written under the form of dialogues, divided in seven books. The interlocutors are Fabrizio Colonna, Cosimo Ruccellai and the young men Buondelmonti, della Palla and Alamanni. The first book deals with recruitment, the second with the weapons of infantry and cavalry, the relationship between this corps and military exercises. Colonna and Ruccellai are the protagonists of the dialogues here, while in the III book the role of interlocutor to Colonnais vested upon the younger Alamanni. Alamanni inquires about the role of the artillery and is substance Macchiavelli's judgement (through Colonna's words) is negative. In the IV book Buondelmonti inquires about the importance of military formations and other possible combat formations (different from the traditional roman and others).
The final three books deal with logistics, accommodations, military discipline, fortifications, sieges and defensive tactics.
The language of this opus is the most polished and conventional, opposed to the one in other works by the author. Modern critics, in spite of the original success of the book, have pointed out the wrong perception that Macchiavelli had about the growing importance of artillery and the role of military reforms that were enacted in France at the time. He also wrongly criticized, as a whole, the professional army alongside the mercenaries and Compagnie di Ventura. The admiration of M. regarding roman legions and classic institutions is also questionable, in view of the evolution of warfare at the time. So why was this book so popular, until the anti-M. revisionism took a clearer look at reality, discarding abstract and moralistic propositions about warfare?
Because the treatise provided a clear and fresh (at the time) view about the intimate connection between military art, politics, war and religion, in a global context.
NOT VERY HELPFUL AS OTHER TEXTS - Rated
Today, when you mention The Art of War, people refer immediately to the book by Sun Tzu. However, the only works published for the general public during Macchiavelli's life are the Decennale Primo, the Mandragola, and this one. The work being review was published in Florence by Macchiavelli in august 1521 and it had an immediate success and many reprints.
Having completed already The Prince and the Discorsi, and not foreseeing any possibility of returning to public service, Macchiavelli decided to write a book about warfare, in part as a result of his meetings and conversations with a group of young alumni and friends at the Orti Oricellari. Some of these were involved, in 1522, in a conspiracy to kill Cardinal Giulio de'Medici,Master of Florence.
The Art of War is not a textbook, but rather a humanistic treatise on the subject, written under the form of dialogues, divided in seven books. The interlocutors are Fabrizio Colonna, Cosimo Ruccellai and the young men Buondelmonti, della Palla and Alamanni. The first book deals with recruitment, the second with the weapons of infantry and cavalry, the relationship between this corps and military exercises. Colonna and Ruccellai are the protagonists of the dialogues here, while in the III book the role of interlocutor to Colonnais vested upon the younger Alamanni. Alamanni inquires about the role of the artillery and is substance Macchiavelli's judgement (through Colonna's words) is negative. In the IV book Buondelmonti inquires about the importance of military formations and other possible combat formations (different from the traditional roman and others).
The final three books deal with logistics, accommodations, military discipline, fortifications, sieges and defensive tactics.
The language of this opus is the most polished and conventional, opposed to the one in other works by the author. Modern critics, in spite of the original success of the book, have pointed out the wrong perception that Macchiavelli had about the growing importance of artillery and the role of military reforms that were enacted in France at the time. He also wrongly criticized, as a whole, the professional army alongside the mercenaries and Compagnie di Ventura. The admiration of M. regarding roman legions and classic institutions is also questionable, in view of the evolution of warfare at the time. So why was this book so popular, until the anti-M. revisionism took a clearer look at reality, discarding abstract and moralistic propositions about warfare?
Because the treatise provided a clear and fresh (at the time) view about the intimate connection between military art, politics, war and religion, in a global context.
|
