Written over 2,500 years ago, the ancient Chinese military treatise The Art of War by Sun Tzu remains the world’s earliest and most influential military classic. It records a vital battlefield rule: “Avoid the enemy when they are strong (强而避之).”
The plain meaning is straightforward: never fight a powerful foe head-on. When the enemy holds overwhelming advantages in troops, morale and national strength, wise commanders must evade their sharp offensive momentum, strike their weak points instead, and turn military disadvantage into victory opportunities.
This ancient Chinese military philosophy is not empty theory. A recorded war event in the Spring and Autumn Period – Chu’s invasion of the State of Sui – fully proves the value of this strategy.
Historical Story: Chu Attacks Sui
This historical battle is officially documented in Zuo Zhuan (Zuo’s Commentary), the most authoritative historical chronicle recording Spring and Autumn wars.
In 706 BC during the Spring and Autumn Period, the State of Chu rose as a dominant power in southern China. With abundant national resources, well-trained armies and ambitious monarchs, Chu planned to annex small neighboring states to expand its territory. The State of Sui, a medium-sized kingdom adjacent to Chu, became its primary target.
The Counsel of Reason: Ji Liang’s Strategy
When King Wu of Chu led a mighty army to press the Sui border, Ji Liang, a wise and far-sighted senior official of Sui, delivered a sincere warning to the Sui ruler immediately.
Based on national strength comparison, he pointed out the huge gap between the two sides: Chu was a powerful hegemon with rich supplies and elite soldiers, while Sui was weak in both military force and national power. He strongly advised the monarch to avoid a decisive frontal battle at all costs.
Unfortunately, the arrogant Sui lord ignored this rational advice and insisted on gathering troops to confront the Chu army directly.
As the Chu army marched closer, Ji Liang put forward a targeted tactical plan based on Chu’s military custom. He observed that Chu soldiers respected the left flank, and the Chu king personally commanded the left main force with the most crack troops. He suggested a flexible tactic following Sun Tzu’s idea of avoiding strength and attacking weakness:
“The Chu army values its left wing. The monarch’s main force gathers on the left. Do not confront the Chu king head-on. Instead, concentrate all our troops to strike their right wing. The right wing is guarded by mediocre low-rank generals with weak combat effectiveness. Once their weaker flank collapses, the whole Chu formation will fall into chaos, and we can seize the chance to win.”
This perfect layout was exactly the practical application of avoiding strength and attacking weakness. Facing an invincible main enemy force, do not compete in strength; instead, break the enemy’s whole army by defeating their vulnerable branch.
The Fatal Choice: Prioritizing Face Over Survival
However, the narrow-minded Junior Preceptor stood up to oppose Ji Liang’s rational strategy. He argued stubbornly:
“If we do not confront the Chu king face to face, we are not worthy to be his real opponent.”
At the critical moment concerning national survival, the Junior Preceptor prioritized empty military reputation and personal courage over national survival and battlefield reality. He chased meaningless vanity rather than realistic victory.
The Sui lord finally adopted the Junior Preceptor’s reckless suggestion. He ordered the whole army to launch a frontal attack against Chu’s strongest left main force commanded by King Wu of Chu himself. The result was disastrous: the Sui army collapsed completely in a short time. The Sui ruler had to abandon his capital and flee for his life. The State of Sui suffered a near-fatal defeat.
The Historical Verdict and Timeless Wisdom
Zuo Zhuan, the official historical book, gave a concise and profound comment on this failure:
“This total defeat originates from recklessly attacking an overwhelmingly strong enemy.”
The contrast between two advisors reveals the core of military decision-making. Ji Liang’s strategy represented rational strategic wisdom: he judged the gap of strength clearly, evaded the enemy’s elite troops, and chose the most feasible breakthrough point. By contrast, the Junior Preceptor’s opinion was blind bravado: gambling the fate of the whole country for false prestige, ignoring objective battlefield conditions completely. The wrong decision of the Sui monarch brought not only a battlefield defeat, but also a severe national crisis that nearly ruined the state of Sui.
Behind the Ancient War Story
In a previous article, we examined Sun Tzu’s “Deceptive Tactics” which considers warfare as instrumental rationality. Sun Tzu, representing instrumental rationality, was indifferent to the nobility of the process; he cared only about the rationality of the outcome. He understood that only by winning through effective means could a state truly protect its people and achieve lasting peace.
The story of the Battle of Chu and Sui remends us another similar battle, the Battle of Hong River.
These two Spring and Autumn battles share identical fatal logic: capable ministers understood Sun Tzu’s wisdom to evade strong enemies and strike weak points, but arrogant rulers prioritized hollow honor over national safety. Both forced a direct fight against overwhelmingly powerful Chu armies, ignored all tactical shortcuts, and suffered devastating defeats that crippled their small kingdoms. The pair of historical events serves as a paired cautionary tale about vanity overriding rational military strategy.
The failed war of the State of Sui and State of Song conveys an everlasting truth applicable to wars, competitions and even daily decision-making worldwide.
True courage never means blind recklessness and head-on confrontation against irresistible strength. True military wisdom lies in accurate situation judgment. To evade the enemy’s peak momentum is not cowardice, but sober and rational strategic choice. Vanity and blind bravery will always lead to complete failure; only respecting objective strength gaps and making flexible responses can help survive crises and gain final victory.
Leave a Reply