Yusheng

Abstract: Western civilization followed a path of escalating warfare accompanied by a step-by-step progression of society and culture. China condensed this millennia-long Western civilizational process into the Warring States period, spanning just over two hundred years, with two thousand years of stability preceding and following it. The author uses the distinction between genetically encoded primordial society and artificially constructed secondary societies to illustrate the differences between Eastern and Western war cultures. The Axial Age marked the maturity of Eastern and Western war cultures: Greece produced Homeric epics and the phalanx, the former praising individual heroism in war, and the latter constructing a metal wall led by spears, with warriors operating behind it. In the same era, China produced Sun Tzu’s *The Art of War*, which still offers guidance for businesspeople in the West today. Sun Tzu articulated war command, including the manipulation of soldiers. A similar long Chinese war novel to Homeric epics is *Romance of the Three Kingdoms*, which praises strategy and deception, with significantly less emphasis on individual heroism. Finally, the author lists other historical impacts of these different war cultures: China lacked the construction of personal space and corresponding social rules at the secondary social level, to the point that no one could stop the population from halving during the reign of Emperor Wu of Han.

Keywords: war culture, military strategy, Greek phalanx, heroism, one supreme ruler, pluralistic coexistence

After dividing human society into genetically encoded primitive society and artificial secondary society, the author found that China during the Xia, Shang and Zhou dynasties was a primitive society-type superpower. Both Confucianism and Taoism were based on this primitive social system, which long limited the Chinese people’s understanding of the essence of secondary society, resulting in the underdevelopment of secondary social mechanisms and rules, and of course, also limited the space for individual activities in secondary society. [1, 2] This also led to the completely different war cultures of the East and the West. Observing history from the perspective of war, scholars have found that the situation of turmoil in China during the Xia, Shang and Zhou dynasties was different from that in other parts of the world at the same time, showing extraordinary stability comparable to the world after World War II. [3] Corresponding to this discovery, China lacked the continuous escalation of war in other parts of the world during the more than two thousand years from the Qin and Han dynasties to the end of the Qing dynasty. Instead, it presented periodic turmoil and super-stable social structure, so much so that the population was halved during the reign of Emperor Wu of Han, yet he was still able to maintain his rule. In the context of continuous escalation of war in the world for five thousand years, China has presented thousands of years of stability and unity, which is truly a source of pride for the Chinese people. This article does not want to compare the history of the East and the West but focuses on China’s strengths. On the contrary, this article analyzes China’s shortcomings in order to provide useful insights for the future. The author chooses the story of Socrates and Duke Xiang of Song, both of whom were willing to sacrifice for social rules, and whose historical reputations differ, as the entry point for this article.

(I) A Beacon Illuminating Chinese History: Honoring the Righteousness of Song Xiang Gong

The story of Duke Xiang of Song’s defeat by Chu, as recorded in the *Zuo Zhuan*, is widely known, but it is often concluded that Duke Xiang was foolish and stubborn. Even the renowned scholar Qian Zhongshu, in his *Guanzhui Bian*, vehemently criticized Duke Xiang’s stubbornness and arrogance, following the traditional view in Chinese history. However, this conclusion may not reflect the actual situation at the time, nor is it appropriate or comprehensive. For example, the historian Sima Qian, known for his integrity and rigor, quoted this story in the *Records of the Grand Historian*, “The decline of etiquette in China is a cause for praise; Duke Xiang of Song’s humility is commendable.” Sima Qian believed that Duke Xiang set a shining example of defeat and death for the sake of courtesy, something that China, lacking in etiquette at the time, desperately needed.

In 638 BC, the states of Song and Chu fought a battle at Hong, with Chu being stronger than Song. Duke Xiang of Song, possessing keen political acumen, immediately recognized that Song was no match for Chu in terms of military might, and that only through tact and diplomacy could they prevail. Therefore, when his deputy, Ziyu, suggested attacking the Chu army while they were crossing the Hong River, Duke Xiang refused. Ziyu then suggested attacking before the Chu army had formed ranks after landing, which Duke Xiang again rejected. Once both sides had formed ranks, the battle began, and the Song army suffered a crushing defeat. Duke Xiang was wounded in the leg by an arrow and died from the wound the following year. However, this, like Emperor Gaozu of Han (Liu Bang) dying from an arrow wound while surrounded by the Xiongnu, did not diminish their image as a nation renowned for its etiquette.

