A Critical Eye on the Spring and Autumn/ Warring States Great Philosophers: 史学：以慧眼解读春秋战国诸子

This is an addendum for the chapter regarding the resurgence of Qi and the Battle of Maling. Full article could be found here. Please note that this long commentary is not a standalone and full context are needed from said chapter. Initially this piece was supposed to be a tag-on paragraph to the final segment of that chapter but because there's so much nuance (and so much paragraph needed to due this era justice) I made it into a separate standalone here. 

Music: Classic of Mountains and Seas

So, for those of you who love this era of China, it should be a treat and a more free form discussion of the great sages of this era, their renowned schools, and the historiography in remembering them. So think of this chapter as giving you insight on how to better read this age as a whole and to know where to look deeper beyond the romance. Without further ado, let us talk of the Great masters (capital G) of this era- who certainly seemed larger than life.

A FIRE REBORN- THE QI RESTORATION REEXAMINED 

The Qi restoration under Duke Yinqi (King Wei) and Sun Bin must be reexamined because so much of it has been distorted and embellished by the later eras in romantic framings, with the retellers of these future centuries already picking out "good guys" and "bad guys" from the history. This article will encourage a new way~ new lens to look at this era and its figures through what I like to call critical appreciation.

At this point you have pretty much being caught up on one of my own favorite episodes from this era, a grand tale of personal revenge, of 2 embittered former sworn brothers who dealt savage blows to each other with the armies of rival kingdoms. A larger story of triumph~ the metaphorical fire reborn for the broken once- resplendent Sun Bin, his once- wastrel sovereign and the once- great kingdom of Qi as a whole. 

In this classical version, the involved Thucydidean nations have destinies, and heroes and villains are defined by their vices and virtues. The narrative is filled with Great Men (ala Great Men theory with capital "G") boldly leads their nation's ways like colossi. Oh yeah, not missing the part where Sun Bin bested Pang Juan without even the use of his body after it was explicitly disabled by the latter. And have this brilliant vendetta at the forefront of the major transformation of this age. But having told you of the story of this event, I now want to tell you its contradictions and interesting contexts on a deeper level. Think of it as a sobering, cleansing chaser after a satisfying strong drink. 

To began with, while reading the chapter on the Qi restoration- some of you might have already noticed the *asterisk I have placed whenever Sun Tzu was mentioned, or works and feats are attributed to him. This is intentional because:~ well, more than likely he was a invention. Yes, the personhood of the much much quoted Sun Tzu (that you might have read) was an invention. And he was likely invented by none other than our story's protagonist Sun Bin himself.  

It is always my intention to both give you the traditionally taught version that everyone knows, then after having told you the version that most of China and East Asia was taught, a more modern and critical view of the same events (for instance, if I were to give you a coverage of the Three Kingdoms, in my introduction, Cao Cao would be shaded with his traditional "ambitious" characterization, despite the fact that same could amply said of Liu Bei and others, though a totally neutral version would have him simply characterized as "able" or the most "capable" among the northern warlords. Same with the destructive heroic bloodshed Achillean characterization of Lu Bu and if I were to talk of Chu- Han Contention for Xiang Yu, etc.) This way you are both up to speed with how most people regard them, and then provided with enough nuances to have the modern vantage. Similarly, the Spring and Autumn and Warring States era is precisely one of these larger than life- eras rife with larger than life figures that must be contextualized with a critical eye. 

In this deeper, critical appreciation version- the Sun Bin you have been taught would come in a more different light, and so does his origin, as well as that of his age. In that Sun Bin may very well have been a much more Machiavellian character, he might have been so brilliant that he invented an ancestor called "Sun Tzu" ~and his sagely age? Rather than populated by many dynamic competing duos might be tragically filled with many gaping holes that the utmost of our memory and history cannot account for. 

THE PERSONIFICATION OF SCHOOLS INTO MASTERS 

To reexamine Sun Bin- we need to reexamine his age: the age of philosphers. To begin with: one should know that many of the greatest philosophers of this age such as Lao Tzu, Sun Tzu, etc might not have really existed. I do not mean that they were merely some cheap invented front man puppet who were fabricated in conspiracy. But merely that human hindsight often cannot stand a vacuum and thus attributed entire traditions to a nearly mythical progenitor in hindsight. 

