提　　要 一、《戰爭論》與《孫子兵法》籚均貴為兵學經典之作籚影響後世深遠籚此兩本鉅 著在性質上雖屬講述戰爭原則與運用籚但《孫子兵法》著墨於國家戰略的部分 較多籚而《戰爭論》則著墨於軍事戰略之略、術、鬥較為仔細。 二、《戰爭論》和《孫子兵法》兩本鉅著所研究的內容均為戰爭。二者共同鯔籜在 哲學層次的共同基礎為「二元論」、對戰略問題的分析架構並無太多差異立不 同鯔籜《戰爭論》內容極端重視戰爭和政治之間的互動關係籚認為「勇敢」是軍 人的首項要求籚同時強調情報研判工作是屬於作戰層面的問題籚《孫子兵法》 則很少論「政」籚並將「智」列為第一位籚且非常重視情報籚故其整個思想體 系以情報為基礎。 三、《孫子兵法》的最大優點為言簡意賅籚《戰爭論》的最大弱點則為繁複隱晦。 因此籚要想比較他們的著作並非易事籚必須精確的分析籚及深入的思蹜籚始能 明瞭其間之異同與得失。

Abstract “On War”and“The Art of War”are classics of military studies, have a great impact on future generations. The two great works in the nature are about the principles and the uses of war, but “The Art of War”talks a lot about the national strategy, and“On War” talks about the military strategy more detailed. The contents of two great works are to study the war. The similarities of two works are “Dualism”of the philosophy and analytical frameworks on strategic are not much difference, the differences are“On War”put more emphasis on the interaction of war and politics,“Brave”is the first requirement of military and intelligence judgments is part of the dimension of war, however,“The Art of War”put more emphasis on the“Intelligence” and“Wisdom”is the most important, therefore, the intelligence is the base of all ideology. It is not easy to compare the two works, since the greatest advantage of“The Art of War” is concise, and the greatest weakness of“On War”is complex and obscure. Therefore, to understand the differences between the two works, we must use the sophisticated analysis and more in-depth reflection.