The Art of War: The Liveblog

Quit Moving the Goalposts.

It fits enough that it's too useful to destroy for all the times it sabotagees you? I don't know, I need caffeine.

Isn't this rather off-topic?

Sorry. I'll be putting up a new post in a couple of hours.

Is it possible to make Sun Tzu into a non-badass?

And we're back to the Sun Tzu is totaly not a badass channel. You folks are in for a treat, today we have a special program about...SUN TZU!!!!!

All right, let's see what else the introduction has to offer us. Lionel sure has a hard-on for talking about whether or not our eponymous (did I spell that right?) hero actually existed, and there is still no conclusion in sight.

And I am now in full "skim over the boring parts" mode.

Nothing good.

Nothing good.

Nothing good.

Timeline who's purpose I don't fully understand.

"How then did the Sun Tzu legend originate?" Looks like Lionel's showing his true colors.

Apparently people think that such an obviously good book should have an author who, you know, actually did something. But the author says this with a question mark.

Now he says any outline of Sun Tzu's life is pure guesswork. Wait, now he's talking about Sun Tzu as if he believes he does exist. Lionel, stop fence sitting!!!!! I would tell you what he says, but he's a historian, so it's boring. Wait, he says the story of the women might possibly be based on a real incident...or not.

Nothing good.

And now it's time to just full on skip over large chunks of text including some history of the book itself that he says probably wasn't tampered with, biographies of the commentators, an entire section dedicated specifically to fanwank of Sun Tzu, and...wait a minute...

"Accustomed as we are to think of China as the greatest peace-loving nation on earth..." What the hell is this? I may have to actually read this section. It's titled Apologies for War. I will go into that on my next post.

I've always thought of Switzerland as the most peace-loving country on earth.

And I'm back

Introduction: Apologies for War.

"Accustomed as we are to think of China as the greatest peace-loving nation on earth, we are in some danger of forgetting that her experience of war in all phases has also been such as no modern State can parallel." I agree in principal with everything after the comma, but I'm still wondering where that "greatest peace-loving nation" crap is coming from. Now China's no North Korea, but they're certianly not Switzerland either. When was this book published? Maybe that'll give me an idea of what's going on here.

Let's see, it was published in 2005. I can't say I was paying any attention to China in 2005, so that doesn't help.

Here, they're going on about the military history of China, the basic gist of which is that she was out building walls and standing armies when Grandfather Rome was still nothing more than a glimmer in the eye of an underage teenager who just got invited to his first kegger and learned about GHB on the same day. And the kid had this strange feeling that he'd only been invited because his dad owned a Mustang. Oh, he'd bring the Mustang all right. He'd bring the Mustang, but he wouldn't let anybody else in it, except for one. That night there would be one lucky girl who would get to ride in his Mustang, and she would be happy and become his girlfriend and someday they'd get married and be happy that she dumped that stupid jock football player who scored a ten on his ACT.

Ok, I think I see where he's getting his peace-loving garbage from. "In spite of all this, the great body of Chinese sentiment, from Lao Tzu downwards, and especially has reflected in the standard literature of Confucianism, has been consistently pacific and intensely opposed to militarism in any form." Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever heard of China invading anybody, except maybe during WWII. I still call bullshit on the "peace-loving" part though. We've all seen the pictures.

Anyway Lionel says the pro-war stance is so rare that he has to put in excerpts from all the guys who actually were for it. The first one is by Ssu-ma Ch'ien.

Ha ha! He's saying that listening to the philosophers and scholars constant whining about "virtue" and "civilization" is just asking for invasion and rebellion. Looks like complaining about the liberals is Older Than They Think.

Next is from Tu Mu. He brings up the "war is punishment" idea. He goes on to compare it to the normal functioning of societies means of punishing criminals and no-goods. "There is no intrinsic difference between the punishment of flogging and cutting off heads in war....In both cases, however, the end in view is to get rid of wicked people, and to give comfort and relief to the good...."

I have to say I agree in principal, but that's always a dangerous line of thought to pursue. It's too easy to justify all sorts of atrocities that way. The ends only justify the means up to a certain point.

