Quotation
Last reviewed:
“There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare.”
Sunzi (Sun Tzu) · Military strategy · Ancient · traditional Warring States text; Giles's English 1910
What does it mean?
The usual reading is fiscal and political, not pacifist: a long campaign dulls weapons, exhausts strength, and empties the state, so other powers take advantage, and no country is on record as having gained by drawing the war out. A competing reading hears a moral ban on war. The chapter does not say that. It says stupid haste has been seen, and cleverness has never been seen in long delays, and then this sentence. It sits in chapter 2, after the accounting of chariots, grain, and the daily cost. Benefit is the word. Glory that bankrupts the state is not, on this page, a benefit. The line is a constraint on the earlier claim that all warfare is deception.
Did Sunzi (Sun Tzu) really say this?
The library’s label is Paraphrase or translation. A genuine line from the text, given in English translation. Wording differs between translators.
Where it comes from
The Art of War, chapter 2, in Lionel Giles's translation (1910)
Approximate date: traditional Warring States text; Giles's English 1910.
How to use it
A contract dispute between two firms in Reading that has already cost more in fees than the sum at issue is the pattern, moved out of the battlefield. The sentence does not say you must concede. It says that dragging the fight on is not a strategy with a historical success attached, and the people paying for it are the country, not the general's reputation. A board that calls the stalemate 'principle' should still count the treasury.
A mindset reading
Separate winning a round from the state still being able to live afterwards. The habit is to ask who benefits from the length. Giles's chapter treats time as a cost that changes what victory can mean. If the only plan is to outlast, this sentence says that plan has no example in its favour.
Understand the philosophy
Chapter 2 is about waging war as a problem of resources. The key claim is that protracted war does not benefit a country. The received text puts it after the warning that dull weapons and empty coffers invite other chieftains. It belongs with the line, already here, that supreme excellence is breaking resistance without fighting. Both are about not consuming yourself. Neither makes the book a peace manifesto.
- power
- society
FAQ
What does it mean?
The usual reading is fiscal and political, not pacifist: a long campaign dulls weapons, exhausts strength, and empties the state, so other powers take advantage, and no country is on record as having gained by drawing the war out. A competing reading hears a moral ban on war. The chapter does not say that. It says stupid haste has been seen, and cleverness has never been seen in long delays, and then this sentence. It sits in chapter 2, after the accounting of chariots, grain, and the daily cost. Benefit is the word. Glory that bankrupts the state is not, on this page, a benefit. The line is a constraint on the earlier claim that all warfare is deception.
Did Sunzi (Sun Tzu) really say this?
Paraphrase or translation. A genuine line from the text, given in English translation. Wording differs between translators.
Which work is it in?
The Art of War, chapter 2, in Lionel Giles's translation (1910) Approximate date: traditional Warring States text; Giles's English 1910.