In mutual comparison, both Clausewitz and Sun Tzu have been critiqued for their individual notions of genius and of promises of victory, respectively. Yet both critiques are beside the point, as they misunderstand both Clausewitz's intellectual environment and the cultural milieu of ancient China in which Sun Tzu wrote. This article first provides an overview of Clausewitz's idea of genius, particularly within the context of Enlightenment theories of war, before discussing the traditional supernatural conception of genius in ancient China, into which Sun Tzu's work fits. The two concepts are then compared step-by-step through the process of strategic performance. Ostensibly representative of the Western and Eastern strategic traditions, Carl von Clausewitz and Sun Tzu are often compared as the preeminent authors on war and strategy. Of the two, Clausewitz has enabled a much larger modern cottage industry of commentary in strategic studies, whereas in the West, Sun Tzu has been adopted most prominently by business strategists seeking to mine ancient wisdom for commercial success. Each is praised widely for his work, but each is also criticized, sometimes unfairly. This article will focus on two criticisms, one each concerning Clausewitz and Sun Tzu. In the context of comparisons with Sun Tzu, Clausewitz has been criticized for his much-discussed notion of genius. Derek Yuen has suggested that Sun Tzu's use of contradictory pairs (e.g., friend-ally, weak-strong, etc.) provides a method of analysis in war which "contrasts greatly with Clausewitz's coup d'oeil (or intuition) of the military genius, or his concept of genius as a whole," which Yuen considers a "super-concept" that "has largely remained an intellectual black box throughout [Clausewitz's] work." 1 Yet this comparison is beside the point and misunderstands the full role of genius in Clausewitz's understanding of war. Sun Tzu, on the other hand, has commonly been criticized for providing a "cookbook" of strategic tips, a how-to guide not just for winning in war but for winning easily and with style. If his prescriptions are followed, Sun Tzu guarantees victory. "If a general follows my [methods for] estimation and you employ him, he will certainly be victorious and should be retained. If a general does not follow my [methods for] estimation and you employ him, he will certainly be defeated, so dismiss him." 2 That is, Sun Tzu effectively teaches genius and imparts it to the reader. This leads to the inevitable "gotcha!" moment, when critics inquire what happens when two Sun Tzu-educated strategists confront one another. Sun Tzu cannot guarantee victory to both. This criticism and question, like that concerning Clausewitz, is also beside the point. Sun Tzu's writing evolved and his strategic text existed in a roughly 550-500 BC Chinese cultural climate sufficiently dissimilar to our own that the criticism and question actually make no sense.