Unfortunate but true. There are very few scholarly works covering the subject, and meanwhile publishers churn out the been-there-done-that books on the Roman legions and Japanese Samurai, *yawn*.

What's going on with Ralph Sawyer's "History of Warfare in China" series? Wasn't the first instalment scheduled for '06? Something really needs to be done about the lack of decent material concerning the topic. As much as I dislike the Osprey Men At Arms series, it's better than nothing at all.

I think its more like 'if we are going to do Chinese military history we gota do an encyclopedia and that just ain't enough.' mentality.

I mean, there are just so much stuff on military history that, well. . . .

yea, i think by per dynasty periods is the way to look at chinese history.

Other than Ralph Sawyer's contribution, there is actually a lack of English sources on chinese military history available in English.

If you can read chinese sources, I can assure you that there are tonnes of sources on chinese military history contributed by scholars from both PRC and ROC (Taiwan).

many of these sources comes from university research papers, they are very hard to find on the internet.

many of them are in university libraries.

Well Ralph D. Sawyer gave translations of warfare in very early history, around 1500BC to 400BC, But even then they were known for their techinques in Martial arts which is still passed down today as part of out modern arts, If you look at the Three Kingdoms period (Which is quite detailed) You will see that martial arts like swordmanship and horsemanship were used often and for their feats, this shows there ways of warfare in that era are increadiable. Then you look at differently ranked soldiers and sometimes it mentions there ways of combat teachings.

Then there is the other aspects of military fighting in biographies of people from the three kingdoms, and I have not read Zhuge Liangs books on 36 stradagies or art of war perfected but they would have a great deal of information.

I'm searching for sources on tactics and strategy of the terracotta army following the
combat formation in the pits.
My main question is:
Starting with the static arry in the pits, how would the different part of the arry move on?
I'm so sorry but I can not read chinese language at least only a little.
But it is not enough to understand the text.
Is there anything in englis language on this topic?

Thank you.
archer

GZ is correct in the availability of original texts, and indeed studies on these texts in Chinese, but the problem is that in the West the study of Chinese military history is pretty moribund.

There needs to be more information available, but there also nees to be a recognition by publishers that there are lots of great classical texts other than Sun Tzu!

Chinese military history is dealt too superficially by Westerners. It concentrates too narrowly on a few topics: many will know Sun Tzu's Art of War and a few would know Zhuge Liang thanks to games such as Dynasty Warriors. However as you can see it is too shallow. One reason is that Chinese Military History is not widely taught and secondly there is not enough translations of Chinese texts into English.

Greetings,
General Griffith describes ancient battles happening a little before 500 BC as “ primitive melees which usually produced no decisive results”. The generals if we can call them that where the nobility and were not professional military leaders. The majority of the “soldiers “ were ineptly led, ill equipped, untrained, and poorly fed. Therefore, one can see there were indeed few if any records of the feats of generals up to that time.

However by the time of Sun Tzu, warfare lay in the hands of professional generals, the concept of a “ general staff ” composed of many of the same specialist modern general staffs contain were in common use. And since that time , basic to the study of military art, is the work of Sun Tzu.

Most everybody started reading his work and as usual most everybody was certain that the knew more about Sun Tzu than Sun Tzu himself, * so it became common for them to comment on his theories and these self styled genius were and still are called commentators. For whatever value you may glean, General Griffith in his translation of the Art of War gives us the names of many of these commentators. The are the likes of Ts’ao Ts,ao, Wang Ling. Chia Yea, Chang Tzu-shang, Tu Mu, Li Ch’uan, Chang Yu, Tu Yu , Chia Lin, Wang Hsi, Ho Yen-hsi, Mei Yao-ch’en, and “ The Kuan Tzu”, for starters.

* From my observations, most everybody today still thinks, no let me correct that, knows, knows they know more about Sun Tzu than Sun Tzu himself did.

There is far too much inference taken from the position of warriors in the buried army. I would not assume that the formation is a combat formation, or if it is even an abstract one that it should be used to understand tactics when we have written sources availible (although rather small amounts sadly, due to scholars bias).
The first reason I am sceptical about folk analysising the terracotta warriors and thinking it is like a chessboard, and thereby planning all the move the general would make, is that the warriors are placed to fit a pit, and less likely to be the other way around. The reason for this is that all buried armies (Han examples for example) are shown in a square formations to fit a pit. Being on parade is one thing. Advancing into comabt is another.
We know that fluidity and reaction by generals, and specific deployments to meet specific situations are important so there is no great insight into the 'mind' of a general from the terracotta warriors. What they show in great detail is the 'appearance' of a general (hairstyle/clothing etc.).
My reason for doubting analysis of the buried army formation is primarily that we also see goats, pigs, dogs, oxen and other beasts all lined up like soldeirs in peripheral pits alongside buried armies of the Han period. Take the tomb of Jingdi for example.
Nobody is trying to say that goats lined up in rows to be reviewed for the Emperor. The animals are simply a reserve, or one archaeologist called them a "pantry". If the buried army then in a reserve of warriors to defend the Emperor in the next world then we need not assume they are acting out a specific activity while in the pit. The groupings (pits 1, 2, 3) are signigant & the proportions are signifigant but the actual formation is not one that looks to me like a conventional military deployment, perhaps only abstract for the purposes of the pit.
If you see pictures of a hundred pigs and goats lined up like the Buried Army then doubts over how literal as opposed to conventient the positions are will become more obvious. The secret to Qins military victories will not be gleaned from the ceramic warriors positions.