A NEW LENS IN READING ABOUT THIS AGE

During this time, the convention for most of these schools to honor its founder was to peg the honorific of Zi 子 (meaning "Master") after such a larger than- life individual. For instance what we in the west Latinized as Confucius in Chinese is 孔子 Kong zi~ lit. "Master Kong," the poorly Wade–Giles transliteration of Sun Tzu is actually 孙子 Sun zi "Master Sun," the Latinized Mencius is 孟子Meng zi  "Master Meng" and finally some are so simple that their honorific could mean almost nothing: the poetic Laozi~ 老子 Lao Tzu/ Lao zi merely means "Old Master." And these schools merely scioned from their sagely minds. 

Remember when Sun Bin and his sworn brother Pang Juan were introduced and they both studied under the fabled hermit sage Guiguzi- whose moniker is merely translated as "Master of the Ghost Valley) - and I cautioned that he likely did not really exist and was more likely a set of schools or similarly minded schools? Well, same goes for many other schools. 

THE GREAT FOUNDERS- A HINDSIGHT ATTRIBUTION

Imagine you are living in the last days of Warring States China, by then, even those who are barely paying attention to their surroundings would have noted that there are many eloquent and competing schools of philosophy out there. And each school has a large canon of texts and sayings that buttresses its thoughtscape. So objectively one can definitely say that those philosophy definitely exist, someone who definitely existed obviously wrote and compiled them and expanded on them, but looking back, one naturally ask the niggling question "Who" started all of it. 

One has ample proof that *someone* did create these huge bodies of books and treatises, but they needed that founder to complete the package. 

When one thinks of their past, there has always been a painfully torturous need for simple explanations- in most of these school's cases, if they were asked who (literally "who") founded their ancient schools, the answer to that question is often very difficult to be given. Many of the great sages are likely attributed in a reverse chicken and egg relation: Because these schools exists- there must be a great thinker who thought of these ideas and started it all. And thus, schools personified into these great masters.

CRITICAL: THE GREAT MASTERS- SOME ARE MORE SO THAN THE OTHERS

This is not to say that all of these great "Masters" were all convenient later imaginations. For instance a good number of these figures most definitely have existed or at least more than likely have existed. Confucius did exist and his uneventful biography was well recorded and he did travel across the realm attempt to have his reforms enacted by various sovereigns of his age. Same with a large number of other prominent Confucian scholars like Mencius- who was prominent in Qi- recorded by his contemporary sources and was a contemporary to many other great scholars of his age. So too was Xunzi and other later great Confucian thinkers- who commented upon tradition and Qin in detail. Historical authenticity for the other great masters varies. Mozi 墨子, who founded the contemporary school of Mohism likely also existed, his biography fits within the conflicts and warfare of his era and humble, even plebian in its biography, without much embellishments and his eccentric "last name" of Mo 墨 meaning "ink" likely hints at the fact that he might have been a former slave with tattooed face. 

By contrast, the founding sages of other schools are less so well proven with certainty. The story of Sun Tzu for example, is simply too neat and convenient to be real. Tradition goes that Sun Tzu came to the court of the embattled King Helu and radically transformed Helu's army into a top tier alpha predator war machine, outpunched the much larger neighbor of Chu, making Helu the 4th Hegemon of the age, then Sun Tzu either disappeared or died conveniently before Wu was utterly vanquished little more than a generation later. He mysteriously came from no where as if borne atop a nimbus, able transform totally untrained raw materials (harem concubines) and embue them with soldierly qualities, performed a miraculous deed that totally legitimized his school, and then died/ disappeared right before the kingdom was totally conquered. Even that latter part totally bolsters the indispensable quality of Sun Tzu, making an object lesson that shows that without him and his teachings, a great state could + just might fall into ruin and be ravished over night. 