Continuing with Tu Mu's writing: "Chi-sun asked Jan Yu, saying: 'Have you, Sir acquired your military aptitude by study, or is it innate?' Jan Yu replied: 'It has been acquired by study.' 'How can that be so,' said Chin-sun, 'seeing that you are a disciple of Confucius?' 'It is a fact,' replied Jan Yu; 'I was taught by Confucius. It is fitting that the great Sage should exercise both civil and military functions, though to be sure my instruction in the art of fighting has not yet gone very far.'"

I don't have much to say about that, but I did think it was very interesting. Normally I would think anything said by Confucius would be more likely to be used by the anti-war faction.

He then talks about the division of military and civil action, and how anybody who talks about war is stereotyped and put down as a brutish person. "This is an extraordinary instance in which, through sheer lack of reasoning, men unhappily lose sight of fundamental principals."

The rest of this section is pretty much just appeals to Confucius, talking about how many people are interpreting his words too narrowly to make it seem as though he thought any militaristic thing was an evil evil scourge upon the earth. (It's not Lionel making the appeals to Confucius, it's the Chinese pro-war faction he's quoting.)

That is the end of the Introduction. I will be able to start into the actual text of The Art of War either later tonight or tomorrow. I hope this has been fun and interesting. Thank you for reading. *bows*

Wait. All of that was just the introduction?

Yeah, you know how they get with introductions for famous texts. It was 41 pages. The text of The Art of War (without commentaries) is only 68 pages long, and that included both the Chinese and English text. I skipped over the first part, which was the book without commentaries, to the Introduction, which is dead in the middle of the book. It's kind of weird.

edited 19th Mar '10 3:01:41 PM by CDRW

I know there were some invasions back...after the first millennium(?) into at least Korea, but other than that, China's usually been the butt of invasions (the Mongols, most famously) or been Chinese people killing each other. I'm not sure how you'd classify inter-kingdom warfare.

• World War II...they...uh, they basically got invaded, then raped. In many cases, literally. So Yeah.
• Tibet's been a problem on and off, I think, and today's problems are probably just the latest round.

As for Confucius, it's been a while, but I don't really remember anything particularly pro- or anti- military, just...very orderly, very dutiful/serve the state kinda deal. Lao Tzu...all I remember is "Go with the flow".

Lionel Giles (1875 - 1958), translated in 1910. I'm guessing yours is a reprint, possibly with a new foreword?

• I just blew the dust off my 1963 translation, by Samuel B Griffith, with foreword by BH Liddell Hart, who seems to have been a contemporary.
  • I'm curious about how the Giles translation will be different; I keep hearing his name pop up in reference to translations.

My guess about the peace-loving thing, is that at the time of the translation, the Chinese were digging themselves out of being bought and sold by foreign powers, and more recently, getting stomped by the Japanese in the first Sino-Japanese war.

• Also, Giles may very well have been a bit of a China Fanboy.

Thanks for the help. I thought I remembered hearing that China attacked Russia at some point during WWII, but that's third-hand at best. Other than that rumor, it was just a guess, since it seems everybody was invading somebody around that time.

The only thing my book says that indicates it's a re-print is "special edition", no original print date, no new forward, no afterward, no nothing. I thought the "special edition" was referring to the fact that they included an introduction by a "special" scholar. Serves me right for assuming. :(

Edit: I should have been on guard though, because I just discovered the same problem with my copy of The Rime of The Ancient Mariner. It doesn't tell the original print date either.

Double Edit: When you hear his name crop up is it in a good or bad context?

edited 19th Mar '10 3:22:43 PM by CDRW

Yeah, you are reading the 1910 translation and commentaries. I guess the perception of China was a little different then.

The Art of War is 13 chapters long, BTW.

Hmm...don't really remember the context, honestly; nothing bad, but no 'OMG this is the best evar'. Probably partly that that he's done a lot of translations; as I recall, he's the guy who did more or less all the translations most people read during the 20th century. Lot of philosophical works; The Art Of War, the Analects, and the Tao Te Ching are the ones I've actually heard of.

And it turns out I'm also mixing up Lionel Giles with Herbert Giles, who did the Wade-Giles Romanization (popular during the 20th century, but now replaced by Pinyin).

• And it turns out Herbert Giles was Lionel Giles father.

Be interesting to see how the English language/translation has changed in fifty years.