Faced with the complaints of his people after the battle, Duke Xiang of Song said, “A virtuous gentleman does not kill wounded enemies, nor capture those with gray hair. The ancients commanded battles not based on strategic terrain. Although I am a descendant of the fallen Shang Dynasty, I know the principle of not attacking an enemy who is not in formation.” (Original text: A gentleman does not repeat the wounds, nor capture the gray-haired. In ancient times, armies did not rely on narrow passes. Although I am a descendant of a fallen state, I will not attack an enemy who is not in formation.)

Duke Xiang of Song’s forbearance and sacrifice not only earned Song a higher standing among the feudal states but also brought the peace that the people of that time longed for. The eagerness to win in war is like driving recklessly on an urgent mission; it’s the easiest time to disregard wartime or traffic rules. Every violation of the rules, like running a red light, yields immense benefits, which is why following the rules is paramount. The former leads to the continuous demoralization and cruelty of war, escalating conflict; the latter dramatically increases the risk of accidents. If war is a means of resolving disputes, the social cost of resolving the same dispute rises dramatically, from no deaths to ten, a hundred, or even ten thousand. Duke Xiang of Song’s shining example of preferring defeat and death to violating the rules of war at the time undoubtedly served as a remedy for the demoralization and cruelty of warfare. However, historians have not studied the extent to which Duke Xiang’s brilliant example at the Battle of Hongshui contributed to the humanization and humanitarianization of warfare at that time. The social impact of the Battle of Hongshui under Duke Xiang of Song, and the subsequent decrease in war mortality rates, saving countless families from destruction, remains a mystery to Chinese scholars even two thousand years later. The author firmly believes that such a figure is achievable, a scientifically sound and universally understandable number—a figure even an illiterate peasant would grasp.

For more than two thousand years, Chinese history textbooks have listed Duke Xiang of Song as one of the Five Hegemons of the Spring and Autumn Period, while the powerful State of Chu had to wait until the reign of King Zhuang of Chu several decades later to become one of the Five Hegemons. [4] Among these Five Hegemons, only Duke Xiang of Song did not use force to dominate but used benevolence and righteousness to dominate. This is truly a source of pride for the Chinese people and deserves to be written about by Chinese literati. Duke Huan of Qi, the first hegemon of the Spring and Autumn Period, was a person who combined force and benevolence. The three hegemons after Duke Xiang of Song had a greater emphasis on force. Duke Xiang of Song quoted the ancients to explain his practice of not attacking without forming ranks. Was this the case for the ancients, but not for the people of Duke Xiang of Song’s time? We can see from ancient documents that Duke Xiang of Song was not the only one who held this attitude towards war. Almost a century later, Confucius said, “Revive the extinct states, continue the interrupted lineages, and raise up the reclusive people.” Confucius’s attitude was exactly the opposite of the social trend of later conquest through war. Instead, he wanted to help those who were in a disadvantaged position. The *Zuo Zhuan* (Commentary of Zuo) records how the state of Sui resisted the powerful state of Chu in the sixth year of Duke Huan’s reign (705 BC). Ji Liang told the ruler of Sui, “I have heard that a small state can defeat a large one, for small states follow moral principles while large states rely on tyranny.” This means that a small state can defeat a large state because it adheres to moral principles, while a large state relies on tyranny. The *Records of the Grand Historian* (Records of the Grand Historian) recounts that the state of Qi seized much land from the state of Lu. Because Lu was weak, General Cao Mo of Lu forced Duke Huan of Qi to return the land with a dagger in hand. Afterwards, Duke Huan wanted to renege on his promise made under duress, but Guan Zhong said, “No, to be greedy for small gains for personal pleasure, to abandon faith with the feudal lords, and to lose the support of the world, is worse than giving in.” The *Guoyu* (Discourses of the States) says, “Do not assist Heaven in its tyranny; those who assist Heaven in its tyranny are inauspicious.” “Assisting Heaven in its tyranny” has become a derogatory idiom in Chinese. The phrase “not assisting Heaven in its tyranny” has the same meaning as the saying of Duke Xiang of Song not capturing an old man or relying on terrain. So what was the purpose of war in China at that time? The *Guoyu* (Discourses of the States) states, “…In ancient times, those who attacked a state only sought to subdue it. Now that it has been subdued, what more is there to ask for?”