CRITICAL: SUN TZU MOST LIKELY NEVER EXISTED

Original Art by Tsuyoshi Nagano 长野刚

Too convenient, especially considering that no contemporary texts of this era mentioned any "Master Sun" at all, and that the personhood of Sun Tzu and his great feats was most likely borrowed from the talented in real life great reformer and prime minister of Wu~ Wu Zixu, who was instrumental for Wu's rise, and after his tragic forced suicide by his new headstrong king Fuchai, Wu then- without its guiding star was utterly destroyed. Much of Sun Tzu's biography also reads very much like a Warring States era tale, where a mercenary philosopher partnered up with a great king and formed a dynamic duo like Wu Qi who sojourned to Wei and then molded Wei into a peerless military power, or Shang Yang who sojourned to Qin and reformed Qin to become a meritocratic and wholly militarized society, and the so called descendant of Sun Tzu: Sun Bin himself who fled to Qi and~  the rest is history (and our chapter on the resurgence of Qi.)  Fortunately, Sun Bin by comparison almost definitely existed, and now we shall turn our full attention on his biography and his contribution to the age of Warring States.

CRITICAL: SUN BIN- A MORE MACHIAVELLIAN PICTURE

The fact that Sun Tzu (whom tradition assert is Sun Bin's ancestor) did not likely exist, nor his works before the Warring States period would by extension changes several aspect of Sun Bin's origin story significantly. Namely, without such a lofty renowned ancestor, Sun Bin had to pull much more of the weight by his own merit alone. What's more, because his supposed sagely geopolitical kungfu master Guiguzi was most likely merely a school or many schools and not 1 singular master, this also changes the relation he has with Pang Juan significantly as well. Because much of the texts attributed upon Guiguzi were likely attributions from much later centuries, Sun Bin and Pang Juan's relations are in much more of a flux. 

CRITICAL: THE SWORN BROTHERS

The characterization that Sun Bin and Pang Juan were sworn brothers turned rivals were a liberal claim from the Ming dynasty some 2000 years later, stemmed from a biased framing from Sima Qian. This dramatic characterization stemmed from the symmetry that in hindsight that they would meet on the battlefields, so they began as friends.

VERY IMPORTANT is the fact that this claim that they studied under Guiguzi and they were sworn brothers were written much later in the Ming dynasty. What's more, this distorted version is based on Sima Qian's hand holding framing where he demonized Pang Juan~ which I will elaborate in detail below. It is possible that some semblance- fragments of what eventually became Guiguzi's works did exist during this time, and there was likely capable hermit masters that did teach such crafts, but we have very little to believe Sun Bin and Pang Juan were literally students to the same master, what's more inferring that they were sworn brothers under one master. 

I have mentioned before that more than likely at most they had similar training by masters well adapted with statecraft and at most traveled in similar circles. This also means that their relationship at this point is at most neutral footing and conservatively cannot be imagined as particular close. The brotherhood claim itself after all- originates from the Ming era distortion of a Han era distortion.

CRITICAL: PANG JUAN "FRAMED" SUN BIN

One cannot forget the emotional aspect of Sun Bin's tragedy, where by through Pang Juan's maneuvers, Sun Bin was sacked for treason and then punished with incapacitation. The problem with this claim is that this characterization was very much derived from Sima Qian's record on the matter. According to Sima Qian's "Record of the Grand Historian", Pang Juan cannot compete with Sun Bin so had him undone by conspiracy. By the early Han dynasty- Sun Tzu was already attributed as the mythical ancestor of Sun Bin, and through this inaccurate hindsight, Sima Qian's Han dynasty rationalization would have undoubtedly imagined that Pang Juan framed Sun Bin for that prized juicy insider knowledge of the "Art of War" of course. There's only one problem with that imagination, because Sun Tzu likely did not exist (remember, he's not recorded in his supposed contemporary era's records by all parties and his descriptions sounds mostly sounds like Warring States era doctrines,) so this interpretated cause is very unlikely. The characterization of Pang Juan as jealous is simply a leap of faith built upon liberal rationalization. Furthermore- the Ming romance that they were "Sworn Brothers" is merely another liberal extension upon Sima Qian's framing. So what does this mean?

