My name is Luiz Claudio Fonseca de Oliveira. I'm a Brazilian data analyst and amateur writer. In a few days, the English, French, and Portuguese versions of my first work, which was originally written in Spanish, will be published on Amazon (it's currently available for pre-order). It is a work of speculative fiction titled "The Farsi Manuscript", and it explores a "what-if" scenario centered on Napoleon Bonaparte and the Russian Campaign of 1812.
To get straight to the point, here is the resume:
“In the waning days of 1810, Tsar Alexander I signed an Imperial Decree modifying a key Customs Edict: in the fine print, the document effectively removed Russia from the Continental System promoted by Napoleon as part of his policy to block trade with British goods. This was the perfect excuse the French emperor needed for retaliation, as he had been preparing for months to invade the only nation that still had an army capable of opposing France. Leading the largest multinational military force seen up to that time, he crossed the Russian border on June 24, 1812, only to discover that he had been deceived. With an enemy army in retreat, a deeper and deeper advance into hostile territory, and his troops sick and demoralized, the Emperor became a bitter and anguished shadow. The final straw was the delivery of his private correspondence, sending him from anger to depression in an instant. However, among the documents received was an old manuscript accompanied by a letter attributed to Niccolò Machiavelli, referring to a Tuscan translation of a military treatise written by an unknown author, someone named Sun Tzu.”
First of all, a question: is this a topic for the "Books of Interest" or "General Discussion" thread? The rational approach would perhaps dictate the former, for obvious reasons. However, given the very nature of the situation (an alternate history is more than a "story," in my view), I have decided that a debate in and of itself would be more fruitful. It is from this perspective that I ask: Would Sun Tzu's work have any impact on the military mentality of the early 19th century (particularly Napoleon's) when it was barely considered after the Vietnam War?
I understand that alternate history can be a sensitive topic for historians, but as an respected scholar tell me a couple of days ago, "many professional historians also appreciate a well-told history".
I don't know if this is the case with mine, but I'll leave that criticism to the members.
Dear Mr. David Hollins,
In my research for this story, I found the work done by Father Amiot (https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k298488s). Therefore, it is absolutely correct that a version of Tzu's text existed during the aforementioned period (it was published in 1772). It is also easy to find the interesting text published by Adam Parr, "The Mandate of Heaven: Strategy, Revolution, and the First European Translation of Sun Tzu's Art of War (1772)".
The Corsican's mastery of strategy and tactics is undeniable, and he did adopt some of Sun Tzu's "forms" in his campaigns. I don't know if there are any military specialists in this forum; I assume so, so you might understand that it is perhaps an intuitive learning process, a coincidence, or simply a natural process of how things happen in the military field. I don't know.
That being the case, it may not matter how I've introduced this information into the story. The important thing (as far as I understand it, and if you'll allow me to argue) is this: how Napoleon could have been confronted before the disaster, and what I imagine might have happened afterward. The latter is not entirely new, since the event I'm writing about must probably be one of the most hackneyed in the field of uchronic science fiction stories. In any case, it was imperative for me to do it.