Contemporary scholar Yang Kuan said, “The army in the Spring and Autumn Period was mainly composed of the people of the state (the lower class of the nobility), and they fought in chariots. The number of people was small, and the victory or defeat was often decided within one or two days by the king or the ministers. “[5] The famous historian Huang Renyu said, “The battle did not last a day.” This is not contradictory to what Yang Kuan said, but the two concepts and standards are slightly different. [6] Huang also said, “Chariot warfare in the Spring and Autumn Period was a kind of aristocratic warfare. Sometimes they regarded each other as competitors. There was a certain procedure for the formation, and there were also recognized principles for the intersection. That is, it was still bound by etiquette. Not acting for oneself was the general trend at that time.” [7] In short, their wars were also constrained by human nature. The conclusion is that the wars waged by the great powers and the moral etiquette demonstrations carried out by the small powers were all for the purpose of winning people over. This is the same as in the animal world. Strong male chimpanzees often risked danger to obtain rare food and share it with the whole group, while bulls and stags defeated each other by force.

Zoologists have discovered that violent struggles among animals of the same species generally follow fixed rituals; intimidation and posturing are often enough to resolve disputes. Haven’t you ever seen images of two male deer or buffalo fighting to determine the sex of the animal? That is to say, when they actually fight, they adhere to the rules, without sneak attacks or subsequent revenge. Our human ancestors also treated their internal conflicts in this way, and maintained this practice very late in life, as confirmed by the research of many anthropologists and supported by ancient Chinese texts. This practice at least lingered during the time of Duke Xiang of Song, which is why he was able to succeed.

Although Confucius and others shared the same views and attitudes as Duke Xiang of Song, only Duke Xiang, as the commander of a war, left such a tragic yet glorious image in Chinese history, like an ever-burning lamp illuminating the ages, still burning today, offering its own enlightenment. As a great figure in Chinese history, Mao Zedong had his tragic side: if he had learned more from Duke Xiang, he wouldn’t have allowed his wife to commit suicide in prison. Mao Zedong described Duke Xiang as having “a pig-like sense of benevolence and morality,” and the Cultural Revolution was a result of Mao Zedong completely disregarding his own established rules. According to memoirs by Ms. Zhang Rong and those who worked closely with Mao Zedong, the Lin Biao incident in 1971, involving his close comrade-in-arms, was a fatal blow to Mao, one he never recovered from. The first five years of the Cultural Revolution were vigorous and impactful, while the latter five years were lukewarm and ineffective, with the nationwide criticism of Lin Biao and Confucius, and the reversal of verdicts against Deng Xiaoping, all proceeding listlessly. In his later years, Mao considered himself a failure, like Chiang Kai-shek who retreated to Taiwan and Nixon who was impeached and removed from office, so he felt a particular sympathy for them. Years earlier, he wrote a poem, “Birds’ Dialogue,” the last line of which was: “Please fill my empty belly.” Before his death, Mao changed it to: “Let’s see the world turn upside down.” The situation indeed unfolded as he predicted: the world turned upside down. Imagine what it must have been like for such a powerful figure to spend the last five years of his life enjoying his utter defeat and accomplishing nothing. Those around him said he often wept silently alone. Undoubtedly, Mao broke the rules and ran a red light, resulting in a five-year paralysis on the political stage during the blood-soaked Cultural Revolution.

