Damn, too steep for me lol...

But in response, Tolstoy, my guiding book has always been Nietzsche's back-to-back books on the power of the individual over the masses, "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" and "Beyond Good And Evil."

Really what I get from those for Diplomacy is the idea that you have to be able to be bold and make decisions and try for great gains without fearing a fall--and if you DO, never quit, try and stay in the game...and if you LOSE, learn from it, because you're only a failure at the game if you never try to win or if you get stabbed and allow yourself to be stabbed in such a way twice.

It's sort of that Captain Kirk mentality...

There's an episode (really GOOD one) where, at the end of the episode, Kirk has stolen the Romulan's big threat to the Federation, their cloaking device, and tells Scotty to install that thing double quick as now they have all these Romulan ships on their tail...Scotty just gets the thing installed in time but says there's a great chance it'll malfunction and fry all their circuits.

And Kirk's response?

"Throw the switch."


If you're going to win or do anything well, be it life or Diplomacy or captaining the Starship Enterprise, you have to be able to give that order to "throw the swtich," turn it on, full speed ahead--take the gamble, because otherwise...well, you'll wind up on the short end of a stab...

I think there can be little doubt that the works of the great Eric Carle stand peerless as the most inspirational guides to the hardened Diplomacy player. Who among us, when starting out as a feeble Austria all alone in a hostile world, have not sought wisedom and guidance in the words of The Very Hungry Caterpillar, and marched onwards with renewed strength and vigour to achieve 18th supply centre and float as an emperor butterfly over all Europe?

Of Eric Carle's works, I think "Do You Want to Be My Friend" is more important for Diplomacy than Hungry Caterpillar. But both obviously have a place.

"A Book of Five Rings" by Miyamoto Mushashi

Never forget that in spite of all of the diplomatic fluorishes and fancy negotiating the purpose of Diplomacy is to stab your opponent.

I think that Diplomacy has nothing to do with military strategy. It is about personality and the ability to persuade, and this you cannot learn reading one book.

Although, "Getting to Yes" is a great book to begin with.

CA: there's quite a debate in these forums about whether stabbing really is the ultimate goal or not.

I thought about this for a while, and then realized, with some embarassment, that I learned the basic principles of Diplomacy from Salvor Hardin.

Baskineli +1

For regular Diplomacy, I have to say Machiavelli, because successful Diplomacy play requires the means-to-an-end thinking that makes up Machiavelli's work. Essentially he says be whatever best suits your interest, whether that be a good ally, a ruthless enemy or a kindly ruler.

For Gunboat I say Sun Tzu. In my opinion Clausewitz is the better thinker, but he deals more with the human element of war, which is less present in Gunboat. Sun Tzu on the other hand deals more with actual battlefield strategies, and that's all Gunboat is.

Machiavelli

There are a lot of articles out there for Sun Tzu, but he referred more to the specifics of battle itself -- something Diplomacy deals with in a far more abstract manner. Machiavelli seems the best, in my opinion.

The closest, I think would be Clausewitz, merely because he is very much about linking politics and warfare, which is the major part of his work a Diplomacy player should pick up on.

Jomini is pretty much useless (in general, but in particular for Diplomacy players).

Mahan had some good ideas, but none of them really translate to Diplomacy.

Machiavelli has more to do with governing and its intricacies than 7 party negotiations, but he might be slightly useful.... I caution anybody reading him, however... I think its a common affliction to read more Machiavelli than one can digest (you get a point if you can tell me which historical figure that refers to).

Sun Tzu, same. A few ideas that are interesting, but nothing specific.

tl;dr Bask has it mostly right, Diplomacy is far more about persuasion and discussion than it is about direct warfare.

Sun Tzu for tactics, Clausewitz for negotiation.

For the purpose of beating a dead horse...

I would say that Sun Tzu is the most important read. As Jack_Klein pointed out, the book tends to not have specific application, which is exactly the point. While Sun Tzu is talking about troops marching and keeping supplies in specific numbers, all of the things that he says are as abstract as they are concrete. "Never attack a city" can be literal or it can be taken to mean "Never attack a firmly held belief". When you think through the PRINCIPLES of the work as well as the literal concepts, it becomes much more applicable.

I would cast my vote for Sun Tzu and disagree with those who say that there is no human element in 'the Art of War.' That could not be further from the truth. A few examples:

The aforementioned "don't attack a city" maxim is actually misquoted. What Sun Tzu says is that it is best to attack an enemy's strategy, next his alliances (an extremely human factor), next his army in the field, then his cities when all other options are exhausted. The idea of attacking someones strategy and their alliances is very much a part of the human element of the game - far more than it is related to the strategic factor.

Another example: One of my favorite passages - the five deadly flaws of a general. (1) If reckless, he can be killed. (2) If cowardly, captured. (3) If quick-tempered you can make a fool of him. (4) If he has too delicate a sense of honor you can calumniate (i.e. slander/defame) him. (5) If he is of a compassionate nature you can harass him.

This is not to say that all of Sun Tzu's work can be applied to the human side of Diplomacy. That is untrue. But to say that the human element is not present is likewise a falsehood. I have found it very helpful in my diplomacy career (here and elsewhere).

((Sidenote: who can forget the most apt description of Diplomacy ever penned, brought to us also by Sun Tzu - all warfare is based on deception.))

But the real question, Triumvir, is: was Sun Tzu using a pen?





lol

Triumvir, you obviously understood the reference I was making. I shouldn't have used quotation marks because it was an allusion rather than a quote. Nevertheless, you have brought the deeper meaning which I was struggling to put into words.

As a point of reference, what translation of The Art of War do you rely on?