After the death of Guan Zhong, Duke Huan of Qi – once the undisputed hegemon of the Spring and Autumn period – grew indulgent and neglected state affairs. With his passing, Qi’s dominance crumbled, leaving a power vacuum.
The rise of rival aspirants
Two rulers now vied to succeed him as hegemon: Duke Mu of Qin in the distant west, who first needed to subdue neighboring tribes before engaging central states, and Duke Xiang of Song, who believed legitimacy could be inherited through moral authority.
Before his death, Duke Huan had entrusted his chosen heir, Prince Zhao, to Duke Xiang of Song. When Duke Huan died, Duke Xiang convened several states to install Prince Zhao as Duke Xiao of Qi. In his mind, this act confirmed his own status as the new hegemon.
But reality disagreed. Chu and Zheng, especially, openly mocked and humiliated him. Enraged, Duke Xiang resolved to punish Zheng – the weaker of the two – as a first step toward asserting dominance.
The folly of moral warfare
In 638 BCE, Duke Xiang prepared to invade Zheng. His top generals, Gongsun Gu and Prince Muyi (his half-brother), strongly opposed the campaign, warning of Chu’s likely intervention. But Duke Xiang retorted:
“If you won’t go, I’ll go alone!”
Reluctantly, they followed him into war. True to prediction, King Cheng of Chu dispatched General Cheng Dechen – not to defend Zheng, but to strike directly at Song itself.
Caught off guard, Duke Xiang rushed back. His army halted at the south bank of the Hong River, where Chu issued a formal challenge.
Gongsun Gu urged diplomacy: “We’ve withdrawn from Zheng. Let’s make peace – our forces can’t match Chu’s.”
But Duke Xiang insisted:
“Chu has strength but no benevolence or righteousness. We have them – that will prevail!”
He commissioned a grand banner emblazoned with the words “Ren Yi” (“Benevolence and Righteousness”) and treated it like a talisman against evil.
Missed opportunities on the Hong River
As Chu troops began crossing the river, Prince Muyi urged:
“Attack now – while they’re halfway across! We can win!”
Duke Xiang pointed to his banner:
“How can a righteous army strike men mid-crossing? That’s not benevolence or righteousness!”
Once ashore, the Chu soldiers were disorganized, scrambling to form ranks. Again, Prince Muyi pleaded:
“Now! Before they line up!”
Duke Xiang snapped:
“Shame on you! How can we attack an unformed enemy? Where is your honor?”
Only when Chu’s drums thundered and their ranks surged forward like a broken dam did battle commence. The Song army collapsed instantly.
Defeat and Delusion
In the chaos, Prince Dang died defending Duke Xiang, who was struck by an arrow in the thigh and wounded multiple times. The sacred “Ren Yi” banner was seized by Chu troops. Gongsun Gu led a desperate retreat; Prince Muyi barely escaped with the wounded duke.
Back in Suiyang (modern Shangqiu, Henan), public anger mounted. Citizens blamed Duke Xiang for both the war and his absurd tactics.
When Prince Muyi confronted him:
“Is this what ‘righteous warfare’ looks like?”
Duke Xiang, nursing his wounds, replied:
“True benevolence and righteousness mean not harming the injured and not capturing gray-haired soldiers.”
Exasperated, Prince Muyi shot back:
“We lost because you don’t know how to fight! War demands destroying the enemy by any means. If you refuse to harm the wounded or capture elders, you might as well surrender!”
Duke Xiang had no rebuttal – but clung to his belief: even in defeat, righteousness remained on his side.
Legacy of a noble fool
Historians, especially in the Zuo Zhuan, portray Duke Xiang of Song not as evil, but as tragically out of touch – a ruler who mistook ritual morality for military strategy. His insistence on “chivalrous” warfare in an age of ruthless realpolitik made him a cautionary tale.
The phrase “the benevolence of Duke Xiang of Song” later became synonymous with naive idealism in Chinese political discourse.
Leave a Reply