Confucianism is known for its benevolence and righteousness. When talking about history, we can talk about Confucian ministers, but there is no such thing as a Confucian general. Some people have proposed the concept of Confucian knights-errant, saying that the martial arts spirit that arose in the late Qing Dynasty carried the spirit of Confucian benevolence and righteousness. However, martial arts are among the common people. This just shows that in Chinese history, under the guidance of political figures, Confucian benevolence and righteousness were separated from the tragic outcome of war and bloodshed. War requires the spirit of benevolence and righteousness to reduce social consumption. According to Chen Ping, there have been at least ten major destructions in China in the past two thousand years, while only one occurred in Europe. The population of the Western Han Dynasty was 60 million, but by the beginning of the Three Kingdoms period, only 2% remained. All ten major destructions occurred after the Qin and Han Dynasties. There was no such major destruction in the era of Duke Xiang of Song or in the era before him. This also includes the Warring States period. The Warring States period was not as bad as it was later. [8] This is of course because Chinese history did not listen to the words of Duke Xiang of Song without enough piety. But it also proves the greatness of Duke Xiang of Song and Sima Qian from the opposite perspective. Without them, there might have been twenty major destructions in Chinese history with more than half of the population dying. If Duke Xiang of Song were alive, he would say, “Besides benevolence, righteousness, courtesy, and humility, what else in the world is so precious that it’s worth half the Chinese dying?” Did such widespread destruction, resulting in the death of more than half the population, bring about social progress? Compared to Europe, the destruction only led to social regression and depression. What Chinese history desperately needs are social rules, and exemplary figures like Duke Xiang of Song and Socrates who were willing to sacrifice themselves for those rules. Europe reveres Socrates as a saint, while China dares to ridicule Duke Xiang of Song. Socrates was sentenced to death by a narrow majority of five hundred juries, but the execution was delayed, and his guard was lax. The authorities clearly encouraged Socrates to flee to other states, but he insisted on serving his sentence to demonstrate his loyalty to his state and the laws he had helped to establish.

Recently, Japanese scholar Kondo Noriyuki has conducted a detailed study on the date of the writing of Zuo Zhuan, saying: “The Confucian school centered on the Yi Zhuan attempted to rebuild the rites that acknowledged the emperor’s power. Zuo Zhuan was formed against the backdrop of feudal forces under the emperor’s power, with the purpose of criticizing the practical theory of the Yi Zhuan. Therefore, the formation of Zuo Zhuan can be presumed to be the time when the formation of the Yi Zhuan reached a certain level, that is, after the Qin to the Qin-Han transition.” [9] The original text of Zuo Zhuan contains a long commentary by Ziyu on Duke Xiang of Song, criticizing Duke Xiang of Song’s view that the social effect of practice should be the standard of consideration, and showing the idea that the only goal under the imperial power is to win the war. Ziyu no longer considers the interests of the opposing side in the war, no longer considers the interests of both sides sharing the battlefield and society, and no longer considers what would happen if our side were in the same situation as the enemy today. Only Qin Shihuang dared to be so bold and dared to put all his sons and grandsons to death without regret.

After the death of Duke Xiang of Song, the State of Song convened two peace conferences in 579 BC and 546 BC to discuss a ceasefire. After that, no large-scale wars occurred in the north. In the peaceful environment, the power of the states shifted to the ministers to varying degrees, making the political situation more transparent. [4] Duke Xiang of Song had outstanding achievements in his life. He gathered the allied forces of four states to support Duke Xiao of Qi and greatly assisted Chong’er, who later became Duke Wen of Jin. He promoted benevolence and righteousness in a small state and succeeded Duke Huan of Qi as the leader of the alliance supported by the feudal lords. Although mainstream historians such as Sima Qian recognized Duke Xiang of Song as one of the Five Hegemons, there were also dissenters. These dissenting opinions were influenced by the later imperial power and the separation of rites and war. Duke Xiang of Song was the last politician who succeeded in adhering to the principles of rites and righteousness in war before the separation of rites and righteousness in war. Duke Xiang of Song’s failure to attend the peace conference with his troops, resulting in his detention and subsequent release by the Chu state (which he himself had declared king), and his defeat at the Battle of Hongshui, demonstrate that his excellence and brilliance could only be revealed when propriety and war were inseparable. In an era where victory became the sole objective of war, Duke Xiang became a laughingstock. After his death, the changing circumstances meant that at the two peace conferences mentioned above, Song no longer sought hegemony, but remained a faithful inheritor of Duke Xiang’s exemplary conduct: advocating benevolence, righteousness, and propriety to seek social security and peaceful coexistence with the other states. Therefore, Duke Xiang’s words and actions were consistent with Song’s traditions and status, while Ziyu’s words contradicted them. This suggests that Ziyu’s lengthy commentary may have been added by the author of the *Zuo Zhuan* to adapt to new imperial ideals, based on the original words and deeds of Duke Xiang, serving as evidence of cultural authoritarianism’s distortion of history. Many are praised for not retaliating when struck, so why is Duke Xiang ridiculed for adhering to the rules of war and becoming a hegemon? This can only be explained by the influence of cultural authoritarianism on people’s thinking.

author By Dr. You-Sheng Li

Share