This essay compares two foundational texts of military philosophy — Sun-Tzu's The Art of War and Carl von Clausewitz's On War — through the lens of naval warfare. Neither philosopher wrote explicitly about war at sea, yet both offer principles that can be applied to maritime conflict. The paper examines how each thinker's historical context shaped the applicability of his ideas, uses the Spanish Armada as a historical case study, and evaluates the relative merits of each work for modern naval strategy. The analysis concludes that Clausewitz, writing in a more recent era and demonstrating awareness of naval engagements, provides the more applicable framework for understanding war at sea.
This paper introduces, discusses, and analyzes two foundational texts of military philosophy: The Art of War by Sun-Tzu and On War by Carl von Clausewitz. Specifically, it examines how each author might have viewed and approached war at sea. These two philosophers wrote about war at very different points in history, and yet neither explicitly addressed naval warfare. Sun-Tzu may not have even considered the possibility of war at sea, while Clausewitz may have simply regarded it as outside the scope of his work. Nevertheless, war at sea has been a vital consideration in warfare for centuries and remains so today. Which philosopher best addresses the technologies and tactics applicable to naval warfare? That is the central question this paper sets out to answer.
Each of these two philosophers is capable of describing and supporting an understanding of war at sea, as well as war on land. Throughout On War, Clausewitz frequently uses the sea as a metaphor. For example, he writes early in the book: "Further every war is rich in individual phenomena. It is in consequence an unexplored sea, full of rocks which the mind of the general may sense but which he has never seen with his eyes and round which he now must steer in dark night" (Clausewitz 54). Because Clausewitz was clearly aware of sea battle and used the sea as a recurring metaphor, it is all the more striking that he did not incorporate battles at sea into his comprehensive military strategy. He was certainly capable of addressing the subject, as the depth and breadth of his text demonstrate that he was a master strategist.
By contrast, Sun-Tzu appears less equipped to address war at sea, largely because his work predates Clausewitz's by roughly two thousand years. The Chinese general may have been less inclined to consider naval conflict at all — and indeed, his book does not use the word "sea" except as a description of land boundaries. Even so, his remarkable work is filled with vivid descriptions of warfare and the art of outmaneuvering a cunning opponent. Both texts are still used for military strategy today, and both are eloquent and carefully reasoned treatments of the art of warfare. Either author could have written meaningfully about war at sea, given the knowledge and sharp intellect that made them exceptional thinkers about conflict in any domain.
While it is certainly a matter of conjecture, Queen Elizabeth I would likely have found Clausewitz the more useful guide when making her momentous decision about how to face the Spanish Armada. Clausewitz was more familiar with the tactics of naval warfare, even if he did not apply them directly in his book, and Sir Francis Drake's response to the Armada was genuinely revolutionary. Drake's ships were smaller, lighter, and far more maneuverable, and he and his men simply out-sailed and out-fought the heavier Armada vessels. Drake knew his enemy: the Spanish typically advanced in a crescent formation, concentrating their firepower to the front. Drake attacked from the rear and front simultaneously, and the heavy Spanish galleons could not counter his faster, more agile ships. In this way, Drake applied the very principles Clausewitz would later articulate — surprise, advantage, and attack from multiple sides — to devastating effect.
Sun-Tzu's work, by comparison, relies on broad philosophical formulations, such as: "Warfare is the greatest affair of state, the basis of life and death, the Way to survival or extinction. It must be thoroughly pondered and analyzed" (Sun-Tzu 128). His ideals are grand, but because he lived in an earlier era, some of his methods were simply less effective in practice — and he did not envision sea engagements at all, which limits his utility, even in the context of 1588. Battles were being fought at sea by that time, and it was innovation and technology, even then, that would determine the outcome. This is precisely why Elizabeth relied on Drake as admiral of her navy. He was a bold innovator who had circumnavigated the globe and served as a privateer for England. Having attacked Spanish ships firsthand, he understood how they operated and devised a novel approach to fighting them in the English Channel that wore them down and sent the Armada home in tatters. Elizabeth would naturally have favored those who were modern and forward-thinking in their approach to warfare — qualities more readily found in Clausewitz than in Sun-Tzu.
"Shared principles compared; Sun-Tzu's gaps emerge"
"Clausewitz favored for modern naval strategy"
Clausewitz, Karl von. On War. Trans. O. J. Matthijs Jolles. Washington, DC: Infantry Journal Press, 1950.
Sun-Tzu. The Art of War. Trans. Ralph D. Sawyer. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1994.
You’re 54% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.