Well, historians (and hobbyists like myself often can only lean toward the conservative- on what is indisputable and nothing beyond) Pang Juan and Sun Bin did come to serve under one roof at this time, for the ambitious Marquise of Wei. And what happened next is that years later, Sun Bin was punished for treason but spared (maimed and face tattooed) so as not to be killed, and years later, Pang Juan was elevated to the position of supreme general while Sun Bin- fearing for his life reemerged in Qi. Remember the fact they had a history before coming to Wei was only a Ming dynasty assertion from nearly 2 millenniums later, or that they studied under the same master, and that version is stemmed from Sima Qian who erroneously undermined Pang Juan because he thought that Sun Bin was unjustly framed because Pang Juan coveted the secrets to the "Art of War" which likely did not exist yet since Sun Tzu was not real and these works not written yet.  

CRITICAL: SUN BIN MIGHT ACTUALLY BE GUILTY

Looking at the way that the brilliant (at least proven by hindsight) Sun Bin getting sacked and punished in such a permanent way one cannot help but repress a tinge of sympathy for him. But there is something that unfortunately does not help Sun Bin's case. We will examine this aspect later in full detail but for now its' sufficient to say that the charge of treason might not be completely be unfounded. If anything, Sun Bin might just have a pattern of thinking he's way too smart beyond his own station and attempting to hijack matters of the state onto his own hands. This would make Sun Bin a much more Machiavellian character, and more akin to a cunning Cao Cao who overstepped and was caught and punished, rather than being unjustly destroyed by a jealous trusted peer (as Sima Qian would have others believe. 

Sima Qian- who also was undermined by slander and unjustly castrated by Emperor Wu would totally have seen Sun Bin in a sympathetic kindred light 

Note that, if this is true, then Pang Juan in this case might actually come out as better than he had been demonized by the ensuing millennia, if he was merely co-workers with Sun Bin he might have not been the direct destroyer of Sun Bin's career, what's more, even if he was, going by Sima Qian's claim that he framed Sun Bin, if Sun Bin was indeed cunning and plotting something, then Pang Juan's interception and warning of his sovereign and benefactor would be one of dutiful patriotism. 

CRITICAL: MALING FRAMED AS RITEOUS REVENGE SNUFF

The Qi clan general Tian Ji, a Prince to the ruling clan- most likely saved the imprisoned Sun Bin from Wei and smuggled him out became inseparable from Sun. When Sun Bin arrived at Qi he took up residence in Tian Ji's quarters and became one of his close personal staff. When Sun Bin was presented with the prestigious position as the supreme commander of Qi, Sun Bin turned the offer down and noted that his face (as a prisoner of Wei) was tattooed as a criminal and would thus undermine the authority of the Qi generalship, the morale of his soldiers, and the legitimacy and prestige of the Qi state. Instead, Sun recommended his savior Tian Ji take up this great role. However, Sun Bin would be inseparable from Tian Ji and would accompany him on nearly all of his campaigns. Together Sun was as inseparable to Tian Ji as his shadow.

From this point on, things are mostly as recorded in the historical records- and since these politician and stately maneuvers (elevation of Sun Bin in Qi, elevation of Pang Juan in Wei- Qi's resurgence under Duke Yinqi and its several wars against Wei) are all corroborated and documented by all of the contemporaries, I'm happy to say that we have a lot of objective elements to work with, and aside from the emotional framing of the participating characters, these elements I have presented all still hold up both in the romantic retelling of Sun Bin's story and also the critical one. 

Suffice to say that together with his savior Tian Ji Sun Bin both drilled Qi back to strength and dealt several unexpected blows to Wei that resoundly forced their hand, at least once snatching victory from them at the cusp of Wei's glory (note: both the Battle of Guiling and Maling are very similarly framed, involving Wei nearly on the verge of breaching into the capital of Zhao then Han respectively, and having Pang Juan forced to pull out at the last possible second because Sun Bin and Tian Ji had raced to the Wei capital and made Pang race back.)

