of Carl von Clausewitz, Europe had been through the Protestant Reformation, French Revolution, and Napoleonic Wars.
Based on his experiences of warfare, Clausewitz sought to write a book that identified “the permanent elements of war.”21 He emphasized that various “frictions” such as uncertainty, ignorance, confusion, and fatigue often interfere with one’s combat plan and prevents one from exercising full control over the enemy. He believed that a useful theory must include all elements that pertain to battle; not just those that are measurable such as distances, but also the intangibles of morale and common sense. He stated that “[a] critic should never use the results of theory as laws or standards but only—as the soldier does—as aids to judgment.”22 Having participated in combat and suffered the humiliating experience of defeat, he was more concerned with examining the strategic elements of warfare than prescribing scientific measures for its conduct.23 He viewed combat in relation to its surroundings and recognized that a theory is not a simple thread that links two deductions. Rather than presenting answers through an immediate and utilitarian tool such as a handbook for fighting, he asked questions in the hope of gaining insight into the complexity of conflict. His greatest contribution to military theses may lie in the organization and compilation of commonly known facts rather than in new discoveries.
Clausewitz’s interpretation of combat can be attributed in part to his long and varied military career which spanned four decades. Although he was a minor player in the great conflicts of his time, he became a military man at age twelve and saw combat not long thereafter. He dedicated his life to the study of warfare. “In whichever way I might like to relate my life to the rest of the world, my way takes me always across a great battlefield; unless I enter upon it, no permanent happiness can be mine,” he wrote in a letter to his fiancée, Countess Marie von Brühl.24 He served both on the Prussian and Russian front; he endured “heat and dust” and “the lack of food and water,” as well as time in captivity.25 He graduated at the top of his class of forty students from the Berlin War College, or Kriegsschule, and was eventually promoted to Major-General. The fact that he did not command troops in battle distanced him from the leadership and allowed him to be critical of the command.
Clausewitz’s On War has been printed in several editions and languages and has been widely studied at the military academies. This, alone, speaks of its posterity. It was left as a work in progress at the author’s death in 1831, to be interpreted and built upon for generations to come. For example, in 1916 and 1917, the British during their attacks on the Western Front relied on using maximum force at the main point to bring the enemy to its knees. By the end of World War I, Clausewitz’s principles could be found in the U.S. Army Field Service Regulations. During the Korean War, continued studies of Clausewitz led to grappling with problems of conducting warfare for a limited aim rather than the total overthrow of the enemy. Combat became synonymous with the struggle for peace. The Fleet Marine Force Manual 1, Warfighting, first published in 1989, relies extensively on Clausewitzian philosophy. Clausewitz has thus written the most enduring military treatise in existence in the Western world and has shed light on the trinity of conflict: the politics of battle; its physical dimensions (or violence); and the passions of the people (or chance, which makes allowances for the creative spirit).
Although the martial arts as practiced today find many uses including personal protection, sports competition, and self-cultivation, war was historically a political instrument used to compel an enemy to do the will of the victor. How one viewed conflict and developed systems of fighting was part of the political climate. The long military traditions of Asia and Europe contributed to the development of individual combat arts, which evolved from battlefield tactics and strategies used in warfare within and between the countries in the respective regions, and have further been influenced by local cultural beliefs. Their diversity has remained a fascinating subject as evidenced by the great numbers of instructional books, philosophical studies, and accounts of personal experiences that have been written about the traditional Chinese, Japanese, and Korean martial arts, in addition to Western grappling, boxing, fencing, and mixed martial arts. Each martial style displays unique characteristics. The words kung-fu, karate, taekwondo, jujutsu, savate, kickboxing, and pankration, for example, evoke images of Asian and Western customs and lore.26
Despite the influences of different cultural beliefs, Asia and the West experienced similar problems with respect to the security of the state and external and internal unrest. Both viewed combat as “a true political instrument” and the highest expression of a person’s will to live, “the basis of life and death, the Way to survival or extinction.”27 The differences between Sun Tzu and Clausewitz may at first seem profound. Yet on a conceptual level, their discourse displays far more similarities than differences which further demonstrates that factors such as time period (Sun Tzu and Clause-witz were separated in time by more than two millennia), geographical location (Asia versus Europe), and cultural issues (debated by military historian Victor Davis Hanson in his book, Carnage and Culture) are less significant in combat than are an understanding and embrace of a universal human nature. Whether Asian or Western in origin, the different styles of martial arts employ techniques similar in concept and execution. Once individual fighters have corrected for the geographical area (or the modern sports arena) and the “political” situation (or the mores under which one studies the art), they will face similar difficulties with respect to power, deception, confusion, physical conditioning, and morale.
The author acknowledges that the military histories of Asia and Europe are long and complex and that this book merely scratches the surface. However, by engaging in critical study of the respective regions, one can eliminate inappropriate methods of analysis and reach a greater appreciation for the complexity of events that have led us to this day. Rather than emphasizing spiritual paths, “ways of living,” or self-cultivation, this book differs from other philosophical or historical martial arts studies by presenting the military theories behind the development of tactics and strategy in the combat arts. Theory gives structure to fact, relates the past to the present through logical links, and strengthens and refines judgment. Many of the distinct fighting styles that exist have been practiced since antiquity. Others are hybrids or modern inventions. It is not possible to cover all fighting styles or even a majority in a book this size; however, the author hopes that the martial arts surveyed will at least provide a fair sampling of what is available for study to the interested scholar.
Chinese bamboo book of Sun Tzu’s Art of War, commissioned or transcribed by the Qianlong Emperor (1711-1799 CE). (Image source: Vlasta2, Wikimedia Commons)
Although Sun Tzu’s and Clausewitz’s powerful assertions will likely challenge common approaches to success and hopefully spark debate, the aim of this book is to establish a solid foundation for further study, decentralize the martial arts, and bridge the gap between the traditional Asian arts and their Western counterparts.
CHAPTER 1
THE NATURE AND CONDUCT
OF COMBAT
“Military tactics are like water; for water in its natural course runs away from high places and hastens downwards. Just as water retains no constant shape, so in war fare there are no constant conditions.”
— Sun Tzu
“Action in war, therefore, like that of a clock which is wound up, should go on running down in regular motion. But wild as is the nature of war it still wears the chains of human weakness.”
— Carl von Clausewitz
As mentioned in the introduction, if one wishes to understand the underlying laws of combat and the effectiveness of the martial arts, one must examine the historical context under which they developed. The fact that war and violence plagued China for thousands of years contributed to efforts put
