Topic: the art of war
After the Five Fundamental Factors have been assessed, you will be able to make comparisons based upon the Seven Elements.
They are:
1. Which Ruler posseses Moral Influence.
2. Which Commander is more able.
3. Which Army obtaines the advantage of Nature and Terrain
4. Which organization better carries out it's Regulations and Instructions.
5. Which Troops are stronger.
6. Which has the better trained Officers and Men.
7. Which administers rewards and punishments in a more enlightened manner.
Which Ruler posseses Moral Influence. This is basically who is right. It is difficult to compare this now. When everybody was a glorified Warlord who only fought for honor, land, and/or money, this comparison was easy. Honor was the weakest since it is possible to lose with honor. Money was next since it could be stolen and the fight avoided. The most powerful was land. When you needed land, there were two options: Starve or kill the people useing the land. The People attacking were already starving and the People defending were looking at the future murderers of their familys so you knew the fight was going to be nasty. In the current world the fights are basically attrition. Diplomats have a discussion, the discussion breaks down, things get violent, and then the military goes in. The first guy to realize fighting was a bad idea asks to talk to a diplomat. People fighting for power or money always reach a point where the fight becomes too expensive and they switch to easier targets. The hungry have nowhere to go so they stay and fight to the bitter end. Irregardless of what dumb ass reason our politicians use to send our troops into battle, They are fighting for world peace, America, and the safety of their families.
Which Commander is more able. This is a lot easier to compare. More Knowledge, more wins, and experience are big indicators. However the actual comparison is upon whether the commander sets goals which are achievable and how fast the commander can change those goals when confronted by surprises. Some Commanders memorize a series of rules. Even if they memorize a large number of rules, the time will come when the rules run out or the enemy gets creative. Once the Enemy spots a weakness, he needs to be wiped out or every military excursion will hit that target or use that tactic first. An Able Commander will use creativity to cover that weakness and make it a strength. The less Able Commander will be defeated or survive through luck.
Which Army obtaines the advantage of Nature and Terrain. This is a nebulous comparison. It would be better to state the concept as which army attains terrain which they can take advantage of while being able to avoid terrain for which they don't have any advantage. As such, this comparison is an assumption based upon knowledge of training and up to date information. It is the main reason that scouts exist and why they are so important.
Which organization better carries out it's Regulations and Instructions. This has a lot to do with paperwork. Are the weapons at ready, are the units supplied, and do things get lost? These are some of the questions pertaining to this comparison. Will the troops turn traitor or run away and is there a lot of theft? Is the Army, in fact, a unit or a group of units which happen to agree with each other today? It is simply that the regulations and instructions of a unit are carried out because they are a unit. Any break down in the regulations or instructions is significant of where the divisions of a unit exist. Much like every crystal will fracture along a fault, this division will tell a Commander where the unit can be divided.
Which Troops are stronger. This involves individual training. The Boot camp and any training that comes after. Do you have a group of individuals who can do anything or a group of specialists which will fall apart if one person is missing? Food, Medicine, and Basic Survival skills are big.
Which has the better trained Officers and Men. This has to do with group training. How the people make up a unit and their trust in the chain of command. Do the Men stay together or make a run for it? Is it one for all and all for one, or every man for himself. This comparison is of the self control taught to the men and the officers abillity to aim the troops to achieve a goal. Do these troops trust each other? Will they do whatever is necessary, and whatever is asked of them?
Which administers rewards and punishments in a more enlightened manner. This has to do with trust and morality. Specifically the trust in morality and the trust that others are just as moral and can recognize that. The fact of punishment is that rehabilitation comes from the trust that the punishment was deserved. Otherwise you would just kill that guy since he will never learn. This trust is gained by using the rewards and punishments in such a way that the Troops know exactly why they were received and what must be done to avoid or attain either one.
This has been, vaguely, about large military groups. Within the scope of personal combat, there is much less to worry about. The questions are also simpler.
1. Which Ruler posseses Moral Influence. - Who is in the right, if in fact anybody is right?
2. Which Commander is more able. - Who is smarter?
3. Which Army obtaines the advantage of Nature and Terrain. - Can you use your environment, or are you in a bad place?
4. Which organization better carries out it's Regulations and Instructions. - Do you have combat options or are you a one hit wonder hoping to get lucky? Who has more training?
5. Which Troops are stronger. - Who is stronger?
6. Which has the better trained Officers and Men. - Who has better technique?
7. Which administers rewards and punishments in a more enlightened manner. - Who is telling the truth to themselves about any and all of the above.