![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Mapping the Terrain
30 Apr 2004
The Art of War - Sun-tzu, translated with an introduction by Ralph D. Sawyer - Westview Press, 1994
* * / * * *
I am not particularly interested in military strategy and warfare, but this is such a famous book that I thought I would give it a go. Unfortunately, I think I picked the wrong translator.
The Art of War is an astonishing book (probably). It was written in around 500 BC (probably) by a general (probably) who led a victorious campaign by the province of Wu over its neighbours (probably). It consists of advice and analysis of various considerations when planning and waging war, some of which readily translate to western concepts (such as the importance of different types of terrain) and some of which don't (such as the concepts of "vacuity and substance"). It is quite short - the translation is a mere seventy pages, and much of that consists of the full page headings for the thirteen short chapters. This edition does not lack for extras, however - there is a 50 page general introduction, an 80 page introduction and an appendix of additional texts with sayings attributed to Sun-tzu which have been found on bamboo strips in tombs. This is in addition to the extensive notes section and a preface. There is plenty of scholarship here and that is part of the problem.
It is clear that Sawyer knows his stuff, but sadly he is too engrossed in it to make it clear to a reader with no knowledge of the period or culture. He assumes, for example, that you know that Sun-tzu and Sun Wu are the same person - I didn't and that left me very confused when reading the introduction. The general historical background covers 2000 years which is way too long. We only really need to know about the political and military situation in around 500 BC - Sawyer does give this as well, but it is badly explained. For example, the map showing the provinces of Ch'u, Wu and Ygives no context whatsoever so I've no idea how big they were or where in modern China they were situated. Were they mountainous? What were the major cities and roads? How did the politics work - Sawyer mentions kings and tribes, but how did they work together? And what, for goodness sake, is a li? I know it's a unit of measurement, but how big? These are basic things that, say, a Penguin Classics introduction would cover in 30 to 40 pages. Sawyer doesn't manage to do it in 160. To be fair, he does a reasonable job of explaining the more obscure concepts in the work such as hsing (disposition of force) and ch'i (spirit), but even then shih is unhelpfully defined as "strategic configuration of power" (a meaningless set of abstractions) when "tactical advantage" seems to me to capture the basic gist.
With this manifest failure to map the terrain, actually reviewing the Art of War is rather difficult. My general impression is that whilst it offers good general principles, attempting to apply them on the ground in a complex situation would be tricky at best. In fact it reads like one of those management textbooks like "Don't sweat the small stuff" which offer sensible general advice that turns out to be next to impossible to implement in the real world. It's all very well, for example, to say that an army should be "deceptive and formless", ie should appear to be massing for an attack in one place but in fact be preparing for an attack elsewhere, but how do you do this in practise? And what happens if the enemy commander does the same as you?
Having said that, the Art of War is an extraordinary work of analysis and abstract, logical thought. To render a messy, chaotic business such as war down to a clean framework is an astonishing achievement. In the western world, there is nothing that I know of to match until the strategic texts of Julius Caesar. It is not however, a moral work. There is something chilling in the way it approaches the business of war, with its division of spies into "living" and "expendable" and its consideration of when to use an incendiary attack (the WMD of its day). What is missing is the human element, any sign of awareness that it is individual people doing the fighting and dying. Sun-tzu does consider individual psychology but only as a means of ensuring that his army fights better. In fact, the "Art of War" seems to me to be a misnomer. Art implies humanity, and there's little here. "The Analysis of War" would be closer to the mark.
The Art of War - Sun-tzu, translated with an introduction by Ralph D. Sawyer - Westview Press, 1994
* * / * * *
I am not particularly interested in military strategy and warfare, but this is such a famous book that I thought I would give it a go. Unfortunately, I think I picked the wrong translator.
The Art of War is an astonishing book (probably). It was written in around 500 BC (probably) by a general (probably) who led a victorious campaign by the province of Wu over its neighbours (probably). It consists of advice and analysis of various considerations when planning and waging war, some of which readily translate to western concepts (such as the importance of different types of terrain) and some of which don't (such as the concepts of "vacuity and substance"). It is quite short - the translation is a mere seventy pages, and much of that consists of the full page headings for the thirteen short chapters. This edition does not lack for extras, however - there is a 50 page general introduction, an 80 page introduction and an appendix of additional texts with sayings attributed to Sun-tzu which have been found on bamboo strips in tombs. This is in addition to the extensive notes section and a preface. There is plenty of scholarship here and that is part of the problem.
It is clear that Sawyer knows his stuff, but sadly he is too engrossed in it to make it clear to a reader with no knowledge of the period or culture. He assumes, for example, that you know that Sun-tzu and Sun Wu are the same person - I didn't and that left me very confused when reading the introduction. The general historical background covers 2000 years which is way too long. We only really need to know about the political and military situation in around 500 BC - Sawyer does give this as well, but it is badly explained. For example, the map showing the provinces of Ch'u, Wu and Ygives no context whatsoever so I've no idea how big they were or where in modern China they were situated. Were they mountainous? What were the major cities and roads? How did the politics work - Sawyer mentions kings and tribes, but how did they work together? And what, for goodness sake, is a li? I know it's a unit of measurement, but how big? These are basic things that, say, a Penguin Classics introduction would cover in 30 to 40 pages. Sawyer doesn't manage to do it in 160. To be fair, he does a reasonable job of explaining the more obscure concepts in the work such as hsing (disposition of force) and ch'i (spirit), but even then shih is unhelpfully defined as "strategic configuration of power" (a meaningless set of abstractions) when "tactical advantage" seems to me to capture the basic gist.
With this manifest failure to map the terrain, actually reviewing the Art of War is rather difficult. My general impression is that whilst it offers good general principles, attempting to apply them on the ground in a complex situation would be tricky at best. In fact it reads like one of those management textbooks like "Don't sweat the small stuff" which offer sensible general advice that turns out to be next to impossible to implement in the real world. It's all very well, for example, to say that an army should be "deceptive and formless", ie should appear to be massing for an attack in one place but in fact be preparing for an attack elsewhere, but how do you do this in practise? And what happens if the enemy commander does the same as you?
Having said that, the Art of War is an extraordinary work of analysis and abstract, logical thought. To render a messy, chaotic business such as war down to a clean framework is an astonishing achievement. In the western world, there is nothing that I know of to match until the strategic texts of Julius Caesar. It is not however, a moral work. There is something chilling in the way it approaches the business of war, with its division of spies into "living" and "expendable" and its consideration of when to use an incendiary attack (the WMD of its day). What is missing is the human element, any sign of awareness that it is individual people doing the fighting and dying. Sun-tzu does consider individual psychology but only as a means of ensuring that his army fights better. In fact, the "Art of War" seems to me to be a misnomer. Art implies humanity, and there's little here. "The Analysis of War" would be closer to the mark.
"Art" of war
Re: "Art" of war
Re: "Art" of war