Notes on The Art of War by Sun Tzu (Books 3 and 4)

2 minute read

Published:

I am currently reading Sun Tzu’s Art of War and, as cliche as it sounds, am finding much wisdom in it. I have been taking notes during my reading and I thought I’d share them in this post. Here I cover Books 1 and 2.

Introduction

I am currently reading Sun Tzu’s Art of War and I am finding much wisdom in it. I have been taking notes during my reading and I thought I’d share them in this post.

As a brief background, The Art of War is a treatis on military conflict and strategic assessment written by a Chinese general somewhere around 500 B.C. It is an enduring text because the wisdom that it contains generalizes far beyond military conflict. A small sample of the themes in the book include treating conflict as a scientific discipline, strategic advantage through information, and the principles of good leadership.

In this post, I’ll cover the second two “chapters” of the book. I’ll write Sun Tzu’s original text in bold (as translated by Thomas Cleary). My commentary on each point will follow.

Book 3: Planning a Siege

The general rule for use of the military is that it is better to keep a nation intact than to destroy it. It is better to keep an army intact than to destroy it, better to keep a division intact than to destroy it, better to keep a battalion intact than to destroy it, better to keep a unit intact than to destroy it.

  • Sun Tzu lays out a fundamental principal: Avoid destruction. Not only is this an ethical and moral principal, but a strategically advantageous one as well.

If you can keep the opponent’s nation intact, then your own nation will also be intact. So this is best.

  • Destruction requires the expenditure of energy and will weaken one’s self. Destruction will evoke a violent and commensurate response from one’s enemy and thus incurs risk. Destruction also seeds an enemy’s anger and may galvanize the enemy.

This means that killing is not the important thing.

  • In a conflict, the most important thing is the outcome, not necessarily the means by which that outcome is achieved. The act of killing, and destruction more generally, is an extreme and consequential act; it should be treated with the utmost respect.

Therefore those who win every battle are not really skillful—those who render others’ armies helpless without fighting are the best of all.