¶ … Art of War" by Sun-Tzu, and "On War" by Karl von Clausewitz. Specifically it will discuss how the two authors might have viewed and dissected war at sea. These two philosophers wrote of war at very different times in history, and yet neither of them wrote of warfare at sea. One, Sun-Tzu might not have even considered the possibility of war at sea, while the other may have simply dismissed it as not applicable to his book. However, war at sea is a vital consideration in warfare today, and has been for centuries. Which philosopher best deals with technologies and tactics applicable to war at sea? That remains to be seen. Each of these two philosophers is certainly adequate to describe and support war at sea as well as war on land. In fact, throughout his book, author Clausewitz often uses the sea as a metaphor of description. 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 is aware of sea battle and uses the sea as a metaphor throughout his book, it is even more perplexing that he did not include battles at sea as part of his comprehensive military strategy. He was certainly up to the challenge, as the long text proves he was a master strategist at the art of war.

In contrast, it would seem that Sun-Tzu was less capable of describing war at sea, because his work is 2,000 years older than Clausewitz', and the Chinese general might have been less inclined to even consider the possibility of war at sea, and indeed, his book does not even use the term "sea" other than a description of land boundaries. However, his remarkable work is filled with vivid descriptions of warfare and outmaneuvering a wily opponent. His book is still used for military strategy today, as is Clausewitz', and so, they are both...

Either one could have written more than adequately about war at sea, because they both have the knowledge and sharp intellect that makes good leaders in both wartime and peacetime.
While it is certainly conjecture, it would seem that Queen Elizabeth I would probably feel more comfortable dealing with Clausewitz when making her momentous decision about facing the Spanish Armada. Why? Because Clausewitz was more familiar with the tactics of naval warfare, even if he did not use them in his book, and Drake's reaction to the Armada was revolutionary. His ships were smaller, lighter, and more maneuverable, and he and his men simply out sailed and out fought the heavier Armada ships. Drake knew his enemy, and knew they usually advanced in a crescent formation, concentrating their firepower to the front. Drake attacked from the rear and front, and the heavy Spanish galleons simply could not counteract Drake's lighter, faster ships. Drake knew his enemy and their tactics, and utilized Clausewitz' advice on surprise, advantage, and attack to perfection. In addition, Sun-Tzu's work relies on philosophical engagements, 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 thoughts and ideals might have been grander than those of Clausewitz, but because he lived in an earlier time, some of his methods were simply not as effective, and he did not see the possibility of sea exchanges at all, which limits his effectiveness and his viability, even in 1588. Battles were being fought at sea, and it was innovation and technology -- even then -- that would triumph. This is one reason Elizabeth relied on Drake as the admiral of her navy. He was a gutsy innovator who sailed around the world and then acted as a privateer for England. He was a wise leader, but more than that, after attacking Spanish ships, he knew how…