Great thinkers and weaponry

We're trained to a degree to think of earlier thinkers as specialists in
the useless and ethereal -- "values," "morality," "beauty": "The Good," as
one line of scholars has it.

So it's worthwhile to note that these dudes also, often, understood
weaponry.  Leonardo da Vinci's famous job application letter
<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.bu=
sinessinsider.com%2Fleonardo-da-vinci-cover-letter-from-1400s-2014-6&amp;da=
ta=3D02%7C01%7CCLASSICS-L%40lsv.uky.edu%7Ce8e902f19fe847dc6fe808d77109d616%=
7C2b30530b69b64457b818481cb53d42ae%7C0%7C0%7C637102159371864691&amp;sdata=
=3DE3z%2BfnvWAvbQHcN4XRFFZpXlpoK8%2FqiZVNGXj%2FKsn%2BU%3D&amp;reserved=3D0'=
>
to Ludovico Sforza in Milan omitted *La Gioconda* and hit on the items of
more value to Ludovico:

 I have also types of cannon, most convenient and easily portable, with
which to hurl small stones almost like a hail-storm; and the smoke from the
cannon will instil a great fear in the enemy on account of the grave damage
and confusion.
Also, I have means of arriving at a designated spot through mines and
secret winding passages constructed completely without noise, even if it
should be necessary to pass underneath moats or any river.
Also, I will make covered vehicles, safe and unassailable, which will
penetrate the enemy and their artillery, and there is no host of armed men
so great that they would not break through it. And behind these the
infantry will be able to follow, quite uninjured and unimpeded.... etc. etc=
.

It does seem worthwhile to scope out an employer's interests in advance.

That occurred to me when I notice this in Aristotle's *Politics *(1330-31,
abridged, from the Perseus
<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.per=
seus.tufts.edu%2Fhopper%2Ftext%3Fdoc%3DPerseus%253atext%253a1999.01.0057&am=
p;data=3D02%7C01%7CCLASSICS-L%40lsv.uky.edu%7Ce8e902f19fe847dc6fe808d77109d=
616%7C2b30530b69b64457b818481cb53d42ae%7C0%7C1%7C637102159371864691&amp;sda=
ta=3D%2FAIrOxNnRDK10pdHtld2Om70bJ5uaSMTBcwMyoiB9JY%3D&amp;reserved=3D0>
site):

Against an evenly matched foe it is not honorable [really, "not Good," as
above: =CE=BF=CF=85 =CE=BA=CE=B1=CE=BB=CF=8C=CE=BD] to try to secure onesel=
f by the strength of one's
fortifications; but as it does and may happen that the superior numbers of
the attackers may be too much for the human valor of a small force, if the
city is to survive and not to suffer disaster or insult [=CF=80=CE=AC=CF=83=
=CF=87=CE=B5=CE=B9=CE=BD =CE=BA=CE=B1=CE=BA=E1=BF=B6=CF=82 =CE=BC=CE=B7=CE=
=B4=E1=BD=B2
=E1=BD=91=CE=B2=CF=81=CE=AF=CE=B6=CE=B5=CF=83=CE=B8=CE=B1=CE=B9], the secur=
est fortification of walls must be deemed to be the
most warlike,  particularly in view of the* inventions that have now been *
*made in the direction of precision with missiles and artillery for sieges*=
.


In both cases, the "thinkers" have thought about how to win and /or
survive.  There must be others.  Values are one thing, staying alive is
another.

There is a tendency in classical scholarship (e.g. Thucydides) to translate
"good" as "honorable."  This leads, occasionally, to disasters.

Dan