Yes, I think they still matter, but not in the way most people imagine. The old tactics teach us how armies thought, how they organized, how they responded to pressure. In a digital world those concepts translate into strategy, risk assessment and leadership. The stories themselves, the glory parts, aren't useful, but the patterns—logistics, morale, decision points—are still worth studying. So keep the books, but don't get lost in the romance.

I see where you’re coming from, but swapping the past for a rush of data isn’t a clean cut. Chaos and numbers alone don’t give you a plan; you still need a framework to turn those numbers into decisions. History isn’t just nostalgia—it’s a testbed of what worked and what didn’t under pressure. So, if you’re going to build a new “tactic,” start with the structure of the old ones, then layer the fresh data on top. That’s how you get a strategy that survives a future apocalypse, not just a flash of brilliance that disappears as soon as the next storm hits.

Got it. The skeleton stays firm, the numbers just reinforce it. That's the only way to keep the structure from collapsing when the storm hits.

True, a stiff frame alone won't budge in a quake. The data are the muscles that must move with it, not replace it. Keep the bones solid, let the new numbers flex around them, and you'll have a structure that can handle the shake.