However the framing of Pang Juan's death was problematic, and again, largely shaded by the uncharitable characterization ^listed above. Because Maling was so pivotal to both Qi's ascension and Wei's irrevocable fall, and a major transition of the Warring States period as a whole, it was both enjoyable as entertainment and from a historical perspective, highly reductive. We shall tackle these points in several beats.

One is that Pang Juan- aside from his villainous characterization, was mostly portrayed either as a bumbling commander or a hot head. Though this was unduly uncharitable- remember, he was able to confidently crush Han on the field some 5 times before he laid siege to the Han capital. What's more, when he pursued Tian Ji and Sun Bin's army he was deliberately being careful and kept sent after regular scouts to shadow it. Secondly, Sun Bin was underhanded. While we are not here to talk about the morality of doing battle etc (aka Lawful Stupid etc) one should remember that what killed Pang Juan and his army was done in a nightly ambush, it was not even a fair fight to began with and Sun Bin killed Pang Juan and his cavalry without Pang having even a shred of a chance to fight back or escape. Third is the manner which the battle went and Pang was killed. I have already noted in my chapter on this battle that the version that Sun Bin wrote a threatening prediction on a bright piece of peeled tree trunk for Pang Juan to read with the threat that: "Pang Juan dies under this tree." 

And after Pang Juan (of all people) read it arrows immediately began to fall and killing his men left and right is utter nonsense. Remember, Maling as described even in this version was pitch black in the night to the point that Qi was able to effortlessly conceal 2 whole armies on the 2 side of the tree line and have Wei horsemen rush in without noticing them. *Somehow, the Wei cavalry did not even have their torches lit until Pang Juan- hearing report there's a message on the trunk, ordered that solders lit up their torches then a hailstorm of arrows came from the 2 sides of the forest and shot them all down. Again, it's nonsense. This entire "scene" - and let's face it, it's a literary device to have an "Oh shit" moment conveniently for Pang Juan get the full brunt of the realization he fell into a trap and have him "seeing" that as if in a play with this scene prepped for him. 

Sufficient to say realistically in such darkness, where 2 large unit of archers were prepared on both side of the road and not noticed, and Pang Juan's cavalry men came in pursuit, realistically it was more likely that Wei cavalry came with their torches already lit, and before they had arrived Sun Bin had instructed his men to use the lit Wei torches as markers to where they would shoot, and once enough of the column have entered into the designated kill zone, both side of the forest began to fire a murderous "broadside" of volleys that killed off Pang Juan's horsemen (and himself with them) in a matter of minutes. Sun Bin's vindication- especially in moral terms was unwarranted. A gratified victor perhaps, a better and more cunning fox maybe, but the straw manning of Pang Juan was~ again, filtered through very biased lens from later centuries. What's more giving moral vindication in what was- without an embellishment an underhanded (but ingenious) assassination. 

CRITICAL: SUN BIN WAS LIKELY GUILTY. NO, REALLY

What do I mean by this? And why did I claim that "Sun Bin likely deserved it" several paragraphs above? Well, it is because soon after Qi was made into a preeminent state of the Warring States world, Sun Bin was embroiled in court intrigue- namely treason, supposedly in a plot where he tried to place his benefactor Tian Ji as the King of Qi and launch a coup against King Wei (Duke Yinqi) - some version stated that King Wei had died around this time and Tian Ji and Sun Bin instead plotted against the new King Xuan and the plot was uncovered. This uncovered plot disgraced Sun Bin and forced him into an early retirement and Tian Ji was so scared that he fled to Chu for many years before later being invited back to Qi by King Xuan. This is one of the reasons that Sun Bin was likely a much more Machiavellian figure than the later romance would have led us believe. 

In that 2 of these same crimes under 2 states' roofs (who fought and were rivals) shows a pattern. A pattern for a repeat offender. This is not to say that Sun Bin was definitely guilty, despite the fact that Warring States period featured many dynamic King- Minister duos who brought their states into preeminence only to have the guiding star slain or framed and cut down by lawfare (Wu Qi, Shang Yang etc) this was just regular fabric of the greater tapestry, however there's no evidence that Sun Bin was 100% unjustly sacked either. What's more- the real Sun Bin might have been someone that is not easily trusted by most (see below.)