Translations are a problem & a huge hurdle. I am required to teach myself to read and write Chinese simply because it is an obstacle that cannot be avoided.
I plan to write a book in due course, but I have decades ahead of me & even current work I have is expanded every few weeks by some new information I recieve, and that is currently only in the scope of bronze halberds & no later than the Han period.

Why should Westerners be begrudged only paying superficial attention to military matters of China when Chinese sources are quite inaccesible and scattered even to those with a very great interest to do so?
Even comphrehensive knowledge amongst Chinese is hard to find. Museums are scattered and information not compiled in an orderly fashion.
Physician heal thyself! Chinese can do more to promote their ancient history to the outside world (if it is done tastefully by historians rather than nationalists or hysterists)

I would not paint too positive a picture of specifically ancient military studies done by Chinese. If anything Sunzi Binfa is focused on by Chinese to the omission of other worthy areas of study.
I attended a syposium in Suzhou which included top scholars of Sunzi Binfa, archaeologists, modern military folk (PLA & foreign) and University professors etc.
I was if anything eventually saddened by systemic issues over the study of ancient warfare, or my impressions of it.
Yes, Chinese can deliver huge speeches on The Art of War, and praise it. It is a fine book for sure. I was presented a copy.
I was however aware that it was 'trendy' to use it to sell books for business people and there were more experts on commercial strategy aspects that anyone I could discuss the material reality of warfare in the Spring & Autumn period.
The scholarship & philospohy might be admired, but the actual sharp pointy-things that were used by soldiers to do the work recieves rather less attention.

I was told there are very very few specific experts on ancient weapons in China. Yang Hong only wrote his book because he was assigned to do so. He personally likes architecture I am told.
Confuscius asked why would anyone want to study war? Ritual is better.
There is a long standing bias here that means scholars are admired, then business people, and soldiers are a low ranked proffesion in traditional China. Hence the comparitive silence mentioned by Jacques Gernet in military matters in historical Chinese sources.

Another big hurdle faced by Chinese in studying ancient history is the neglect given to the 'silent' people of the ancient world...barbarians. It is quite evident that study focuses on those named in ancient histories like the Shi Ji.
It has been said that Chinese take a histiographic approach rather than a processual one in archaelogy.
This unfortunately means that Chinese archaeologists sometimes forces a square block through a round hole in exploring ancient cultures of peripheral people and are also eager to match evidence to the written sources.

I seem to always be playing devils advocate in the East-West comparisons (something I do not like).
I praise Chinese past accomplishment in discussions where Westerners are belittling or ignorant & I tend to defend the West when Chinese criticise it in turn.
When it comes to the premise of this thread I do think that if there really is an issue here then the Chinese themselves are more than capible of doing something about this (I wish they would) instead of lamenting the lack of books and wondering when they will get the attention they richly deserve.

General Griffith paints the ancient world with far too wide a brush.
Phalanx formations are one example but we cannot assume that a lack of evidence proves that ancient warfare was more loosely controlled before this time. While skirmishing and tribal styles of battle would exist and persist there may well have been more proffesionalism (even amongst non-proffesionals) than we realise.
In the Shangshu for example (probably written in the late West-Zhou) the Zhou king leads an alliance of tribes & Zhou into battle and he exhorts them to fight in formation, advance & every few strikes to check themselves against the line.
Here is a late 19th century translation by James Legge & it echoes hints from Warring States sources that formations were well-controlled even though this is centuries earlier:
"In to-day's business do not advance more than six or seven steps, and then stop and adjust your ranks;--my brave men, be energetic! Do not exceed four blows, five blows, six blows, or seven blows, and then stop and adjust your ranks;--my brave men, be energetic! Display a martial bearing. Be like tigers and panthers, like bears and grisly bears, (here) in the borders of Shang. Do not rush on those who fly (to us in submission), but receive them to serve our western land;--my brave men, be energetic! If you be not energetic (in all these matters), you will bring destruction on yourselves.'"

It has been said that larger & more orderly infantry formations meant an alterations to the nature of war in the late East Zhou (decline of chariots), but the seeds of this must have existed on occasion, and to some degree, in earlier times.
Putting a date to a change in warfare in the ancient world would be problematic then.

While the Art of War has been preserved down to our current there are many military writings that have not (lost, so that now we only have titles or secondary citations). The Art of War would most likely be a composition of military thinking of the time with a personal insight but there was no shortage of wandering philosophers & errant experts in that chaotic period.
It might be hard to pin down just when a paradigm shift occured in ancient warfare, either in general or in specific regions.
Some places it never happened, others it may have been a gradual shift of emphasis and other places it may have been more revolutionary (such as the armoured hoplites evolution).

To expand on some of the comments above I think it is pertinant to detal some of the reasons why we have far more detailed information on Western military history.

