★★★ (of 5)

• Full Title: The Art Of War
• Author: Sun Tzu
• Translator: Lionel Giles (1910)
• Year: 5th Century B.C.E. (mine was 2015 leatherbound pocket edition)
• Pages: 128*
• Genre: ancient wisdom
• Publisher: Fall River Press
• ISBN 978-1-4351-5869-6 (leatherbound pocket edition)
• Wikipedia page
• Author’s Wikipedia page

(* “128 pages” includes every page in the book. Oddly the counting begins at the title page and includes the table of contents and copyright page. Sun Tzu’s words begin on page 47 and end on page 105 — comprising only 59 pages of this volume.)

 

Summary

Sun Tzu’s The Art Of War is well-known and probably needs no introduction. Just know that like almost all ancient writings, the authorship is uncertain and there’s no way to be sure Sun Tzu even existed. Regardless, the 13 chapters have been passed down over the centuries, translated into almost every language, and have inspired countless readers — not only in matters of war but also in other facets of life.

Sun Tzu’s text consists of brief, numbered sentences, often very generalized in order to be concise — much like many other ancient “wisdom” writings.

 

Commentary

This particular edition is beautifully bound, sturdy yet light and slender. However, the publishers chose to include large chunks of Lionel Giles’s 1910 introduction and endnotes, which take up more than half the volume. The end notes are helpful; I’m glad they were there. However, the introduction was almost entirely wasted space. I would have preferred only a page or two of introduction — laying out a general time frame and a few theories on Sun Tzu’s existence. This would allow Sun Tzu’s words to be printed in a larger typeface, taking up a larger percentage of pages.

As for Sun Tzu’s actual text, I found it less silly than, say, the biblical book of Proverbs. Some of it, of course, is dated — “chariots” aren’t really a military concern anymore — but the principles, most of them, seem sound. For example:

“An army may march great distances without distress, if it marches through country where the enemy is not.”

—page 65

I have read that the principles of The Art Of War have been applied to business (capitalism), romance, politics, debate, and other fields. Certainly, I can see how some of the ideas are translatable to other fields. For example:

“So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong and to strike at what is weak.”

—page 69

Applying this to competition in business, it is an obvious parallel to the idea of avoiding your competitor’s strong suits and competing instead where the other company is weak. For example, a small company can’t bring to bear the bargaining power of a large company, but it can focus on customer service, personal attention, and local knowledge — things the larger company does poorly at.

Also, I was surprised at how often the passages reminded me of current politics in the United States.

“We can keep our forces concentrated, while the enemy’s must be divided. We can form a single united body, while the enemy must split up into fractions. Hence there will be a whole pitted against separate parts of a whole, which means that we shall be many to the enemy’s few.”

—pages 66-67

 

 

Points Off For...

I’m sure I would rate this a five-star book if I was reading it in 470 B.C.E., or whenever it was first compiled. But I’m not. I took a full point off for the meandering, unclear, and obtusely written 46-page introduction. The other missing point is on principle, for the awe with which we humans reserve for “ancient wisdom”. Much of what was deemed absolutely unique and world-shatteringly brilliant in its day is only common sense today. Much of what must have been bitingly illuminating 2,500 years ago is now irrelevant. Yes, of course, don’t march your troops into a narrow pass where the enemy can pick you off one at a time as you exit the other end. Yes, don’t march into salt marshes. Don’t lay seige to a walled city if marching straight past it will better achieve your goal. But these statements by Sun Tzu are still looked at with awe today, just as millions of people daily read verses from Proverbs and find “wisdom” like “Lazy hands make for poverty, but diligent hands bring wealth” (10:4), which not only isn’t true, but the little bit of truth that is there is common knowledge.

 

Conclusion

I read this once before, in the mid- or late 1990s, in another version, and I recall having a similar opinion. There is wisdom here, but it’s not going to blow your mind or help you ace your strategy classes at The School For Military Generals (probably not the real name of a real school).

 

 

---

---

comments powered by Disqus