The Art of War’s Anomaly
The exploration of various versions of Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War” reveals intriguing differences and potential insights into the historical context and authenticity of these texts. Among the notable versions, the Yinqueshan Han version stands out as particularly significant. Discovered in 1972 in the Western Han tombs at Yinqueshan, this version predates the more widely known Tianbao version and is considered more authentic due to its preservation from the Han era. However, authenticity remains a complex issue. The Qin dynasty’s book-burning edict, ordered by Qin Shi Huang, aimed to destroy many ancient texts, including potentially earlier versions of Sun Tzu’s work. This historical event introduces uncertainty about the complete authenticity of any surviving text. Therefore, pre-Qin era excavations, such as The Zuo Zhuan, which are bamboo and silk manuscripts excavated from late Warring States period (c. 300 BC) tombs, provide crucial criteria for determining the genuineness of ancient writings.
During the comparative analysis of the Yinqueshan and Tianbao versions, an anomaly emerges in the form of five special chapters in the Yinqueshan text. These chapters unexpectedly reference the Yellow Emperor, a legendary figure from ancient Chinese mythology, known for his role in the Battle of Banquan. Scholars typically observe events from preceding eras, usually within a range of 300–500 years, with a maximum reference point of around 1000 years. However, the Yellow Emperor’s era predates Sun Tzu by approximately 2000 years, making this reference highly unusual. One would expect the text to refer to the Battle of Mingtiao, which established the Shang Dynasty, rather than the mythological Battle of Banquan. This reference to a distant mythological past in a treatise known for its scientific and pragmatic approach to warfare seems out of place, raising questions about its purpose.
The Battle of Banquan is traditionally considered the first major recorded battle in Chinese history and marks the beginning of the Yellow Emperor’s rise to power. This battle is significant as it represents the consolidation of various tribes under the Yellow Emperor’s leadership (Yan Huang). [We will also see how Qin Shi Huang titled his name as ‘Huang’ after Huangdi (皇帝), the Yellow Emperor.] Following this, the Battle of Zhuolu further solidified the Yellow Emperor’s dominance and the establishment of order, symbolizing the triumph of civilization over chaos. Some scholar might consider both were the same battle. The reference to these ancient battles in Sun Tzu’s text could be interpreted as an effort to invoke the foundational myths of Chinese civilization, lending a sense of timeless authority and legitimacy to the treatise.
Furthermore, when considering the title “Red Emperor,” Yandi (the Flame Emperor) is a more fitting candidate than Chi You. The title “Yan Emperor” or “Flame Emperor” was a dynastic title held by a succession of tribal lords over approximately 500 years, from Shennong, the first Yan Emperor, to the last Yan Emperor’s defeat by the Yellow Emperor. This title indicates a lineage of rulers associated with fire and the color red. In contrast, Chi You, though a significant adversary of the Yellow Emperor, is not traditionally referred to as an emperor in Chinese texts and is often depicted as a leader of non-Han ethnic groups. During Sun Tzu’s time, the respect and focus would have been on figures considered ancestors of the Han Chinese civilization. Thus, referencing Yandi as the “Red Emperor” aligns better with the cultural and historical context of Sun Tzu’s era and the reverence for mythological ancestors who played crucial roles in shaping early Chinese civilization.
The attempt to borrow “sacred” legitimacy from the Yellow Emperor to insist on the text’s authority appears inconsistent with the nature of “The Art of War.” Sun Tzu’s treatise is celebrated for its scientific, pragmatic insights into strategy and warfare, rather than for promoting dogmatism or religious ideology. Thus, the sudden invocation of the Yellow Emperor could be interpreted as a strategic move to lend an aura of timeless wisdom and legitimacy to the text. Considering the chaotic period during which Sun Tzu wrote, the reference to the Yellow Emperor might be seen as an effort to create order from chaos. The Yellow Emperor, a foundational figure in Chinese mythology, symbolizes the establishment of civilization and centralized rule. This narrative would resonate strongly in a time of widespread conflict and instability, offering a powerful model for contemporary leaders seeking to restore order.
In this context, it’s important to consider the competing schools of thought during Sun Tzu’s time. Confucianism, represented by Confucius (Kong Fuzi), emphasized moral virtue, ethical governance, and the importance of ritual and tradition. Confucius often referenced ancient sages and legendary figures to illustrate his ideals, promoting a vision of moral and ethical leadership. Sun Tzu’s treatise, on the other hand, embodies a more pragmatic approach. The reference to the Yellow Emperor, especially given the passage that states, “Huangdi’s cult is first attested in the Warring States period, and became prominent late in that same period and into the early Han dynasty, when he was portrayed as the originator of the centralized state, as a cosmic ruler, and as a patron of esoteric arts,” suggests a deliberate attempt to borrow legitimacy. This move was likely intended to propose a “political agenda” that aligned with the pragmatic and strategic needs of the time.
The inclusion of the Yellow Emperor in Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War” can be seen as an effort to bridge the gap between idealism and realism. While Confucianism advocated for moral governance based on ancient wisdom, Sun Tzu’s pragmatic approach also recognized the need for strategic legitimacy grounded in cultural and mythological narratives. This dual approach highlights the complex interplay between different schools of thought in ancient China, each aiming to create order from chaos but employing different methods and philosophies. The strategic invocation of the Yellow Emperor serves not only to legitimize the text but also to propose a comprehensive political agenda, reflecting the nuanced and multifaceted nature of governance and strategy in ancient Chinese thought.
Throughout Chinese history, the concept of a centralized state has been an enduring goal, often requiring a synthesis of military prowess, political acumen, and cultural legitimacy. However, this process has not been linear or uncontested. The constant tension between centralizing forces and decentralized powers has shaped the trajectory of Chinese governance. This dynamic is poignantly captured in the opening lines of the historical novel “Romance of the Three Kingdoms”: “The empire, long divided, must unite; long united, must divide. Thus it has ever been.”
The integration of mythological references into strategic texts like “The Art of War” reflects a broader strategy where governance is not merely about command and control from above, but about navigating the complex realities of decentralized power structures. The invocation of the Yellow Emperor, who symbolizes the archetypal unifier, served as an aspirational model for achieving stability and unity in times of fragmentation.
Throughout successive dynasties, this interplay between centralization and decentralization persisted. The Zhou Dynasty’s feudal system, the Han Dynasty’s bureaucratic expansion, and the continual cycles of fragmentation and reunification during periods such as the Three Kingdoms, all illustrate the inherent challenges in maintaining a cohesive state. Each era had to contend with powerful local lords, regional military leaders, and internal divisions that threatened the integrity of the central authority.
Remember that the key concepts of “The Art of War” lie in three timeless principles: 1) adapting to the unfolding reality, 2) grasping key intelligence, developing counter-intelligence, and corroding the adversary’s intelligence, and 3) the crucial role of deception. These principles explain why the treatise claims that knowing oneself and knowing the enemy is the surest path to winning a hundred battles. By embedding these principles within a historical and cultural framework, the treatise provides not only a strategic guide but also a political agenda that aims to unify and stabilize through the artful management of both overt actions and covert strategies.