Up to the 1950's much Western education was focussed on 'Classical' (Greek and Roman) culture. Many of the core texts used to teach Greek and Latin were military or historical, eg Ceasar's 'Gallic Wars' was far and away the commonest Latin reader used. (eg I read it in the original latin when I was only ten)

There are a lot of quite detailed classical works on the organisation, equipment and tactics of classical armies.

The great heroes are almost all military figures Alexander, Hannible, Ceasar etc

In the 16th C the classical works were used to reorganise the emerging military of Rennaissence states.

Archaeology was and is far commoner in Europe. Though the 'fitting finds to classical writings' habit is just as common here.

For hundreds of years, the military classes have been dominant in Europe, so military history was and is a mainstream subject.


This isn't everything but I think it's worth remembering that there are non Chinese reasons for the differences as well. Indeed some would phrase the point as "why is the study of military history so common in the West?"

Another insightful post!

I have actually been trying to find General Griffith's translation of Sun Tzu. You wouldn't be able to give me an ISBN could you? Then I could go and hunt down a copy.

Greetings William, here is the information you requested:

Publisher: Oxford University Press
Pub. Date: January 1971
ISBN-13: 9780195014761


I have many other translations, but this is the one I like best. It is a"soldiers book " " translated by a soldier for a soldier . He was as a Marine General who in 1960 submitted a thesis to Oxford University in partial satisfaction for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
The book we are talking about is a considerably revised version of his thesis. Part one of the thesis is a translation, part two is a study. As part of his translation he includes the actual comments by the various commentators I have allready mentioned. The great value is, with the words of Sun Tzu, are the impressions of these other professsional generals, at times on a line by line basis, sometimes there are more than one impression for same Sun Tzu byline. I have examined in detail both part 1 and 2 of his thesis and am totally awed. In part 2 he has a comparrision between the workings of the Sun Tzu mind and the Machiavelli mind.

I was introduced to the Art of War many years ago when as a newly commisssioned army officer some unusual conditions occured where it became necessaery for me become deeply familiar with his translation; I became totally captivated and through the years have remained so. Together with the works of Han Fei Tzu, and Master Ghost Valley, I have been very well served. William, with your military background, I will be surprised if you are not also very satisfied with the General's translation. I hope this information will be of some small value to you.

Best wishes.

MGV, much obliged. I shall endeavour to get a copy once I finish Thunder in the Sky.

I would add that military history is still very popular among non-academic readers in the West, but has lost a great deal of influence in academia since the 1960s. There are very few professional military historians because of the general academic shift from political and military history towards cultural and social history. This article examines the reasons why: http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/2008/0...y.html?PageNr=1

Because of this general trend, it is especially hard for young prospective historians in the US and Europe to go into Chinese military history, a field that has both minimal familiarity to the reading public and minimal respectability to their potential academic employers and colleagues. Despite that, there is in fact a slow revival of Chinese military history happening in the US and Canada, but it's slow because the new military historians are relatively young, do not hold positions in famous universities, and have limited opportunities to pass on their knowledge and interest to outstanding graduate students.

Here is a list of names of US and Canadian professional historians who specialize in Chinese military history, as well as their periods or areas of specialization:

Peter Lorge (Five Dynasties and Song military history)
David Curtis Wright (Song-Liao military history)
David Graff (Tang military history)
Michael C. McGrath (Song-Western Xia military history)
Kenneth Swope (Ming military history, and also the Imjin War in Korea)
Robin Yates (Chinese military technology before gunpowder weapons)
Joanna Waley-Cohen (Qing military history)

I am thinking of Albert Dien, will he be counted as military historian?

He could be considered partly a military historian, because of his research on ancient armour and stirrups. But he also does research on various other aspects of archaeology from the Age of Fragmentation, and is not very interested in studying military tactics or the records of battles and wars. So I'd say he is more a historian of material culture. Also, he's much older than the other historians I named, and is already retired from teaching.

It seems that over several decades, Western schollars were also more interested in Chinese literati, as they are the mainframe of Chinese bureaucracy throughout dynasties. I also think that the same circumstance can be said to American History, where I heard that many historians have studied military history of the Revolutionary Era and the World War II. Vietnam War, however, became a much more delicate topic to them.

I also think of the archaeological materials. It seems that so far, no serious research on Tang armours have been done, perhaps due to the scarcity of relevant archaeological founds.

Are there any respected authorities of Chinese military history in Asia? Because I am only an english speaker, this limits what I'm exposed to, so I have that bias of "not in english=not important"

If there are, have they gotten together with the western experts? How much communication is there across borders on this subject?

There are a couple of academics cum People's Liberation Army military officers in the strategy and military history department of the PLA Academy of Military Science (Jie Fang Jun -- Jun Shi Ke Xue Yuan) located in Beijing. Some of them have written books on Chinese military history and had even setup a Sun Tzu research committee which had published a modern edition of Sun Tzu with excellent commentary. I have a few of these books and they are pretty good. But from what I understand, they did not seem to have previously collaborated with any academic from the West, such as Ralph Sawyer or Robin Yates...