CRITICAL APPRECIATION: THE REAL SUN TZU- LIKELY SUN BIN

"All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when we are able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near." - Master Sun

It is here that we actually get into an interesting crux of our examination of Sun Bin. In that~ Sun Tzu likely did exist. It's just that he was either invented by Sun Bin or just him (with later addendums and retroactive embellishments by his school's later adherents.) Here is what we know of Sun Bin in more objective terms, Sun Bin did exist and played a major role in the Warring State politics and he was so influential that his descendants or students eventually compiled his wisdom into a collection of sayings known as "Sun Bin's Art of War." But it was very likely that the famous "Art of War" (in original Chinese as: "Master Sun's Military Treatise" was also based on him or extracted from his selected sayings as well. Or that Sun Bin gave the spotlight to a supposed fabricated sagely "ancestor" (the Sun Tzu we now know) to further entrench and legitimize his teachings further back in time. 

"Master Sun" being a clan of generals. Another theory posits that it is possible one of Sun Bin's distant ancestors was legitimately talented, albeit does not have the same renown, and that Sun Bin was able to edit and compile this ancestor's works into the "Art of War" we know today filling in the tactical suggestions with his own contemporary Warring States ones. Hereditary military clans were common in this period so this clan theory does have credence as well.

Why do I say this? Because Sun Bin's personality is much closer to the Sun Tzu of the texts. No, really think about it. What do we know of "Sun Tzu" purely based from his words which we probably all read at one point or another in our lives? What did he impress upon us about warfare? The "Master Sun" that we read told us all war is deception, to use feint all the time, to be cerebral in conserving one's strength. That warfare is a battle of minds and it is imperative to know of one's enemy, have secret plans at the ready. Never show one's true intentions, never fight when there's no guarantee of victory nor parity, and when the time to strike, strike like the lightning. 

CRITICAL APPRECIATION: SUN BIN LIKELY MUCH MORE BRILLIANT THAN WE COULD HAVE IMAGINED

"Master Sun" as we know is a predatory fox who neither shows his intentions and when he strikes, cannot be anticipated nor stopped. Or have you missed Maling? I think it was for these very same predatory, deceptive qualities that even the highest inside Qi was nervous of Sun Bin being too powerful around them. Once he made up his mind it was nearly impossible to outsmart him, even with an army or another few, it's not like anyone who saw what he did with the Qi army that he personally reformed relish the prospect of facing against~ Sun Tzu himself on the battlefield any time. Perhaps they did not let their guard down around this maker and shaper of miracles until he retired in humble obscurity, having written some works, then shed that dangerous coil that even when broken, crushed the foremost army of the realm and remade the world. And who- despite death, is still talking us today. 

When Sun Bin died, his teachings did not, nor his supposed ancestor's, not even after some 3,300 years. Instead, like a generational spark, it found new adherents and new appreciators, found respect even across cultures that warred with each other. The Art of War was voraciously studied by the likes of Japanese Daimyos, and in the 20th century Japanese generals in WW2, the generals of the both sides of the Chinese civil war, Vietnamese generals who fought against Americans, and now American commanders as well. Despite "The Art of War" 's simplicity. It has became inextricable from warfare itself.  

Art by fang-xinyu

→ ☯ [PLEASE SUPPORT ME @ PATREON] ☯ ←

Thank you to my Patrons who has contributed $10 and above: You made this happen!

➢ ☯ MK Celahir

➢ ☯ Muramasa

➢ ☯ Thomas Vieira

➢ ☯ Kevin

➢ ☯ Vincent Ho (FerrumFlos1st)

➢ ☯ BurenErdene Altankhuyag

➢ ☯ Stephen D Rynerson

➢ ☯ Michael Lam

➢ ☯ Peter Hellman

➢ ☯ SunB