|
To be honest for the western world most of that wisdom is holed up in old Greek and Roman histories. Most of the more strategically brilliant minds I know tended to be reading, among the standards already mentioned, military histories rather than specific strategy/tactics books. So, Tacitus, Xenophon, Thucydides, etc. Another one I really like and think is underrated (because it does have many flaws) is the Hagakure. I could go on. For example, when thinking about the changing landscape of warfare and politics in a nuclear age, I think you can't find a better book than "The Shield of Achilles" by Phillip Bobbit (if you do let me know). With the latest shift in the military strategy space I suspect lots of Mahan and Corbett are being read right now. It is a mistake to too heavily rely on any of these though. What I have learned over time is that one does not want to look for a "how to" book by a strategic master, or on any subject so esoteric, but rather to glean tidbits of information that over time open up into novel insights, sometimes only after multiple readings. On the particular subject of Machiavelli, I think the biggest mistake is to focus on the man himself, instead of the greater power struggles of his day. For example the War of the League of Cambrai is one of the most interesting things in the history of Europe to me, and it's almost never talked about or taught. “Judging by what I have seen and read that it is not impossible to bring [the military] back to ancient modes and give it some form of past virtue, I decided, so as not to pass these my idle times without doing anything, to write what I understand about the art of war for the satisfaction of those who are lovers of ancient actions” - Machiavelli |