to analyze the principles of war. Sun Tzu wrote the Art of War during the turbulent Warring States period from the fifth to third century BCE, when the ancient order in China was destabilized through shifting alliances. Unrest persisted into near modern day (Shanghai, in the early 1900s, was one of the most violent places in Asia) and contributed to the growth of the fighting arts. For example, wing chun, a style of kung-fu which focused primarily on defending against political turmoil and guerrilla warfare, was developed during the late Ming Dynasty (1368-1644 CE) for the purpose of fighting the forces of the invading Qing Dynasty (1644-1912 CE).1 Wing chun practitioners use many short range techniques for trapping an opponent and neutralizing the attack. The art relies on aggressive forward pressure with focus on taking the most direct route from point of origin to target. Note that many Asian martial arts are several thousand years old, while others were introduced more recently. “Judo was born in 1882, and aikido in 1935. Taekwondo and hapkido were introduced in the 1940s and ’50s, even though they were based on much older systems.”2
In the West, Carl von Clausewitz’s On War was likewise a product of extensive interstate conflict. Although written at a much later date, it had roots in the Western military tradition dating to Classical Greece and Rome with emphasis on pitched battle in open terrain. Certain martial arts, such as ancient Greek boxing, were developed for the purpose of hardening the athletes for war and became brutal parts of Western athletic culture. The boxers were essentially head hunters fighting with spiked gloves. Since they did not fight by weight classification, physical size and strength were clear advantages.
Both Sun Tzu and Clausewitz viewed warfare as a form of political intercourse. When negotiations had fallen by the wayside and war was unavoidable, the state moved forward with the aim of ending the conflict as quickly as possible by attacking the enemy’s strategy and crippling his forces. However, political intercourse through physical violence is not limited to states going to war with one another but can be observed in any human group that concerns itself with the distribution of power and authority, and thus extends to individuals engaged in single man combat for reasons ranging from the preservation of honor to the defense of life. As noted by Clausewitz, war is personal combat on a larger scale and a fight should be taken to conclusion often by killing the adversary.3 Even societies that advocated Confucian ideals fought battles to the death.4 A soldier’s commitment to fight could be ensured by rousing his fighting spirit, or ch’i, before battle.5
Statue of ancient Greek boxer resting on a boulder after a match, from the Thermae of Constantine, third to second century BCE. Note the leather straps used by the boxer to protect the knuckles and increase the damaging power of the strike. (Image source: Marie-Lan Nguyen, Wikimedia Commons)
This chapter demonstrates that both Asian and Western combat arts were brutal activities designed primarily for fighting an enemy to the death; they were historically not about character building, spirituality, or self-perfection. The conduct of fighting changes with the introduction of new ideas (as observed, for example, when Royce Gracie won the Ultimate Fighting Championship I in 1993 through the use of Brazilian Jiu-jitsu, and started a trend among martial artists to seek grappling skills), but the nature of fighting remains constant regardless of the scale of the conflict or the types of weapons and techniques used. The nature of fighting is by definition unchanging and comprised of such entities as danger, exertion, uncertainty, and chance.
Key Points: Nature and Conduct of Combat
Although Sun Tzu’s and Clausewitz’s military theories display distinct differences, upon closer examination one can detect several subtle (and not so subtle) similarities in the practice of Asian and Western martial arts. The history and traditions of the martial arts reveal much about the culture of the people, the terrain or environment in which battle was fought, and the type of enemy one expected to face. How war is rendered in ancient Chinese writings is largely a result of Chinese culture. Although Confucian thought and the elevation of the literati over the warrior class contributed to the perception that China was resistant to war, that warfare could be rationalized and ended without bloodshed, and that conflicts could be solved through diplomacy, or at worst, coercion, any study of Chinese history will affirm that China was hardly a demilitarized country that took no interest in conquest and fought battles only as defensive measures.
Most of Chinese history is littered with accounts of wars of expansion as well as wars of unification, battles against invaders, and the forceful suppression of civil unrest and rebellions. Large portions of the Chinese populace owed military service to the state, which raised armies with troops numbering in the hundreds of thousands. Although the wu (military) and wen (civilian) spheres appear to be separate entities, they were tightly intertwined. The Ming Minister of War, Tan Lun (1520-1577 CE), said that “to have wen and not wu is to be a scholar behind the times/to have wu and not wen is to be an ignorant man.”6 Like the interdependence of the yin and the yang, military achievement could not exist without literary virtue, and vice versa. Confucian thinking influenced leaders to seek balance and restore things to their proper places. Although wen was considered a greater virtue than wu, a powerful man needed both.7
The Chinese texts further display a clear admiration for physical strength and boldness in battle. Although the army should be deployed with restraint, it should be deployed with determination once the decision was made to fight. It was not unusual in ancient China to sacrifice whole battalions deliberately in order to outsmart the enemy.8 Individuals engaged in single combat with the enemy were expected to demonstrate valor. For example, openly displaying weapons even if one never used them communicated that one was well-versed in martial tactics. The Hua Guan Suo Zhuan (the story of Hua Guan Suo), a recently rediscovered Chinese novel first printed in 1478 CE, contains a description of the twenty-four battles that the hero Guan Suo fought. When Guan Yu, Guan Suo’s father, suffered defeat and lost his sword into the deep water of a pond, Guan Suo who nearly died in battle had an experience of descending into hell where he was told that he must return for the sword if he were to score the victory. Following this call of duty, he recovered the renowned sword from the deep water of the pond.9 War was thus talked about as a restoration of harmony, but killing was its object and boldness its distinguished quality.
The nature of combat or its defining characteristic was evident in the first instant of fighting. A key principle of Sun Tzu’s teachings is that war is a matter of life and death, and it is this knowledge that motivates soldiers to fight and win. In single man combat, both fighters know that if neither gives way to the wishes of the other, the battle will be resolved by blood. Achieving victory without bloodshed is the ideal, yet the difficulties associated with such a feat should be clearly understood. As reinforced in the Chinese classic, T’ai Kung’s Six Secret Teachings, “If you can attain complete victory without fighting, without the great army suffering any losses, you will have penetrated even the realm of ghosts and spirits.”10
Although Sun Tzu stresses the importance of defeating the enemy through wisdom rather than force, a reason why he had more leeway for diplomacy than Clausewitz is because he wrote about battle before it had erupted, while Clausewitz analyzed it away from its ideal form. It was not compassion that prompted Sun Tzu to advocate winning without fighting, but the turbulent era in which he lived and his sparse resources. When he was appointed commander of the Wu army, he had to fight an enemy, the state of Ch’u in 511 BCE, which was many times larger.11 He recognized that physical conflict would likely result in heavy losses, which would weaken his forces and prevent him from using full military strength if diplomacy fell by the wayside. War is destructive even for victors and leads to immense suffering, disease, starvation, and death. From the recognition of this fact grew also Sun Tzu’s favorable view on deception: to appear weak when you are strong and strong when you are weak. Taking prisoners instead of killing the enemy and convincing them to fight against their own was yet a way to increase the size of his