No! It can't be true!

^Search your feelings, you know it to be true!

I had a bit of a "DOES NOT COMPUTE!" moment when I saw the words China and peace-loving in the same sentence. Of course, this *is* 1910 we're talking about.

edited 20th Mar '10 4:51:29 AM by Flanker66

What makes them particularly violent now? Tibet?

Being a dictatorship is not exactly conducive to being peace-loving, in my experience.

Don't forget their track record on human rights (ok, it isn't "war" but it's still violence).

You're thinking Red China. Pre-Communist (and Pre-European) China was a lot more peaceful, (as was most of the world.)

That's why I said

Of course, this *is* 1910 we're talking about.

I'm not silly enough to believe China was always Communist. Of course, things went to hell in a handbasket after the Long March (1920's).

It pretty much went down hill from the Opium Wars.

Wow, looks like the Giles family might be into their hobby just a little to much.

I'm working on my next post. It'll probably be short though.

Chapter 1: Laying Plans

So far it's pretty standard introductory material. Sun Tzu says the art of war is of vital importance to the state, it can lead to either good or bad ends, and therefore can't be ignored.

3. The art of war, then, is governed by five constant factors, to be taken into account in one's deliberations, when seeking to determine the conditions obtaining in the field.

"Conditions obtaining in the field" doesn't make much sense to me as its written. I'm inclined to think that's a typo or change in language since 1910. I'm taking it to mean "...when seeking to determine the conditions that need to be fulfilled in order to obtain the field."

''4. These are: (1) The Moral Law; (2) Heaven; (3) Earth; (4) The Commander; (5) Method and discipline.

5,6 The Moral Law causes the people to be in complete accord with their ruler, so that they will follow him regardless of their lives, undismayed by any danger.''

Lionel says Sun Tzu is talking about a principal of harmony like that of the Tao of Lao Tzu. He also says it's different from morale because it's an attribute of the ruler in ss. I confess, I don't really know what he means by that. The commentators talk about constant practice for both the troops and the officers or they'll be nervous when mustering for battle. It sounds a lot like morale to me. It also makes roundabout sense to call it Moral Law though since it is an officer's duty to make sure his troops are fit for battle and he has an obligation to care for them. You could say it is his moral duty to cultivate that harmony that Lionel is talking about, harmony which only comes through shared practice and experience. So is he saying there's more to morale than just keeping your guys calm? I agree with that, but it seems like an awfully convoluted line of thinking to get you to essentially the same results. My brain hurts.

Unfortunately I have to go now. I'll try to make another post today, but it won't be for another four or five hours.

"He also says it's different from morale because it's an attribute of the ruler in ss. I confess, I don't really know what he means by that."

It says "ss. 13" (or at least it should say that). I dunno what ss stands for, but it clearly refers to line 13 of this same chapter. I'm not gonna say what it is so I don't spoil it for you, though.

edited 20th Mar '10 3:38:13 PM by jaimeastorga2000

Hmm, I think "The morale law" might simply mean that a ruler should ensure he is reasonably popular with or at least accepted by the citizenry or at least with the soldiers. Men won't fight for a leader they despise, morale will be low.

I must admit, I never liked the parts where Sun Tzu would enumerate a neat list of 5 or so categories which he claimed covered everything. He does it quite a bit, and it always feels like he is pulling the list out of his ass. Like people who divide personalities into 4 types or something. Ah, well, at least he and the commentators elaborate, which makes the categories good starting points for discussion if not the authoritative end-all it seems it should be.

edited 18th Sep '10 8:50:24 PM by jaimeastorga2000

It does seem a bit obvious some times. To sum up the rules that I can actually take a shot at interpreting...

1) Make sure the people fighting to protect you actually like you enough to not immediately start fighting for the other side!

2) No idea.

3) Also no idea.

4) Make sure your general is not a complete idiot and/or tool.

5) Make sure your troops actually know which way to hold a spear, won't break when the enemy looks at them funny, and aren't wearing black, light-reflecting desert gear in the middle of the arctic circle!

You know, common sense things like that. Though that said, a few historical commanders could possibly do with brushing up on these tips, particularly point four...

edited 20th Mar '10 6:46:01 PM by GameChainsaw